It depends on each individual case. You can have a B&E with out any physical harm to anyone but you can have a collision that takes someones life...
Now THIS is how you complain.
- Thread starter OpenGambit
- Start date
as soon as they initiate the b&e the have committed to dealing with whats on the other side of the door or window. there's a reason why hta acts are not criminal.
Some of them should honestly be criminal, I'm sure you can think of some cases where they should be...
like turning right on a red when prohibited when there is zero traffic?
when loss of life is involved there are additional charges that can be laid that are criminal but again the difference is intent, even in criminal negligence cases intent is important. and that is what the author of the article is complaining about, breaking the law with criminal intent is ignored while the police pursue victimless law breakers for revenue generation
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
In crim neg, intent isn't important at all for the purposes of conviction.
If you can prove intent, that usually means a bigger offence.
exactly, intent metes out a more serious punishment
Awesome Saki Bombs since I went out for drinks.
I guess this would be in after fr.
I guess this would be in after fr.
Last edited:
I don't care who they send as long as they send someone competent.
When the police have to ignore some crimes because they're overwhelmed is bad enough, but when they choose to ignore crimes because they've allocated too many resources to speed traps then something is really rotten in the system. Not surprisingly, traffic tickets generate revenue, and money is a common source of organizational rot.
What do you suggest - let criminals run rampant?
but stopping hta traffic infringement that may or more likely may not hurt someone is more important than catching/stopping criminals that have hurt some one whether it be physically or financially. remember the guy that was told to investigate the theft of his bike on his own?
Let's break it down to the essential question here as you seem so intent on muddying the issue with irrelevant info.
Do you claim that in all of those instances we've heard about or experienced where the cops would not respond to a report of theft or vandalism, that those divisions never had any of their officers manning traffic enforcement stations at the time?
I content that it is almost certainly impossible. Folloing that, I contend that it is a dereliction of duty on the part of the police force to prioritize traffic offenses over criminal offenses.
Last edited:
Why don't you quote the posts of identify the people whose claims you are arguing against. Unless you are afraid of discussing reality.
OpenGambit
Banned
That might or might not be true, but it doesn't change the fact that crim neg and intent have nothing to do with each other as per your original statement.
Crim neg, by definition, is a crime with no intent.
not a chance
LGdrama
Well-known member
How do you know what number of resources they have allocated where vs amount of crimes/type of crimes etc?
More than half the people on here think there are more traffic cops vs other police units, because they are the ones who you have most contact with ( assuming there are no "major" criminals here)
Also maybe you should try convincing torontonians to pay more tax to higher more officers to deal with every single crime that goes on in a city with a population of approx 2.5million + people or to convince ford to allocate more resources to policing if that's on your priority list.
With your statement about major revenue= organizational rot.
The city is in debt, the money from tickets doesn't go to the police.
Last edited:
You make it sound like every second cop is out there sitting behind a tree with a radar gun or staking out a corner waiting for some van full of immigrant workers to roll through a stop sign. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Again, Toronto's 2010 police budget allocation for their traffic units was only 4% of the the budget, and only 5% of their cops.
Given that there were 55,000 crashes in the city in 2010, the relatively few cops in that traffic unit spent a huge part of their time investigating and writing crash reports, and not sitting under a tree with a radar gun or staking out intersections waiting for stop sign rollers.
Given that in 2009 when Toronto saw one fatality every 7.6 days, one cyclist injured every 8.8 hours, one truck collision every 4.9 hours, one pedestrian injured every 4.3 hours, and one person of any type injured every 31.8 minutes in collisions that occurred every 9.6 minutes each and every day of the year, maybe Toronto isn't allocating enough resources to their police traffic unit.
Unfortunately, since we seldom put people in jail for traffic offences, money, licenses suspensions and vehicle impounds are the only sticks available to penalize those who would be even greater traffic scofflaws.
So let's bump up fines some more and let the traffic scofflaws pay more of the cost of traffic enforcement.
The inept, the over-confident, the reckless, the impatient, and the irresponsible among drivers and riders on our roads kill and injure more people than the criminal among us, yet we allocate only the smallest portion of police resources to deal with them.
What do you suggest, let driving idiots run rampant?
Last edited:
May or may not hurt some? Let me refresh...
Given that there were 55,000 crashes in the city in 2010, the relatively few cops in that traffic unit spent a huge part of their time investigating crash and writing crash reports, and not sitting under a tree with a radar gun or staking out intersections wiating for stop sign rollers.
Given that in 2009 when Toronto saw one fatality every 7.6 days, one cyclist injured every 8.8 hours, one truck collision every 4.9 hours, one pedestrian injured every 4.3 hours, and one person of any type injured every 31.8 minutes in collisions that occurred every 9.6 minutes each and every day of the year, maybe Toronto isn't allocating enough resources to their police traffic unit.
Given that in 2009 when Toronto saw one fatality every 7.6 days, one cyclist injured every 8.8 hours, one truck collision every 4.9 hours, one pedestrian injured every 4.3 hours, and one person of any type injured every 31.8 minutes in collisions that occurred every 9.6 minutes each and every day of the year, maybe Toronto isn't allocating enough resources to their police traffic unit.
Regulating traffic flow and deterring driving behaviour that increases collision risk is important, especially in a city with extremely high traffic and population density.
A traffic crash doesn't just affect the people directly involved and perhaps physically and financially injured as a result of that crash. Depending on when and where that crash happens, it can also affect the flow of traffic and in doing so affect the lives of thousands of other motorists. The costs to those directly involved in the crash and the financial costs of traffic delays to other are far greater than the cost of someone's stolen TV or iPad.
And even so, Toronto allocates only 4% of the police budget to their traffic units. Their other general patrol and investigative units dealing with other social ills get the lion's share of budget funds.
In crimes where people are injured or killed or even just directly threatened with same, the cops are usually all over the scene to investigated it. However, in absence of such harm, what's the point? A stolen TV or broken window is hardly the same as a kidnapped or injured person. The harm is minimal and financial only, so it falls well down on the triage scale of need.
Last edited:
If there's a collision every 9.6 minutes, and only 4% of the force is allocated to traffic, where do they find the manpower to stake out certain intersections and speed calming areas every single day?
Better put fresh batteries in that Turbocalculator™
Last edited:
Why do you think they now try to divert most property-damage-only crashes to collision reporting centers? Efficiencies of scale in a centralized location.
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/traffic/collision.php
Why do you think cops are needed in traffic calming areas? Because of idiots who think it's cool to rip up and down roads in other people's neighbourhoods. Snake Road and all the marks on the guard rails there comes to mind.
Last edited:
To me, the police force will never be understaffed while there is a single cop out there with a radar gun.
Its like if in a retail store, while there is a line up of customers at cash, the manager would take a cashier out to go clean the stock room.
All that would mean to me is that the manager that took that cashier out does not care about the public that are waiting in line.
Over simplified example of Toronto police stupidity and ineptitude
Turbocalculator lol
Its amazing how turbo doesn't realize that every time he is the only one or one of he very few arguing in favour of the police. See to him we are all a bunch of hooligans, that never obey the law, he also thinks that our average IQ in his board is 80, but some day he will have to take a look in the mirror and realize that it is impossible that we are all wrong and he is always the one right. Hard thing for an individual to do, normally only when a life changing experience happens to someone like turbo will they humble a bit and stop thinking they are so high above everyone.
good luck buddy
Last edited:
I dunno for me the minute there are less police radaring the streets it will be like a green light to cause anarchy on the roads for me
Def would be buying another street bike if that were to happen.
If my home got broke into on several different occasions i wouldn't be looking for the boys in blue to come dust my home for finger prints, or complaining about it via the media.
Alarm system
German Sheppard
Shotgun
Or move to a better community would solve the b&e issue.
