Kid charged for stunting in Costco parking lot in Guelph

[nobbie48]

I have a problem with having two points of view. I am reasonably close to two people that are involved in totally separate criminal events. In one case as a victim and in the other somewhat similar case as the perpetrator. In the first case I want the perpetrator hammered to a pulp and in the other the court should be lenient. Nothing like being forced to deal with both sides to screw one's head around.

We tend to treasure our bikes and get all testy when someone bumps them, moves them or scratches the perfect paint. Someone else may be equally proud of their lawn, pavement, wardrobe etc and but don't think about it when their brat wants to mess with a stranger's bike because it looks like the ride in the mall. Possessions can be a Linus' blanket so what gives anyone the right to mistreat someone else's stuff?

Does tolerating an imperfect world make it worse?

 

[nobbie48]

Here's another thing to consider. Which I don't agree with, obviously. If a cop sees you doing something and you carry all the hallmarks of somebody who would do such a thing then it's probably not the first or last time you've ever done such a thing. In the interest of nipping things in the bud a cop may be inclined to overcharge in the interest of social engineering. Just saying. I know for a fact that a quiet fully farkled adv bike adds about 15-20km/hr to your speed window.

I am amused by the thought of a cop pulling over a bunch of pirate dressed, Harley riding lawyers.

 

[PLau]

You're sarcasm meter is broken. See driving school post re: griff2

I blame you. You brokeded it.

 

[-D-]

Let's look at this from the logical perspective ... if dangerous operation of a motor vehicle charges are laid, police should point out who was in danger. Do you agree?

They will say the operator but I like your line of thinking, lol

 

[JFD]

I would bring those rascals back to the parking lot with brushes and force them to clean those tire marks ... arresting 20 year old for acting stupid, doing burnout? C'mon man.

Your avatar works perfectly right now.


Problem is if they cause real damage - i highly doubt they'll hang around to fess up.

IE if their tires catch, and they go flying into a car, lightstandard, or the building itself. Its unnecessary on many fronts.

i actually read on another board that a person says he wuoldn't care if someone was doing burnouts on his property either. :/

 

[Joe Bass]

i actually read on another board that a person says he wuoldn't care if someone was doing burnouts on his property either. :/

Address and link to said quote. Y'know, for research.


Sent from my custom purple Joe Bass mobile device using Tapatalk

 

[JFD]

Address and link to said quote. Y'know, for research.


Sent from my custom purple Joe Bass mobile device using Tapatalk

I know, right?

 

[unL33T]

No, I think that such "training" should be done in a controlled environment with qualified advanced driving control instructors, such as the Skid Control School in Oakville, or the many advanced driving schools operating at both of the Mosport tracks.

It certainly should not be done on private property without the property owner's permission, like the idiot in Guelph was doing.

I did that skid control school. It's just a parking lot. The instructors weren't anything special. The course was basically this:

Steer into the slide. Try not to over correct. Look where you want to go. If you don't have ABS don't try to steer and brake at once. That's it.

You can learn just as much, just as safely, practicing yourself in a parking lot. Not everyone has $400 to throw away like that.

Sure, it was fun to slide around for a few hours in a car that isn't yours but as far as learning driving skills goes, it didn't teach me a whole lot. The instructor wouldn't even accept that rwd cars spin easier. He also said cops are some of the worst drivers on the road.

The only thing keeping the public out of that lot was that its not really close to anything so there are no pedestrians and no reason for someone to drive there.

 

[ddusseld]

Based on a lot of the responses to this thread I'm really glad I'm not growing up in this day and age. Back in the day we all did burnouts, donuts and drove/rode too fast. It is how we learned. We were young and kind of stupid. It was expected. Do you not remember being a kid? I can't even imagine getting a criminal record for playing in a parking lot.

Not a bike but could have the same implications.
https://www.guelphtoday.com/local

 

[FLSTC]

I grew up in the pre-car-child-seat world. I think that people forced to use car-child-seats when they were young (Generations X,Y,M) expect the government to protect them from all harm. Hence such charges make sense.

The good old days when you could sit on your dad's lap and hold the steering wheel. I also remember visiting the pilots to get a tour of the cockpit on an international flight.

What has the world come to?

 

[kiwi]

I grew up in the pre-car-child-seat world. I think that people forced to use car-child-seats when they were young (Generations X,Y,M) expect the government to protect them from all harm. Hence such charges make sense.

The good old days when you could sit on your dad's lap and hold the steering wheel. I also remember visiting the pilots to get a tour of the cockpit on an international flight.

What has the world come to?

ah yes, the wonder years. I actually was emailed this today to read.. https://www.babble.com/parenting/raise-your-kids-like-its-1982/

 

[hedo2002]

Even if you can't find a living soul in the 2km radius you will call it dangerous driving? Who's in danger?

From the article:
The vehicle had three occupants at the time of this incident.

So there were two other "living souls" a whole lot closer than 2 km. Just because they are occupants of the vehicle doesn't mean they aren't in danger. You can bet that if the car had rolled one was ejected and left a quad for the rest of his life he/her and their families would be filing multi million dollar claims, Likely also sue Costco, for not having signage saying your not to be stunting in their lot. After all there is no personal responsibility anymore in this society.

 

[Neil_V]

From the article:
The vehicle had three occupants at the time of this incident.

So there were two other "living souls" a whole lot closer than 2 km. Just because they are occupants of the vehicle doesn't mean they aren't in danger. You can bet that if the car had rolled one was ejected and left a quad for the rest of his life he/her and their families would be filing multi million dollar claims, Likely also sue Costco, for not having signage saying your not to be stunting in their lot. After all there is no personal responsibility anymore in this society.

Were they tied up in the trunk?

 

[PrivatePilot]

Were they tied up in the trunk?

Clearly not, but given the sorts who partake in these sorts of antics, I'd say there's a good chance they didn't have seat belts on though, and hedo is right on the money about how sue happy people become after something major happens, even when it's their own stupidity that caused it.

 

[Neil_V]

Clearly not, but given the sorts who partake in these sorts of antics, I'd say there's a good chance they didn't have seat belts on though, and hedo is right on the money about how sue happy people become after something major happens, even when it's their own stupidity that caused it.

Ha! I honestly didn't read Hedo's rhetoric beyond the first sentence. Any precedence to point to on this suing business; or is it just sensationalist conjecture. On the off chance we're not applying Merican stories to Canadian incidents, you guys still believe all this warrants charges on the same level as flight from police or failure to remain... stupid question of course

 

[FLSTC]

"...Police stopped the motor vehicle and the male driver was arrested.."

The reporter makes this sound like the arrest was immediate after the stop, but without knowing any better, simplest reason for all the fuss is that the driver probably took an attitude, or otherwise lipped-off to the cop. Probably started on about 'private property' and 'HTA doesn't apply'.

 

[Neil_V]

"...Police stopped the motor vehicle and the male driver was arrested.."

The reporter makes this sound like the arrest was immediate after the stop, but without knowing any better, simplest reason for all the fuss is that the driver probably took an attitude, or otherwise lipped-off to the cop. Probably started on about 'private property' and 'HTA doesn't apply'.

Dang nonconformist punk; next time just shoot him

 

[griff2]

"...Police stopped the motor vehicle and the male driver was arrested.."

The reporter makes this sound like the arrest was immediate after the stop, but without knowing any better, simplest reason for all the fuss is that the driver probably took an attitude, or otherwise lipped-off to the cop. Probably started on about 'private property' and 'HTA doesn't apply'.

Or the cop may have looked at his prior driving record and figured it was time to up the ante. It would be interesting to see what comes up in a pre-sentencing report if he is convicted.

Regardless, the mischief charge is appropriate. Private property was damaged or disfigured, and the mischief charges here are no different than what some kid doing some supposedly "harmless" graffiti on another person's or company's private property would get.