If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vancouver Sun)   Judge says government can't seize your motorcycle just because you drive it over the speed limit   (blogs.vancouversun.com) divider line 92
    More: Interesting, civil forfeiture, Ducati  
•       •       •

9017 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Sep 2013 at 2:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-07 04:05:08 PM  

OgreMagi: I hope our local cops don't start trying this shiat.  But I wouldn't put it past them.  "You were going 28 MPH in a 25 zone, get out of the car."


Since when have American sportbike riders stopped for the police? That reminds me - the mud on my plate is almost gone, I need to get a fresh coat on it this weekend.
 
2013-09-07 04:09:55 PM  

LarryDan43: BullBearMS: Phil Moskowitz: BullBearMS: Phil Moskowitz: Civil forfeiture law is probably some of the most despicable parts of the legal system in North America, including the monstrous drug law.

I put it right up there with paramilitary SWAT teams serving no-knock warrants in the middle of the night.

To the wrong house.

Resulting in the murder of an innocent homeowner.

Well I was talking about actual law, but yeah, that's much worse.

Well, that's a pretty specific example of what goes wrong with no-knock warrants, but it happened within a hundred miles of my house.

A father was home sleeping with his girls in the middle of the night while his other half was at work when a SWAT team mistakenly burst into his home and gunned him down.

No-knock warrants and asset forfeiture laws are the two most retarded things to come out of the war on drugs.

They both need to go.

Yes, but was it a poor neighborhood? Because if so he was probably guilty of something. Maybe he had a gang tattoo or smoked weed, so there ya go.


Well, he was attractive and successful.
 
2013-09-07 04:20:56 PM  

bigbobowski: jjorsett: If you can do 200 kph on something as maneuverable as a motorcycle, how do you even get caught?

crazy talk from a non-rider.
/sooner or later you gotta turn. and for the most part a lot slower then a car.
//bikes are not more maneuverable as car. they can thread though smaller spaces is all.


Crazy talk from a Harley "rider".

A sportbike with a skilled rider will leave most cars in the dust in the twisties. While it's true that the lap records at most tracks are held by cars, the bike times aren't that far off (compare F1 and MotoGP for example).

As someone noted above though, you can't outrun Motorola!
 
2013-09-07 04:32:03 PM  

jayphat: capt.hollister: jayphat: OgreMagi: I hope our local cops don't start trying this shiat.  But I wouldn't put it past them.  "You were going 28 MPH in a 25 zone, get out of the car."

If you were doing 95 in a 25 like this asshole, you should expect that exact response.

Still haven't figured out how to convert metric to archaic, have you ?

Let me help: 200kmh = 124.27mph and 60km/h =  37.28mph.

Is it your belief that private property should be seized even when no one but its user is being endangered ?

If you look up thread instead of attacking me, you'll see I already posted the actual speeds. I was making a comparison to the 25mph post.


Fair enough. I misunderstood your comment when you wrote  "If you were doing 95 in a 25 like this asshole " .  It read like you were referring to TFA.
 
2013-09-07 04:32:32 PM  
This guy just needs to go to the Isle of Man and get it out of his system.
 
2013-09-07 04:37:50 PM  

kalvyn: bigbobowski: jjorsett: If you can do 200 kph on something as maneuverable as a motorcycle, how do you even get caught?

crazy talk from a non-rider.
/sooner or later you gotta turn. and for the most part a lot slower then a car.
//bikes are not more maneuverable as car. they can thread though smaller spaces is all.

Crazy talk from a Harley "rider".

A sportbike with a skilled rider will leave most cars in the dust in the twisties. While it's true that the lap records at most tracks are held by cars, the bike times aren't that far off (compare F1 and MotoGP for example).

As someone noted above though, you can't outrun Motorola!


Depends entirely on the track layout. Fast tracks with long straights advantage bikes with their hard acceleration that enables them to reach their top speed more quickly.  Slow tracks with tight curves and hard braking advantage cars with their greater downforce and larger contact area.

On public roads a sportbike will always leave a Crown Vic in the dust no matter what, but in the twisties it will have a tough time losing a well-driven sports car.
 
2013-09-07 04:40:17 PM  

BullBearMS: Just two years ago, the province brought in legislation allowing for administrative forfeitures, meaning that the government doesn't have to go in front of a judge to take a suspect's property when it's worth less than $75,000. All the Civil Forfeiture Office has to do is publish a notice in a newspaper or the B.C. Gazette, and if the owner doesn't file a dispute within a set time, the property is automatically forfeited.

WTF Canada?

You used to be cool.


THIS how do these laws get passed? what assholes stand by and let this happen?
 
2013-09-07 04:40:38 PM  

RINO: TuteTibiImperes: The ruling seems reasonable.  I'm somewhat against civil forfeiture in general, it just seems like it's open to too much potential abuse.  It should really require a criminal conviction and a ruling from a judge for you to lose your property.

I do hope this guy loses his license for a while though, driving around at 3x the speed limit on a motorcycle is going to get somebody killed.

North Carolina is the only US state that requires that.


But you are forgetting how NC's law enforcement agencies are getting around the requirement.  Instead of using state forfeiture laws they simply have the feds process it and then their agency gets kicked back a portion of proceeds from the sale of the seized items.

For true seizure reform to take place, all proceeds from the sale of seized items must go into the state's general fund and also criminalize any state agency from taking funds from a federal forfeiture under federal laws.
 
2013-09-07 05:18:53 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: The ruling seems reasonable.   I'm somewhat against civil forfeiture in general, it just seems like it's open to too much potential abuse.  It should really require a criminal conviction and a ruling from a judge for you to lose your property.

I do hope this guy loses his license for a while though, driving around at 3x the speed limit on a motorcycle is going to get somebody killed.


How the hell can you only be "somewhat against" violations of the 4th Amendment.  I know this happened in Canada, but you seem to be open to to civil forfeiture in the US since you're only "somewhat against" it.

Fark civil forfeiture.
 
2013-09-07 06:14:33 PM  

theflatline: jayphat: And for those wondering, this piece of trash was doing the equivalent of 125 in a 35.

And was caught doing it 4 times

I love this bit.
""The only evidence that was before the Court of unlawful activity was that the defendant was operating the Ducati on four occasions when he exceeded the posted speed limit. There is no evidence of any behaviour of the defendant in operating the Ducati on those days other than speeding, nor is there any evidence that a pedestrian or other vehicle was at risk of harm because of the defendant's actions," Bowden wrote.

So I can break the law if no one else is on the road and no one got hurt.  I am only guilty if someone got hurt.  And I can do it more than once.


Exactly.  This ruling is farking stupid.
 
2013-09-07 06:21:15 PM  

BMFPitt: jjorsett: If you can do 200 kph on something as maneuverable as a motorcycle, how do you even get caught?

I had a friend that got caught doing like 130 in a 50 or something like that on a bike.

When the cop pulled him over he said, "Why did you stop?"


Because fleeing police is a felony.
 
2013-09-07 06:22:57 PM  

ArkAngel: Let's hope tis reasonable Canadian jurisprudence makes it's way south of the border


"could this set a precedent?"
No way.
You so much as chirp the tires from a stop light, that's exhibition of speed and they can take your car.
I talked my way out of it once because my tires were on a brick crosswalk!
Piggie tried to set me up.
 
2013-09-07 06:26:24 PM  

capt.hollister: On public roads a sportbike will always leave a Crown Vic in the dust no matter what, but in the twisties it will have a tough time losing a well-driven sports car.


Agreed.

Also, since this is relevant I will post it here now:

http://youtu.be/CV7Y2uoorIc

/Fast Freddie!
 
2013-09-07 07:31:03 PM  

Repo Man: This guy just needs to go to the Isle of Man and get it out of his system.


The police there are utter fascists though :-(.

(Not really, that's a copper with a sense of humour.)

kalvyn: Crazy talk from a Harley "rider".


Hmm. Now, I dislike Harley-Ferguson as much as any other biker. Mid-life crisis machines, chrome-polisher weekend-warrior rides. Big bore machines that can only produce double-digit horsepower. Apart from their collaboration with Porsche - the V-Rod - their engine development ceased in the 1950s. They make their money selling accessories and various stages of tuning on crap bikes that exist only to make a statement on how big a badass you think you are.

But then, there's this.

/Would still be a lot more awesome if he did that on a good bike, though.
 
2013-09-07 07:36:03 PM  

iron de havilland: their engine development ceased in the 1950s


You seem to be ignoring that Harley engines were completely redesigned.  While they were stagnant while AMC owned the company (and complete shiat), these days their engines include all the standard modern features such as electronic ignition and fuel injection.  Those aren't from the 1950s.
 
2013-09-07 08:12:48 PM  

OgreMagi: iron de havilland: their engine development ceased in the 1950s

You seem to be ignoring that Harley engines were completely redesigned.  While they were stagnant while AMC owned the company (and complete shiat), these days their engines include all the standard modern features such as electronic ignition and fuel injection.  Those aren't from the 1950s.


Whatevs. I just really dislike the traditional Harley-Ferguson idea - overweight beardy folks in denim, who think that a crappy "hog" will make them badass.

Harley/Harley-related bikes I'd have? V-Rod. Buell - except HD shut them down - Buell himself still has something going on, though, doesn't he?

If I had unlimited money, my bike collection would include a V-Rod and a Buell. A traditional Harley? Not a chance.

/Triumph Speed Triple, Rocket III, Ducati Panigale, a traditional (trellis-framed) Ducati, BMW S1000RR, R1, Norton rotary, Yamaha Vmax...
//Traditional Harley? There are so many better bikes aimed at that target market - I've just named some.
 
2013-09-07 08:22:41 PM  

iron de havilland: OgreMagi: iron de havilland: their engine development ceased in the 1950s

You seem to be ignoring that Harley engines were completely redesigned.  While they were stagnant while AMC owned the company (and complete shiat), these days their engines include all the standard modern features such as electronic ignition and fuel injection.  Those aren't from the 1950s.

Whatevs. I just really dislike the traditional Harley-Ferguson idea - overweight beardy folks in denim, who think that a crappy "hog" will make them badass.

Harley/Harley-related bikes I'd have? V-Rod. Buell - except HD shut them down - Buell himself still has something going on, though, doesn't he?

If I had unlimited money, my bike collection would include a V-Rod and a Buell. A traditional Harley? Not a chance.

/Triumph Speed Triple, Rocket III, Ducati Panigale, a traditional (trellis-framed) Ducati, BMW S1000RR, R1, Norton rotary, Yamaha Vmax...
//Traditional Harley? There are so many better bikes aimed at that target market - I've just named some.


Perhaps I am missing something.  What do you mean by "Harley-Ferguson"?

FYI, Buell is not happy that he can't come out with a new line of motorcycles using his own name.  He sold the rights to HD.  Even though they have discontinued the Buell line, they still own the rights.  From what I've heard, he expects them to just hand the rights back to him.  Not going to happen.  He's going to have to cough up some cash.
 
2013-09-07 08:42:09 PM  

OgreMagi: Perhaps I am missing something.  What do you mean by "Harley-Ferguson"?


Never heard that before?

Based on Massey Ferguson.

As in, they're 2-wheeled tractors - lots of torque, but no power.
 
2013-09-07 09:53:51 PM  

iron de havilland: But then, there's this.

/Would still be a lot more awesome if he did that on a good bike, though.


You mean like this?
 
2013-09-07 10:13:41 PM  

kalvyn: iron de havilland: But then, there's this.

/Would still be a lot more awesome if he did that on a good bike, though.

You mean like this?


Just like that.

Come on, if you've ever ridden a bike before... the concept of throwing a HD around a corner is pretty weird, no?
 
2013-09-07 10:41:19 PM  

jayphat: wumpus: theflatline: jayphat: And for those wondering, this piece of trash was doing the equivalent of 125 in a 35.

And was caught doing it 4 times

I love this bit.
""The only evidence that was before the Court of unlawful activity was that the defendant was operating the Ducati on four occasions when he exceeded the posted speed limit. There is no evidence of any behaviour of the defendant in operating the Ducati on those days other than speeding, nor is there any evidence that a pedestrian or other vehicle was at risk of harm because of the defendant's actions," Bowden wrote.

So I can break the law if no one else is on the road and no one got hurt.  I am only guilty if someone got hurt.  And I can do it more than once.

No, You'll still get speeding tickets/reckless driving and points on your license or lose your license. There is a difference between drunkenly juggling chainsaws in the middle of an open field with nobody around and doing the same thing in a crowded movie theatre. They just can't unreasonably seize your property.

Its not unreasonable to seize your property for driving your vehicle that far over the limit, for the fourth time.


What would be reasonable is to take his license away so that if he is found operating a vehicle again he goes to jail. The government effectively stealing valuable property isnt going to make the streets safer if the guy can just buy a new bike.
 
2013-09-07 11:16:11 PM  

jjorsett: If you can do 200 kph on something as maneuverable as a motorcycle, how do you even get caught?


You can escape from the cops on a sport bike, but you have to be willing to run from them first. If you hit the brakes when you see flashing lights, it's over
 
2013-09-07 11:23:02 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: MNguy: You could easily kill someone at much lower speeds as well, Newton.

Right, so the punishment for 1 kph over should be exactly the same as 200 kph over.


Well, you have to do about 170mph on a sport bike to have as much KE as a 2500lb car at 60mph, so in terms of overall mayhem and damage potential, speeding on a bike really isn't all that dangerous to anyone but the rider. Which is why motorcycle liability insurance is so much lower.
 
2013-09-07 11:46:01 PM  

iron de havilland: kalvyn: iron de havilland: But then, there's this.

/Would still be a lot more awesome if he did that on a good bike, though.

You mean like this?

Just like that.

Come on, if you've ever ridden a bike before... the concept of throwing a HD around a corner is pretty weird, no?


One of the control riders at a track I go to rides a Sportster XR when he works the beginner group. Watching him pass newbies on gixxer 1000s in the carousel always makes me giggle.
 
2013-09-08 12:00:27 AM  

iron de havilland: Repo Man: This guy just needs to go to the Isle of Man and get it out of his system.

The police there are utter fascists though :-(.

(Not really, that's a copper with a sense of humour.)

kalvyn: Crazy talk from a Harley "rider".

Hmm. Now, I dislike Harley-Ferguson as much as any other biker. Mid-life crisis machines, chrome-polisher weekend-warrior rides. Big bore machines that can only produce double-digit horsepower. Apart from their collaboration with Porsche - the V-Rod - their engine development ceased in the 1950s. They make their money selling accessories and various stages of tuning on crap bikes that exist only to make a statement on how big a badass you think you are.

But then, there's this.

/Would still be a lot more awesome if he did that on a good bike, though.


I dunno. I was plenty impressed. He definitely was comfortable on that bike. Could you do that on any bike?

/former 40 year bike rider
 
2013-09-08 12:05:02 AM  

strathcona: theflatline: jayphat: And for those wondering, this piece of trash was doing the equivalent of 125 in a 35.

And was caught doing it 4 times

I love this bit.
""The only evidence that was before the Court of unlawful activity was that the defendant was operating the Ducati on four occasions when he exceeded the posted speed limit. There is no evidence of any behaviour of the defendant in operating the Ducati on those days other than speeding, nor is there any evidence that a pedestrian or other vehicle was at risk of harm because of the defendant's actions," Bowden wrote.

So I can break the law if no one else is on the road and no one got hurt.  I am only guilty if someone got hurt.  And I can do it more than once.

Exactly.  This ruling is farking stupid.


Yeah. That's not even close to what happened.

He got his fine, and being BC it means that the fine was huge and he lost his licence. What the crown prosecutor could not prove was that he endangered anyone else, that is why his bike couldn't be seized.
 
2013-09-08 12:29:28 AM  

LarryDan43: It should be the same with guns.


Uhm, how about no?
 
2013-09-08 01:08:01 AM  

jayphat: brantgoose: Oh, good. Everybody gets to keep their cars, SUVs, pickups, etc. Because let's face it, everybody but your grandparents speed. And your grandparents are the dangerous drivers. They cause road rage for miles behind them.

As an environmentally concerned Canadian, I am rather of two minds on this, but hey, I guess it is a good thing, like keeping the lights on. Canada is a country with many tough climates and we need all the power we can get. You can't walk except in Big City cores. A car is as necessary to life as coffee and doughnuts. You'd freeze your brass monkeys off without it (Vancouver excepted).

This isn't just Joe Blow doing 70 in a 65. Civil forfeiture only occurs with gross speeding in Canuckistan, 50+KPH over the limit if I recall correctly. At that speed, yes you should have your shiat confiscated as you could easily kill someone at that speed.


You retard, one could just as easily kill a person doing 60 in a 65. You should have your shiat confiscated for gross public stupidity.
 
2013-09-08 02:27:24 AM  
Civil forfeiture is nothing but legalized theft by government entities. Unless you can PROVE that something was purchased with illegally obtained money, hands off.
 
2013-09-08 02:31:37 AM  

jayphat: RINO: theflatline: jayphat: And for those wondering, this piece of trash was doing the equivalent of 125 in a 35.

And was caught doing it 4 times

I love this bit.
""The only evidence that was before the Court of unlawful activity was that the defendant was operating the Ducati on four occasions when he exceeded the posted speed limit. There is no evidence of any behaviour of the defendant in operating the Ducati on those days other than speeding, nor is there any evidence that a pedestrian or other vehicle was at risk of harm because of the defendant's actions," Bowden wrote.

So I can break the law if no one else is on the road and no one got hurt.  I am only guilty if someone got hurt.  And I can do it more than once.

He still gets fined or has his license suspended or whatever. He just can't have his bike stolen forfeited.

I highly doubt this will be his last offense at that speed. When he gets caught doing it for the tenth time, then can we have his bike forfeited?


I hope not. Go ahead and revoke his license but stealing his property is crap. These forfeiture laws are guilty until proven innocent.
 
2013-09-08 02:37:56 AM  

ladyfortuna: brantgoose: Oh, good. Everybody gets to keep their cars, SUVs, pickups, etc. Because let's face it, everybody but your grandparents speed. And your grandparents are the dangerous drivers. They cause road rage for miles behind them.

As an environmentally concerned Canadian, I am rather of two minds on this, but hey, I guess it is a good thing, like keeping the lights on. Canada is a country with many tough climates and we need all the power we can get. You can't walk except in Big City cores. A car is as necessary to life as coffee and doughnuts. You'd freeze your brass monkeys off without it (Vancouver excepted).

I'm mostly in agreement with you, except I have a vendetta against motorcycles after living on a main route for them for the last four years (I didn't know in advance or I would NEVER have bought this house). Take them all away, I say... or at least mandate that quieter exhaust like they have in Europe.


Oh look, the resident NIMBY. You mean to say you didn't know you were buying a house next to a busy road? Sorry but it's your responsibility to figure that stuff out before you buy. Motorcycles are as welcome on the roads as anything else. If the noise bothers you, move out to the country or install some sound insulation. Barking dogs and screaming children annoy me, I don't go advocating banning those or mandating they be muzzled. I suck it up and deal with it .
 
2013-09-08 04:17:03 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: It should really require a criminal conviction and a ruling from a judge for you to lose your property.


We've already got that -- it's called criminal forfeiture, and it's baked in to regular criminal proceedings. The idea that we needed a way for the state to seize property without the burden of proof due in a criminal proceeding is insane. There's a reason we added the 5th amendment and this property-as-a-legal-person concept of "civil forfeiture" is nothing more than an attempt to ignore those limitations.

Besides the obvious conflict of interest wherein law enforcement both makes an accusation of offense and gets to keep the proceeds of a successful suit and the differences in the burden of proof that swing things in favor of the state, there's also the issue that property used in a crime may not rightfully belong to the criminal which means that people not involved in the crime the property is accused of may lose their property to the state through no reasonable fault of their own.
 
2013-09-08 04:23:39 AM  

theflatline: So I can break the law if


This ruling has nothing to do with his conviction for violating the law (which still stands). It has only to do with the state's separate attempt -- which has no legal connection to his conviction, and could continue even if he were found innocent of the original crime -- to take his bike. Generally speaking the state has the ability to write a law that punishes speeders with the forfeiture of their vehicle, but no such law currently exists.
 
2013-09-08 07:39:57 AM  
To be fair, they didn't have to seize it.  Since it was a Ducati, they could have just followed it and picked all the pieces up off of the road.
 
2013-09-08 07:41:19 AM  
200 in a 60? He should have it taken away. Farking moran.
 
2013-09-08 09:28:45 AM  

capt.hollister: strathcona: theflatline: jayphat: And for those wondering, this piece of trash was doing the equivalent of 125 in a 35.

And was caught doing it 4 times

I love this bit.
""The only evidence that was before the Court of unlawful activity was that the defendant was operating the Ducati on four occasions when he exceeded the posted speed limit. There is no evidence of any behaviour of the defendant in operating the Ducati on those days other than speeding, nor is there any evidence that a pedestrian or other vehicle was at risk of harm because of the defendant's actions," Bowden wrote.

So I can break the law if no one else is on the road and no one got hurt.  I am only guilty if someone got hurt.  And I can do it more than once.

Exactly.  This ruling is farking stupid.

Yeah. That's not even close to what happened.

He got his fine, and being BC it means that the fine was huge and he lost his licence. What the crown prosecutor could not prove was that he endangered anyone else, that is why his bike couldn't be seized.


You don't really think that a little thing like loss of his licence and a fine will prevent a guy that has shown a pattern of behaviour that indicates he doesn't give a fark about the law or anyone else is going to stop this guy from hopping on his bike and giving a repeat performance do you?
 
2013-09-08 02:01:39 PM  

strathcona: capt.hollister: strathcona: theflatline: jayphat: And for those wondering, this piece of trash was doing the equivalent of 125 in a 35.

And was caught doing it 4 times

I love this bit.
""The only evidence that was before the Court of unlawful activity was that the defendant was operating the Ducati on four occasions when he exceeded the posted speed limit. There is no evidence of any behaviour of the defendant in operating the Ducati on those days other than speeding, nor is there any evidence that a pedestrian or other vehicle was at risk of harm because of the defendant's actions," Bowden wrote.

So I can break the law if no one else is on the road and no one got hurt.  I am only guilty if someone got hurt.  And I can do it more than once.

Exactly.  This ruling is farking stupid.

Yeah. That's not even close to what happened.

He got his fine, and being BC it means that the fine was huge and he lost his licence. What the crown prosecutor could not prove was that he endangered anyone else, that is why his bike couldn't be seized.

You don't really think that a little thing like loss of his licence and a fine will prevent a guy that has shown a pattern of behaviour that indicates he doesn't give a fark about the law or anyone else is going to stop this guy from hopping on his bike and giving a repeat performance do you?


Maybe you missed this bit:
"Even though Dery was zooming along at more than three times the posted speed limit, he was travelling on a long, straight stretch of Willis Point Road near Victoria in sunny, dry weather and there were no pedestrians or other vehicles in sight."

As long as any repeat performance is done under similar circumstances, the only danger will again be to himself, his wallet and his licence. Unless he actually uses his Ducati to endanger others, the law cannot be used as an excuse to seize it.   That's as things should be.
 
2013-09-08 02:25:08 PM  
Why am I not surprised that another biker is carrying water for this scumbag?
 
2013-09-08 03:10:20 PM  

strathcona: Why am I not surprised that another biker is carrying water for this scumbag?


Nothing will stop the guy from buying a new bike, or stealing a bike, or zomg he's so hardcore he could go rape and kill someone. If you think he's that dangerous, jail him.

The govt just wants to pad its budget with these forfeitures. If your goal is to financially punish criminals (as opposed to making the community safer), just fine the guy $10k.
 
2013-09-08 03:26:08 PM  
Can't it be both?

I lost my younger brother to one of these farking idiots 24 years ago next month.  I have rather strong feelings about thise.
 
2013-09-08 04:25:05 PM  

profplump: TuteTibiImperes: It should really require a criminal conviction and a ruling from a judge for you to lose your property.

We've already got that -- it's called criminal forfeiture, and it's baked in to regular criminal proceedings. The idea that we needed a way for the state to seize property without the burden of proof due in a criminal proceeding is insane. There's a reason we added the 5th amendment and this property-as-a-legal-person concept of "civil forfeiture" is nothing more than an attempt to ignore those limitations.

Besides the obvious conflict of interest wherein law enforcement both makes an accusation of offense and gets to keep the proceeds of a successful suit and the differences in the burden of proof that swing things in favor of the state, there's also the issue that property used in a crime may not rightfully belong to the criminal which means that people not involved in the crime the property is accused of may lose their property to the state through no reasonable fault of their own.


Asset forteiture is a perfect example of the "slippery slope" that some people insist does not exist.  It was sold to the public with the claim it would allow law enforcement to grab the boats and planes used by evil drug smugglers.  Next it was the mansions and luxury cars of the distributors.  Then it was the BMW of the local drug dealing thug.  Now it's mom's SUV because they busted junior with a single joint.  Hell, you don't even need to be carrying drugs.  Just have money, which is not illegal.  The cops will declare it drug money and take it.  They don't have to prove a damn thing.  And good luck getting your money back.
 
2013-09-08 06:09:43 PM  

strathcona: Can't it be both?

I lost my younger brother to one of these farking idiots 24 years ago next month.  I have rather strong feelings about thise.


I lost my own older brother 12 years ago. The circumstances were different, but I don't think the hurt and frustration are. Your feelings are understandable, but perhaps misguided in this specific case.

A reading of TFA says that in his bad decision the rider retained enough common sense to open up in area and at a time  where he would not hurt other road users. By taking this precaution, he set himself apart from the sob who deprived you of your little brother.
 
Displayed 42 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report