wow why always me

[turbodish]

Forum Sponsor

The result would be obvious. More car thieves would refuse to stop secure in the knowledge that the car they just stole has not yet been reported stolen...

How many car thieves would easily stop for police anyways? The OP was brushed by a car thief who refused to stop even under current laws. So what's the difference?

In any case, this has a great potential of royally screwing someone innocent.

Yes it could if an owner couldn't provide a somewhat plausible alibi to account for his or her whereabouts when his or her vehicle was being pursued. However, it wouldn't be the first reverse-onus law on the books though, and it might put a bit of a damper on a certain segment of riders who count on helmets with smoked or mirrored visors to obscure their identity and thus escape prosecution as they merrily take off when the cops go to light them up.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

How many car thieves would easily stop for police anyways? The OP was brushed by a car thief who refused to stop even under current laws. So what's the difference?


Yes it could if an owner couldn't provide a somewhat plausible alibi to account for his or her whereabouts when his or her vehicle was being pursued. However, it wouldn't be the first reverse-onus law on the books though, and it might put a bit of a damper on a certain segment of riders who count on helmets with smoked or mirrored visors to obscure their identity and thus escape prosecution as they merrily take off when the cops go to light them up.

Guilty until proved innocent? Sorry bub, we've already got far too much of that in our legal system, for my liking. I can see it now, "Your only alibi is that you were home asleep, alone in bed? You're done."

 

[turbodish]

Guilty until proved innocent? Sorry bub, we've already got far too much of that in our legal system, for my liking. I can see it now, "Your only alibi is that you were home asleep, alone in bed? You're done."

Well, inconvenient laws tend to get passed in direct response to the problem posed by the "less-than-innocent" among us. Some of the riders in this forum are a prime example - when you have a significant portion of riders here (30 or 40% as I recall in a recent poll) advising running from the cops, then it's really just a matter of time before the law gets modified to address that particular issue. You can bet that any such change to the laws will have at least some potential to affect the innocents, but it won't happen because of those who do choose to stop when the lights come on.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Well, inconvenient laws tend to get passed in direct response to the problem posed by the "less-than-innocent" among us. Some of the riders in this forum are a prime example - when you have a significant portion of riders here (30 or 40% as I recall in a recent poll) advising running from the cops, then it's really just a matter of time before the law gets modified to address that particular issue. You can bet that any such change to the laws will have at least some potential to affect the innocents, but it won't happen because of those who do choose to stop when the lights come on.

Then I recommend you to William Blackstone and say that once this sort of thing becomes commonplace, we no longer have a society worth defending.

 

[turbodish]

Then I recommend you to William Blackstone and say that once this sort of thing becomes commonplace, we no longer have a society worth defending.

Well, we get the society we deserve, don't we, whether it comes from such laws, or whether it comes from those among us who tolerate, give tacit cover and even encourage the shitheads among us who give cause for such laws to come about.

 

[matthew]

Isn't the SIU supposed to get involved when a civilian gets injured due to police involvement?

can anyone give insight to this?

 

[turbodish]

can anyone give insight to this?

Injury has to be serious or involve claims of sexual assault. The SIU won't get involved if the injury is just minor scratches or bruising.

 

[evang]

I sold my bike gave up riding the streets last week because of a close call. Me and my friend coming from Kahuna 2 weeks ago roughly, approaching the intersection to make a left with no cars infront of us or behind us. Another car was waiting to make a left in the middle of the intersection and we couldnt see the traffic behind coming from the other direction so we sat at the white line. My friend leaned over and asked me something "he thought his chain was loose" and said listen and look at it after we make the turn if its banging up and down.

That turn never happened. Right after leaned back over to get ready to go first - van from the left (traveling north) ran the red and a pickup in the lane next to us who had the solid green (traveling west) t-boned the van in the center of the intersection 15 ft in front of us.

so you're giving up riding because you didn't get hit and someone in a car got in an accident?

Makes sense...

You should probably also give up driving a car too.. cause if you were in a car had pulled out first you would have been hit!!

You should also give up flying in planes, because planes have crashed and if you'd been on those planes, you would have toast!

You should also give up going on boats.. because if you'd been born 120 years earlier and had been on the titanic when it hit that iceberg, you would have been a goner!

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Well, we get the society we deserve, don't we, whether it comes from such laws, or whether it comes from those among us who tolerate, give tacit cover and even encourage the shitheads among us who give cause for such laws to come about.

I see it another way. When we roll over and give up our hard-won liberties, because we falsely perceive a danger to be greater than it is in reality, we no longer deserve those liberties.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

And then there's the statement, to which I recommended you.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." - William Blackstone

We disregard these fundamental principles of justice, at our peril.

 

[El Zilcho]

Well, we get the society we deserve, don't we, whether it comes from such laws, or whether it comes from those among us who tolerate, give tacit cover and even encourage the shitheads among us who give cause for such laws to come about.

"Give cause"..? You mean "excuse"?

There is a lot more to the society than a small fraction of those that commit crimes. There are some fundamental principles that should be underlying the legislation. It is better to let a guilty person go free than to penalize someone innocent. A law that assumes guilt is simply giving up on a due process.

 

[Prince]

Why should chases be made "illegal"? You mean you want it so that if you simply drive off from the cops, they should just let you? Let me guess, you will now say they got your plate number, they can just mail the ticket to you. What if the owner of the car is not driving, or if the plate is stolen , or it the vehicle is stolen, or lets say the car is not stolen, but the owner reports it stolen 5 min after the cop did not chase? There are so many reasons your plan will be feasable, all because you figure they all end in tragedy?
Then you recommend riders watch what they record because it may bite them in the ***? Do I sense a bit a paranoia here?

Canada typically follows, we do not lead in the world. We either follow the British model, or the American model. Sadly, with policing, it appears that we are following the American model. Watching "Cops", and "Disorderly Conduct" the cops already know how the chase is going to end before they hit the cherries. Some innocent by-stander is going to stop that fleeing vehicle with his or her life. It's just not worth it. One chase I watched was taken up 'cause a guy urinated on the side of the road! What kind of mentality is this? The chase ended up in a horrific wreck, with mom and and her kids being hit in an SUV. Police officers should be held individually responsible in a court-of-law for these actions if they don't follow protocol to the nth degree, or police chases should be made illegal period. The US has more people in jail than the population of Canada. Is this a good model to follow? Or the European model. Take the extreme..."Ghost Rider." The police attitude to traffic violations in Europe is that they're not a big deal, and in the larger picture of things, they're not a big deal. The European cops trail behind the Ghost Rider as he does his thing in his videos with the attitude that "we'll get him another day." And they do get him. And no one is ever hurt. In my view, this is a correct procedure. No civilian life should be risked or taken to stop a criminal. Take a look at the OP here, he could have easily been killed beause Jamal and Tyrone wanted to joy-ride in a stolen SUV? Is the OP's "life" worth getting that SUV back? The police are only allowed to police as long as the people allow them to police. If you police with fairness, the people will allow it. If you push too far (HTA172), people will push back, and next thing you know we may as well fly the American flag and throw everyone in jail for a very long time (IMHO).

Forum Sponsor