Damn...123 in a 60 | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Damn...123 in a 60

HBHarrison, maybe you should stop driving and walking on street too???

OP, I think you need an actual lawyer more than paralegal (charged.ca, x-copper, etc).
 
edit
 
Last edited:
cargoload said:
op here..thank you for your interest in this thread.
i can handle the negative feedback although i would prefer something constructive. for those of you that have offered thoughtful insight..i appreciate it.
i posted this thread in the hopes that others (and me) may benefit from my experience.
i am not proud of this....in fact i am ashamed of my behaviour...but as always there is more to the story than i have offered up so far.
i can afford exceptional legal council and i am prepared to defend myself vigorously. I am also prepared to pay for my mistake however this turns out.
please keep your comments as objective as possible and in return i will share my experience as it unfolds.
thanks
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear about your misfortune. On the plus side, the conviction rate on H172A charges is not very high.

Also, am I the only one who thought of this after reading "burp"?

barney_burp.gif
 
ViperZ said:
HBHarrison, maybe you should stop driving and walking on street too???

OP, I think you need an actual lawyer more than paralegal (charged.ca, x-copper, etc).
Click to expand...

Lol

My accord has less hp then my bike, and takes about 6 seconds to even get up to speed lol there for, my "burp" would not be as excessive.... And walking? Lol who walks these days lol pffff

Fail
 
upd
 
Last edited:
Update:
So I got my bike back the pound yesterday.
$850
Taxis due to suspension $120
Total to date $970
Inconvenience- Priceless

Ill keep a running total of my costs as I incur them
cargo
 
I once caught a similar charge. I was supposedly riding 106km/hr in a 40 zone.

Im not gonna lie, getting convicted here would really mess up your finances in a big way.

Your goal here is to get your ticket dropped down to 49km over. In the eyes of your insurance company, that is a minor violation.

Redline, though reputable can be almost as expensive as a lawyer, as they charge you for each time they postpone your case.

If your court case is in Newmarket, I know an amazing paralegal there that got me off. PM me if you like

Goodluck! I feel your pain
 
Two judges have felt this law is unconstitutional and is still waiting to be addressed in the supreme court. The fact that you are found guilty on the side of the road goes against human rights, but more so, it is possible to incur six months of prison time from HTA172. In order for a criminal offense to be allowed, mens rea, and actus rea need to be proved, and since it's pretty much impossible to prove you were going that speed knowingly (A lot of people day dream or like you said passively blip the throttle) jail time for such an action is unconstitutional. Street racing is where it works out just fine though.
 
any eta as to when they are going to try and have this law removed?

Dr.Manhattan said:
Two judges have felt this law is unconstitutional and is still waiting to be addressed in the supreme court. The fact that you are found guilty on the side of the road goes against human rights, but more so, it is possible to incur six months of prison time from HTA172. In order for a criminal offense to be allowed, mens rea, and actus rea need to be proved, and since it's pretty much impossible to prove you were going that speed knowingly (A lot of people day dream or like you said passively blip the throttle) jail time for such an action is unconstitutional. Street racing is where it works out just fine though.
Click to expand...
 
I was under the impression that the judgment of the court with respect to the constitutionality of this law pertained only to the possibility of jail time, and that they "fixed" it by changing whether this law was strict liability versus absolute liability ... not being a lawyer, I don't know which one is which. The difference is that the concept of due diligence applies. "You did everything you could reasonably do to avoid the offence, but it happened anyway". It would be a real challenge to show that, in what essentially amounts to a speeding offence, it was something that you had no choice but to do because of extenuating factors.

The law stinks, but we are stuck with it.
 
Brian P said:
I was under the impression that the judgment of the court with respect to the constitutionality of this law pertained only to the possibility of jail time, and that they "fixed" it by changing whether this law was strict liability versus absolute liability ... not being a lawyer, I don't know which one is which. The difference is that the concept of due diligence applies. "You did everything you could reasonably do to avoid the offence, but it happened anyway". It would be a real challenge to show that, in what essentially amounts to a speeding offence, it was something that you had no choice but to do because of extenuating factors.

The law stinks, but we are stuck with it.
Click to expand...

You are correct.

Absolute Liability - The act speaks for itself. Mens rea is not needed, in order to prove guilt. You can be found guilty of an offence that you had no intention of committing, but did perform the proscribed action.

Strict Liability - Mens rea is required for conviction. In other words you have a "defence of due diligence" available to you. If you can show that you took all reasonable efforts to avoid committing the offence, or that you were somehow forced to commit the offence in order to avoid greater offence or harm, then you can be found not guilty.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom