[Hyack]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

This guy sounds like a nasty piece of work. So instead of putting him in jail, where he belongs, they help themselevs to his car? That's fucked up in my opinion.

He's facing criminal charges and is in custody. What more do you want?

I want them to put him in jail to cool his heels for a while, and leave him his car.

And what's going to stop him from getting in it and driving off to use it as a weapon again as soon as he's released?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Xort Xort:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Yeah, cuz taking away his little piece of paper is going to stop him from driving

Enforcement is the problem of the police/law enforcement officals.

They DID enforce it. What don't you get about this? What do you expect them to do, waste time sitting out front of his house to make sure he doesn't drive? And what good is enforcement after the fact if he injures or kills someone?

Xort Xort:

I can think of two way off the top of my head that would reasonably enforce his ban on driving his own vehicle that would leave the vehicle in his ownership until his trial. Or at least let the police arrest him within a few hours of breaking the ban.

You snear at the suggestion that he would not resepect a driving ban, while seeming to ignore the idea that if he was going to break the driving ban he could do it without using the vehicle he owned at the time of his actions.

So in other words, they might as well make it easier for him to break his ban and potentially hurt/kill someone.

$1:

]And since that's the problem, you remove his ability to continue being a problem.

Xort Xort:

You do nothing of the sort. The only way to stop him from driving is to lock him up or have him watched 24hrs a day.

You must not pay taxes or something.

$1:

Your solution is akin to telling your child he can't have any more cookies and then leaving the open cookie jar in front of him while you leave the house for an hour.

Xort Xort:

And if we come back and find him eating a cookie then you have something to put him in jail er time out over. As if the last 9 times didn't matter.

So your solution is to leave them completely open to temptation and trust that their conscience will do its job.

$1:

I guess using that property to put people's lives at risk time after time is also a basic human right?

Xort Xort:

No, I never said that.

But you still want him to have access to it because apparently he has the right to own a car.

$1:

Tell me Xort, what guarantee is there that he wouldn't get in his car again? What guarantee is there that he wouldn't end up killing someone?

Xort Xort:

None that he will not get in his vehicle or someone elses.

Take his vehicle and you greatly reduce his chances. This wasn't an isolated incident.

$1:

If you think taking someone's licence away and telling them they can't drive anymore is going to stop a determined individual from driving, well there's a LOT you need to learn about human behaviour.

Xort Xort:

If you think taking away one vehicle will stop a determined individual YOU need to learn about human behaviour.

Yes, but that either requires him to steal a vehicle or borrow someone else's. Leaving him access to his car doesn't even give "someone else" a chance to say no.

$1:

A woman I used to date, before I met my wife, had her licence revoked for a period of 5 years. That didn't stop her from driving for those 5 years. In fact, it was another 10 years before she finally went and got her licence back and she drove almost every day for those 10 years.

Xort Xort:

Enforcement is the problem of the police/law enforcement. If the body that revoked her licence couldn't make their punishement stick then they need to review their value as a legal body.

Really? Yeah I guess you're right. What with drug crimes, bank robberies, assaults, murders, and all the rest of the fun that comes with policing an urban centre, the cops should post units outside of everybody's house that has been banned from driving or else just pack it in.

$1:

To put it bluntly, there are people in this world who when you tell them they're not allowed to do something, well it's about as effective as putting a Band-aid on an axe wound.

Xort Xort:

And If you have not figured it out yet, I say let them try then nab them on a much more serious crime, on that will let you hold them where their actions can be controled for the safety of the public.

Let them try? Great idea. I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the family of anyone he might end up killing before the cops "nab" him.

SO many people bitch about how the police are only reactive anymore yet when they get proactive, the bitching gets louder.

IIRC, you are all for CCW because "The police can't be everwhere at once", yet you think they have the time to shadow suspended or banned drivers.

[Xort]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

It puts a pretty big hole in the path, slowing him down at least.

But doesn't stop him. So what you are depending on is his personal character to follow the law willingly.

$1:

Do you oppose his vehicle being taken away due to him earning it from his labour? If so, what do you think of fines and other methods of harsh financial punishment? Are you opposed to those, or do you feel taking unused dead labour is better than taking an object that dead labour was exchanged for?
What's the difference?

I oppose taking his vehicle and selling it before he is found guilty. I oppose taking it because taking a vehicle is not the legislated punishment. I oppose that he has 8 past incidents and was still free.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

They DID enforce it. What don't you get about this? What do you expect them to do, waste time sitting out front of his house to make sure he doesn't drive? And what good is enforcement after the fact if he injures or kills someone?

The point of enforcement after the fact is that we shouldn't enforce something on someone before they do something. Basic idea of freedom right?

As for how to enforce his driving ban without having to watch him all the time, have a police car drive by his place, if the car is gone send a police car by his place of work see if it's there. It wouldn't take a huge amount of police effort to figure it out and bust the guy if he was driving.

$1:

So in other words, they might as well make it easier for him to break his ban and potentially hurt/kill someone.

If he was a risk he should be in jail. If he wasn't a risk then he could be free. Taking his car and leaving him free isn't a valid if you are using safety as the justification.

$1:

You must not pay taxes or something.

Well that comment has nothing to do with anything.

$1:

So your solution is to leave them completely open to temptation and trust that their conscience will do its job.

Yeah, how do you think society functions? You are safe because people want to follow the law and not hurt others. Not because it's slightly inconvenient to get a tool to hurt someone with it.

$1:

But you still want him to have access to it because apparently he has the right to own a car.

He has a right to his property until a court convicts him of a law that provides for the taking of his property. If he is such a risk to the public that he can't be trusted with it, then I submit he can't be trusted to be free.

$1:

Take his vehicle and you greatly reduce his chances. This wasn't an isolated incident.

I think having a formal charge in front of him would greatly reduce his chances. If he was too much of a risk then put him in jail like he currently is. If he wasn't such a risk then he could be trusted enough to leave his vehicle with him, and have the police check up on him time to time while waiting for his trial.

$1:

Yes, but that either requires him to steal a vehicle or borrow someone else's. Leaving him access to his car doesn't even give "someone else" a chance to say no.

Maybe everyone he knows doesn't know he can't drive?

$1:

Really? Yeah I guess you're right. What with drug crimes, bank robberies, assaults, murders, and all the rest of the fun that comes with policing an urban centre, the cops should post units outside of everybody's house that has been banned from driving or else just pack it in.

Well thing is, the police don't stop many crimes, having a car go by a place once in a day isn't going to stop the police from doing their other actions.

$1:

Let them try? Great idea. I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the family of anyone he might end up killing before the cops "nab" him.

Hasn't seen to bother anyone else over the rest of this guy's life.

$1:

SO many people bitch about how the police are only reactive anymore yet when they get proactive, the bitching gets louder.

How is this anything BUT reactive? How is this anything but poor reaction given how many reported events their have been?

$1:

IIRC, you are all for CCW because "The police can't be everwhere at once", yet you think they have the time to shadow suspended or banned drivers.

They have time to see if his car is parked at his house once or twice a week as they drive by. Set action at a set time range.

[Unsound]

I think what most of you are missing here is that no one is saying that losing his car isn't a suitable punishment for his crimes. What some are saying is that losing his car before a court has convicted him of said crimes is a problem.

Taking his car away pending trial is entirely legit if there's reason to believe that leaving it with him will endanger people. It's the part where they sell it and pocket the money before he's even convicted that strikes me as wrong. What do they do if he's acquitted? Apologize and give him free bus passes for a year?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Xort Xort:

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

It puts a pretty big hole in the path, slowing him down at least.

But doesn't stop him. So what you are depending on is his personal character to follow the law willingly.

$1:

Do you oppose his vehicle being taken away due to him earning it from his labour? If so, what do you think of fines and other methods of harsh financial punishment? Are you opposed to those, or do you feel taking unused dead labour is better than taking an object that dead labour was exchanged for?
What's the difference?

I oppose taking his vehicle and selling it before he is found guilty. I oppose taking it because taking a vehicle is not the legislated punishment. I oppose that he has 8 past incidents and was still free.

Learn to read. The car hasn't been sold yet, it's been impounded. There IS a difference.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

They DID enforce it. What don't you get about this? What do you expect them to do, waste time sitting out front of his house to make sure he doesn't drive? And what good is enforcement after the fact if he injures or kills someone?

Xort Xort:

The point of enforcement after the fact is that we shouldn't enforce something on someone before they do something. Basic idea of freedom right?

Yeah I guess the 9 previous incidents were nothing.

Xort Xort:

As for how to enforce his driving ban without having to watch him all the time, have a police car drive by his place, if the car is gone send a police car by his place of work see if it's there. It wouldn't take a huge amount of police effort to figure it out and bust the guy if he was driving.

So once again, your solution is for the cops to be reactive instead of proactive. Give an idiot with a proven track record of being a menace behind the wheel yet another chance to hurt or kill someone. Gotta love your idea of freedom.

$1:

So in other words, they might as well make it easier for him to break his ban and potentially hurt/kill someone.

Xort Xort:

If he was a risk he should be in jail. If he wasn't a risk then he could be free. Taking his car and leaving him free isn't a valid if you are using safety as the justification.

He's in jail now and he won't be needing his car while he's there. And he shouldn't have easy access to one when he gets out. Period.

$1:

You must not pay taxes or something.

Xort Xort:

Well that comment has nothing to do with anything.

It did. I guess you just weren't smart enough to see the direction it went in.

$1:

So your solution is to leave them completely open to temptation and trust that their conscience will do its job.

Xort Xort:

Yeah, how do you think society functions? You are safe because people want to follow the law and not hurt others. Not because it's slightly inconvenient to get a tool to hurt someone with it.

That's because the average person in society doesn't intentionally put other lives at risk. This dick has a history of not giving a shit about anyone but himself when he's behind the wheel. My God, you sound like some whiney fucking Dipper.

$1:

But you still want him to have access to it because apparently he has the right to own a car.

Xort Xort:

He has a right to his property until a court convicts him of a law that provides for the taking of his property. If he is such a risk to the public that he can't be trusted with it, then I submit he can't be trusted to be free.

His car has been seized, NOT SOLD!! What part of this are having trouble comprehending?
As for rights, rights have responsibilities. When you use your property to put other lives at risk, you forfeit your right of ownership as far as I'm concerned.
Why the hell do you think cities have evicted some home owners from their own homes? Often times it's because the home ie:property poses a hazard or danger to the neighbouring homes or neighbourhood residents. IN this goof's case, open access to his vehicle poses a hazard/danger to the public on the roads.

$1:

Take his vehicle and you greatly reduce his chances. This wasn't an isolated incident.

Xort Xort:

I think having a formal charge in front of him would greatly reduce his chances. If he was too much of a risk then put him in jail like he currently is. If he wasn't such a risk then he could be trusted enough to leave his vehicle with him, and have the police check up on him time to time while waiting for his trial.

And when he gets out of jail, you want his car to be waiting for him so he can resume his asshole ways, licenced or not.

$1:

Yes, but that either requires him to steal a vehicle or borrow someone else's. Leaving him access to his car doesn't even give "someone else" a chance to say no.

Xort Xort:

Maybe everyone he knows doesn't know he can't drive?

Yeah and? Yet you still want to make it easy for him to continue his ways.

$1:

Really? Yeah I guess you're right. What with drug crimes, bank robberies, assaults, murders, and all the rest of the fun that comes with policing an urban centre, the cops should post units outside of everybody's house that has been banned from driving or else just pack it in.

Xort Xort:

Well thing is, the police don't stop many crimes, having a car go by a place once in a day isn't going to stop the police from doing their other actions.

The Police don't stop many crimes, but this potential crime is one you're sure they can stop before someone gets hurt.
Golly gee Madam Xort, can you give me next week's winning lottery numbers too?

$1:

Let them try? Great idea. I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the family of anyone he might end up killing before the cops "nab" him.

Xort Xort:

Hasn't seen to bother anyone else over the rest of this guy's life.

Once more in English please?

$1:

SO many people bitch about how the police are only reactive anymore yet when they get proactive, the bitching gets louder.

Xort Xort:

How is this anything BUT reactive? How is this anything but poor reaction given how many reported events their have been?

Well let's see, who ultimately decides whether your licence is suspended/revoked? The courts? Oh THAT'S right, the police are the sole arbiters of who actually has their licence revoked. The courts have nothing to do with it. Seems to me you want make the police responsible for the failures of the justice system. This is definitely Proactive since the justice system has obviously failed miserably to allow this idiot to continue driving after 9 incidents in two years. But yeah, it's all the cop's fault.

$1:

IIRC, you are all for CCW because "The police can't be everwhere at once", yet you think they have the time to shadow suspended or banned drivers.

Xort Xort:

They have time to see if his car is parked at his house once or twice a week as they drive by. Set action at a set time range.

Ooooo what good enforcement that is. Seriously, you're a joke.

[Xort]

If the guy is a risk he should be in jail waiting his trial. If he isn't a risk he should be free until his trial, and maintain ownership of his vehicle.

Simple question, is he a risk? If yes then put him in jail, if no then leave him free.

If the justification of taking his car is public safety then that justification is invalid if he is in jail waiting for his trial.

[Yogi]

Xort Xort:

If the guy is a risk he should be in jail waiting his trial. If he isn't a risk he should be free until his trial, and maintain ownership of his vehicle.

Simple question, is he a risk? If yes then put him in jail, if no then leave him free.

If the justification of taking his car is public safety then that justification is invalid if he is in jail waiting for his trial.

Whether he is still in jail or not is a moot point! His weapon of choice was a motor vehicle. He has proven time and again that he prefers to use a vehicle to commit crimes with. To wit; cause injury or death to another person/s.

Not unlike many others who chose to use firearms or knives to fascilitate their crimes, their weapons were confiscated as well.

[bootlegga]

Unsound Unsound:

I think what most of you are missing here is that no one is saying that losing his car isn't a suitable punishment for his crimes. What some are saying is that losing his car before a court has convicted him of said crimes is a problem.

Taking his car away pending trial is entirely legit if there's reason to believe that leaving it with him will endanger people. It's the part where they sell it and pocket the money before he's even convicted that strikes me as wrong. What do they do if he's acquitted? Apologize and give him free bus passes for a year?

If this was his first offence, then I would agree with you. But its not, he's had multiple road rage incidents in the past few years, so given his history, I'd say this is appropriate.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

If the guy is a risk he should be in jail waiting his trial. If he isn't a risk he should be free until his trial, and maintain ownership of his vehicle.

Simple question, is he a risk? If yes then put him in jail, if no then leave him free.

Simple answer. He was denied bail, because this latest incident was a violation of his probation from the last incident. {sound of jail cell closing}

'Sympathy' is in the dictionary between 'shit' and 'syphylus'.