I had no idea that the idea of reckless driving causing harm to innocent individuals was such a gross exaggeration.
|
|
|
Running from police.
- Thread starter Old Dude
- Start date
I had no idea that the idea of reckless driving causing harm to innocent individuals was such a gross exaggeration.
And there we have another place where the word "disingenuous" can be used.
As I stated before, laws regarding relatively benign acts have been altered to the point where nominally law abiding people are now willing to perform the act that you describe in your response. That should demonstrate how counter productive these laws are.
Makes sense.
I just have a serious issue with a thread containing posts suggesting running from cops.
This site is full of new riders who barely passed passed their m2 a month or two ago. If it was a only a matter of them wadding themselves up into road kill I really couldn't give two *****. But I really dont want them running into me or someone else.
Like we really need more reasons to be treated like criminals. Ive had cops let me off because I was the only one who stopped all day. BUT thats rarely their reaction.
And I agree; running is a monumentally stupid thing to do, that turns a HTA infraction into a Criminal Code infraction. The problem is that politicians (and at least one police force's chief) seem hell-bent on turning law abiding people into criminals.
When the penalty for a simple offence rises to the level of a criminal one, there is no longer any reason NOT to run.
As a matter of fact you're probably getting better at it... haha
In any case.. Each run has a history of previous successful runs. Those have already happened, so that's why we can eliminate them from any calculation about the future. However, after n successful runs, we have accomplished an even of probability p^n. That's is the number we would still have to take into account before the first run.
Maybe a better way to look at it is to consider it as trying to avoid being caught---each time the probability may be assumed to be the same, but having a sequence of n successful runs is same as probablility of not-getting-caught n times in a row.
dmctaggart
New member
well people that run from police end up paying the price somehow. what comes around goes around.
Shaman
Well-known member
Summation.
Waldo
Member
Nay Brah, you need those homing red shells for the OPP! You don't want those green ones to ricochet and hit an innocent kid now do you?
Slippery slope. And the entire argument is what squids use to support their retarded street behaviour.
Insurance companies are crooks. Why pay crooks.
I have no insurance, so why pull over for a "non visible license plate"
I should run, cause I'm already committing a crime, whats one more.
Your egging on the idea that the rules are unfair in the first place, so why not just ignore them all? Or your on the cusp of it anyway. Again. Slippery slope.
Sure, except as I stated it is now otherwise law-abiding folk, who would never otherwise consider something as stupid as running, who are now saying that they would run. Sorry, but that blows your argument all to hell. The slippery slope is on the other foot.
Shaman
Well-known member
+100 Internets to you.
Presuming one even believes such a thing. Which i think you treat as a forgone conclusion.
Indeed, because I believe the evidence of my own eyes and ears.
Well we all have to believe something dont we? LOL.
Just be careful what your promoting, and to what end. That is all i'm trying to say.
johnp
Well-known member
Couldn't that also just mean that these otherwise law-abiding folk are kind of dumb?
Last edited:
I'm promoting nothing. In fact I have stated that running is stupid. What I'm doing, is making a statement of fact.
If they were dumb, then I submit that they would already have been running. Now they're making a decision about rolling the dice based on probable outcomes that aren't too far apart, with a possible outcome that would make someone like me never consider running. We all have our limits.
Shhhh....it ruins his sketchy argument that the cops are making criminals with their laws.
But seriously. This argument has to have a bottom. I just cant see it yet. To what end will people go to try to shift the balance of blame to the cops, so that people can continue to ride like asshats?
Stay tuned to find out.
No, you get branded as other things, based on snide asides.
As I said, it's a simple statement of fact. When you ramp up the penalties for lesser offences, the greater ones become less abhorrent to those making the choice. To bring things back into scale they would also have to ramp up the Criminal Code penalties for things like evasion.
Or here's an idea: Maybe they should have been applying the appropriate Criminal Code charges all along, instead of trying to pander to the "law and order" voters with invented "crises." I'm a law and order kind of guy but I'm also a realist, and try to pay attention to what is really going on. What did I predict regarding the electronic devices law and cell phone use? Police are now saying that the use of cell phones is almost back at the level it was at prior to the law coming into effect. What did I (and many others) predict about HTA 172's potential for abuse? Enter Sgt. Mahoney-Bruer and the review of 250+ cases he was involved in. Enter the need to specify intent of a section because, as it was being applied in court, it was in violation of The Charter.
You also have to consider the fall-out from new laws. You want mandatory minimums? Well then you also get multiple credit for pretrial incarceration. It makes people nuts, me included, but The Charter mandates a balance. The law, as a whole, is a balancing act that must err on the side of the accused, in order to maintain a proper standard of justice.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|