Now THIS is how you complain.

It's easy to say "he is an innocent guy trying to make a living & saving lives by snowplowing" but he COULD be a regular career criminal. You never know ... A lot of "what ifs" for the reason they pulled him over - as stated above- not solely for the purpose of giving an HTA violation.

That seems highly speculative and I don't see how type of logic couldn't be applied to everything the police do as a "justification" for anything they do. If they were to use the HTA to pull someone over for an alterior motive, that would be improper and he would need to be appriased of the real reason for his detention under 10a of the Charter. I don't know you, but your post reveals a level of deference to police that in my opinion is dangerous in a democractic society.
 
3. How do you know that "snowplow guy" didn't have background with TPS - could be a known drug dealer, could have come from a known crack house, local bar, not a legally registered snowplow etc there are too many "what it's/ could haves" then just a simple HTA ticket.

It's easy to say "he is an innocent guy trying to make a living & saving lives by snowplowing" but he COULD be a regular career criminal. You never know ... A lot of "what ifs" for the reason they pulled him over - as stated above- not solely for the purpose of giving an HTA violation.


One of my friends own a contract snowplowing business.
Are you for real? What part of that sentence are you having trouble grasping? Is it the "my" or "friend" you can't seem to wrap your head around? Maybe putting both words together is confusing you?

It's like a much less erudite mini-me version of turbo stepped in and started smashing away at his keyboard.
 
Last edited:
That seems highly speculative and I don't see how type of logic couldn't be applied to everything the police do as a "justification" for anything they do. If they were to use the HTA to pull someone over for an alterior motive, that would be improper and he would need to be appriased of the real reason for his detention under 10a of the Charter. I don't know you, but your post reveals a level of deference to police that in my opinion is dangerous in a democractic society.

He was never detained... I was never speculating- just trying to explain that you never really know the reason why unless you were either the snowplow guy or the cop.


Are you for real? What part of that sentence are you having trouble grasping? Is it the "my" or "friend" you can't seem to wrap your head around? Maybe putting both words together is confusing you?

It's like a much less erudite mini-me version of turbo stepped in and started smashing away at his keyboard.

Because he is YOUR FRIEND, that makes him a saint???

And thank you for the compliment ;)


Back on topic......
 
How do you write a guy a ticket without detaining him?

the idea is completely ridiculous. Think about what you are actually saying

If a cop stops you to write a ticket. you are detained. you get your 10a, if you are not told the reason(s) for your detention, your Charter rights are being violated.
Is that very difficult to understand?

Again, your kind of mentality is detrimental to a society where the power rests with the public.
 
Last edited:
How do you write a guy a ticket without detaining him?

the idea is completely ridiculous. Think about what you are actually saying

If a cop stops you to write a ticket. you are detained. you get your 10a, if you are not told the reason(s) for your detention, your Charter rights are being violated.
Is that very difficult to understand?

When you're pulled over for an HTA you are NOT detained. LOLzzz
If you're going by the #2 definition on "freedictionary.com" sure, I'll enlighten your statement.
Section 10 of CR&F explains your rights upon arrest or detention - to contact defense

"Section 10 is only triggered if a person is arrested or detained. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that "detention" refers to a suspension of an individual's liberty interest by a significant physical or psychological restraint. Psychological detention is established either where the individual has a legal obligation to comply with the restrictive request or demand, or a reasonable person would conclude from the state conduct that there was no choice but to comply.

In cases without physical restraint or legal obligation, it may not be clear whether a person has been detained. To determine whether a reasonable person in the individual’s circumstances would conclude they had been deprived by the state of the liberty of choice, the court may consider, inter alia, the following factors:[1]

The circumstances giving rise to the encounter as would reasonably be perceived by the individual: whether the police were providing general assistance; maintaining general order; making general inquiries regarding a particular occurrence; or, singling out the individual for focussed investigation.
The nature of the police conduct, including the language used; the use of physical contact; the place where the interaction occurred; the presence of others; and the duration of the encounter.
The particular characteristics or circumstances of the individual where relevant, including age; physical stature; minority status; level of sophistication."

I was referring the the snow plow situation above .


Also "Police Officers may stop people who are driving when they observe an offence against the Criminal Code of Canada, provincial Highway Traffic Act, municipal by-laws or any other laws, or if the person or vehicle matches the description of someone in an investigation. Officers may stop people who are driving to ensure compliance with traffic laws and safety standards such as sobriety, possessing a valid driver’s licence and insurance, and the mechanical fitness of the vehicle.

Officers may stop pedestrians on the street if they observe an offence, if they are investigating a complaint, or if they believe the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. These interactions usually involve the officer asking for your name, address and identification, and other questions that are appropriate to their investigation."

Detrimental to society where the power rests with the public???
.
How so?
 
Last edited:
You have no idea what you are talking about. You should refrain from giving legal lessons to anyone in the future. Its obvious you don't even read the words you quote.

nothing is more annoying than this amatuer law student crap.
 
Last edited:
You have no idea what you are talking about. You should refrain from giving legal lessons to anyone in the future. Its obvious you don't even read the words you quote.

nothing is more annoying than this amatuer law student crap.

Prejudice. You sir have Just proven my point on how "society" prejudges persons of authority.
 
The only point that emerges from your ludicrious reasoning and zero legal knowledge is that you don't even manage to read what you quote.
 
It's easy to say "he is an innocent guy trying to make a living & saving lives by snowplowing" but he COULD be a regular career criminal. You never know ... A lot of "what ifs" for the reason they pulled him over - as stated above- not solely for the purpose of giving an HTA violation.
wow where is that pic of Robert Downey Jr when you need it
 
this one ?

3625668981_2362c98aaa.jpg
 
LittleSaki is going on my list of people that I wish I could give an infraction to, but can't.

FAILURE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND BEFORE POSTING

Please do that, and stick to facts wherever possible, rather than speculating.
 
^ this made me LOL so hard
 
Last edited:
LittleSaki is going on my list of people that I wish I could give an infraction to, but can't.

FAILURE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND BEFORE POSTING

Please do that, and stick to facts wherever possible, rather than speculating.

What are you talking about? We have just proven that the snow-plow operator was a drug-smuggling Al-Qaida member and a terrorizer, with a couple of crack-stuffed bodies tucked between his front grill and the plow. He should be cuffed, stuffed and sent to gitmo for an indefinite period, but that's not being detained, it's just a routine traffic stop :cool:
 
Speed differentials between traffic increases risk of crash. That is proven reality.
Increased speeds pose particularly increased risk to vulnerable road users - pedestrians, cyclists, etc, especially in densely-populated city environments where the presence of such road users is particularly high. That is also proven reality.
Increased speeds increase crash severity. That too is proven reality.

Seems that you don't want acknowledge reality.

The number one reason we have so many collisions is because the ministry hands out licences to complete retards who have no common sense or are too stupid to think about what their selfish actions are going to do to someone or their family. The testing needs to be harder and include some sort of winter driving techneques. Our city becomes a complete joke with every rain fall or snow fall.

Yes, speed will increase the sevarity of a collision but would the collision even happen if we had better skilled drivers on the road? Probably not. Before you all harp on me about some collisions couldn't be prevented like mechanical malfunction or what ever, I already know that and I'm not talking about those cases but the majority of the cases of collisions that could have been prevented.

the difference between a traffic violation and an actual crime is intent... you don't intend harm when you make a left turn against a no left turn sign and dire consequences could result of that decision, but more than likely nothing bad will happen to anyone... yet if you break into my house you've caused me harm and it was entirely your intent to do so. you say the end result of a traffic accident causing death and some one murdering some one is the same, thus the ends justify the means, ergo it would be ok for me to defraud the lottery system as long as i gave the money to charity, no one actually got hurt and some orphans got some blankets for their beds...

Sorry but if you do an illigal turn or u turn or whatever and take someone out cause of it, doesn't make it ok cause you didn't mean to harm anyone...ignorance is not a defence.
 
Sorry but if you do an illigal turn or u turn or whatever and take someone out cause of it, doesn't make it ok cause you didn't mean to harm anyone...ignorance is not a defence.


no it doesnt make it ok, but it's not on the same level or worse than a premeditated crime which is what turbo appears to subscribe to.
 
Back
Top Bottom