Speeding Ferrari Gets Impounded

[Nightwalker]

This is a fucking outrage.

[Fuhrër-Z]

street racing or speeding kills what? 10% of the traffic fatality? does it happen every single day? every minute? no

idiot dumbass who runs red light, not turning when they are suppose to, tailgating causing people road rage does way more damage

Not sure where that info is coming from, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that street racing is just a teency weency bit more negligent than tailgating is. Granted they're both dangerous, but street racing is on an entirely different level of stupidity.

[snowball]

If you're running drugs with your car and get caught, most likely the car will get seized and sold at the next police auction.. Rob a bank and get caught, the getaway car will get seized and auctioned. Street race (also illegal) and get caught, your car gets seized, sold, but you get some of the money back.

I don't agree that the penalty of street racing should be as much as the other two examples, but at least an example has been made of someone who is rich for once. The owner of the Ferrari probably didn't notice the the 5k for the ticket and impound fees missing from his bank account.

[GabAlmighty]

So, when do I get to impound and crush/sell a cruiser that's drivin like an idiot?

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by eddy89

who cares. is not our ferrari, and i think most of us on RS won't be as stupid as this guy to drive 2x over the speed limit.

Idiot. We are talking about the fundamental rights of living in a free society. Under what conditions should the government be allowed to take away private property? It is a matter of grave concern to any citizen. First they are going after excessive speeding without having demonstrated SIGNIFICANT harm to society. What if the govt. decides that loud house parties damage society and force you to sell your home? Would you say, "well I don't care because I don't have house parties"?

[GabAlmighty]

Originally Posted by eddy89

who cares. is not our ferrari, and i think most of us on RS won't be as stupid as this guy to drive 2x over the speed limit.

The point, went right over your head. I've done those speeds before, albeit I wasn't an idiot about it. Does that mean I automatically deserve to have my car sold, BEFORE I can take it to court and plead my case?

[dangonay]

Does anyone know the names of any of the parties? I tried searching the Civil Cases but there are far too many to dig through. Since this is a civil case, the details should be available for anyone to see. I'm also wondering why the newspapers knew about this but never published any names.

These guys would have gone to court. They would have likely had very good lawyers. There would have been evidence provided by the RCMP (and witnesses) and also by the lawyers on behalf of the drivers. The judge would weigh all this and make a decision. It's not like a witness can come into the court and say "that guy was doing 375 km/h" and the judge replies "375 km/h? that's it, I'm selling your cars".

And after all the evidence was presented the judge decided to sell the cars.

Nobody here knows a damn thing about what happened in court, what was said or why the judge made their decision. Until the details of the civil case are known, nobody can say the decision was stupid or the law is stupid.



However, I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the drivers never even went to court and simply "settled". It just doesn't make sense to me that their names weren't released. I bet their lawyers told them they fucked up and they're screwed and they just took their losses and kept everything quiet. Having their names made public probably consitutes a bigger "loss" to them than the money.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by Gatorade

If you're running drugs with your car and get caught, most likely the car will get seized and sold at the next police auction.. Rob a bank and get caught, the getaway car will get seized and auctioned. Street race (also illegal) and get caught, your car gets seized, sold, but you get some of the money back.

I don't agree that the penalty of street racing should be as much as the other two examples, but at least an example has been made of someone who is rich for once. The owner of the Ferrari probably didn't notice the the 5k for the ticket and impound fees missing from his bank account.

We live in a society where protection under the law and fundamental rights are equal for rich or poor. Don't gloat just because some misfortune happened on someone wealthier than you. Think about everyone's rights being eroded.

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by GabAlmighty

The point, went right over your head. I've done those speeds before, albeit I wasn't an idiot about it. Does that mean I automatically deserve to have my car sold, BEFORE I can take it to court and plead my case?

Where did you get the idea your car can be sold before going to court? It can't. The police have no right to sell it, nor does the government. A judge has to make a decision and you get your day in court.

[GabAlmighty]

Originally Posted by dangonay

Where did you get the idea your car can be sold before going to court?

From my head

[underscore]

Originally Posted by jackmeister

This would only apply to people who earn their money responsibly in Canada. But when people actually earn enough money to afford a car that can easily hit 200km/h (ferrari,lambo etc), they ought to be smart enough to know not to drive at that speed anywhere but a track.

I think the issue most people have here are the 18-21 year old N drivers with their nice cars and the need for speed. Unfortunately many of these people, their family or main moneymaker is overseas and are only asset heavy but very little income in Canada. Thats something for the CRA to do, nor does ICBC/Police have the right to go over someone's family's income in China or another part of the world because of a speeding ticket.

You seem to think all of Canada is like Vancouver. Here in Kelowna, we deal with a lot of spoilt Albertan kids tearing around in mommy and daddies cars. Is it a perfect solution? No. But it does help with those rich pricks who think they're above the law because the fines are "cheap" to them.

Yes most people who own these sorts of cars ought to be smart enough, but I doubt many are. How many of the supercars in BC get tracked? I would guess very, very few.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by ksceric

Would it make you feel better if the seize was after a injury/death occured? By then, it would be too late. Even if it was a fine of $250, 000.... that would not be enough to bring back a life of a loss one.

Yes, actually it would make me feel better if the seize occurs after an injury/death occurs.

Most of you morons are not educated enough to realize that most of our fundamental freedoms and the principles of justice in free societies are based on the philosophical thought of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Jon Stuart Mill and John Rawls. Whether it's called a constititution, or charter of rights, laws in free societies are written with reference to these philisophical principles. Fundamental to these freedoms is the concept of "private property rights." You will note that in societies that are not free, such as with Communism and Fascism, private citizens do not have private property rights and the state can confiscate property at will from its citizens. You see this happening right now in Iran and North Korea.

In a free society, confiscating private property is a big fucking deal. According to philosophers, government should only be allowed to confiscate property under the following conditions:

(1) Property has been gained through illicit means - This is why we allow courts to confiscate property of Madoff or drug dealers as part of "proceeds of crime" legislation because they did not gain these assets fairly and harmed society in acquiring these assets.

(2) Civil compensation to VICTIMS

Since (1) does not apply, the government has decided to use (2). In this case, the excessive speeding is a victimless crime UNLESS someone suffers damages. Did the government compensate the woman with her kids or any other pedestrians? No, because there are no victims for this crime. The offence should never have reached a severity of confiscating a citizen's private property since the government had as its disposal, other means to reduce perceived "risk" to society: - They are able to rescind the driving privileges of perpertrators. The fact that the govt forces a sale of the vehicles and keeps part of the proceeds is THEFT by the government.

[GabAlmighty]

Originally Posted by Marco911

Yes.

356 internets to you sir.

[Nightwalker]

Originally Posted by underscore

You seem to think all of Canada is like Vancouver. Here in Kelowna, we deal with a lot of spoilt Albertan kids tearing around in mommy and daddies cars.

I'm not from Vancouver either, but all I hear on here is the EXACT same complaint about spoiled Chinese kids.

Not that it matters AT ALL, haters gonna hate. They have the right to their private property.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by dangonay

Where did you get the idea your car can be sold before going to court? It can't. The police have no right to sell it, nor does the government. A judge has to make a decision and you get your day in court.

Civil court, where the burden of proof is lower. Nevertheless, the government has to prove that "damage" has occurred:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit

Next, tell me which category of "damage" does this offence fall under?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damages

You will see that unless the cars crashed into persons or property there is no category where this offence would fall into where anyone has suffered any "damage."

"Punitive damages" is the ONLY category which is remotely close to where this offence might fall under and is worth quoting because it is very questionable as to its implementation:

Generally, punitive damages, which are also termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom, are not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff. Punitive damages are awarded only in special cases where conduct was egregiously invidious and are over and above the amount of compensatory damages, such as in the event of malice or intent. Great judicial restraint is expected to be exercised in their application. In the United States punitive damages awards are subject to the limitations imposed by the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

In England and Wales, exemplary damages are limited to the circumstances set out by Lord Patrick Devlin in the leading case of Rookes v. Barnard. They are:

1.Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of government.
2.Where the defendant's conduct was 'calculated' to make a profit for himself.
3.Where a statute expressly authorises the same.
Rookes v Barnard has been much criticised and has not been followed in Canada or Australia or by the Privy Council.

Punitive damages awarded in a US case would be difficult to get recognition for in a European court, where punitive damages are most likely to be considered to violate ordre public.[2]

Now, do you see why I consider this to be such an outrage? This case needs to be appealed.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

the thing about this ridiculous law is there are so many places that can get you to excessive speed in a blink of an eye. SFU, marine drive, hwy 1.

how long does it take a 300hp car to reach from 80-120km 2/3 seconds? ya sometimes u dont even notice and u go with the flow of traffic. Oh snap u got picked among the bunch by the pig. HE decides to power trip, impounds your car. Will the guy gets off so unlucky like the ferrari owner? excessive speed? really? ok lets sell his vehicle too and make him lose $20g, instead the $1000 loss that was being announced to the public


whats next? is the goverment gonna pull another bs law out of no where just to make an example to the general public? since when does the law gets alterate or rewrite as we go along?

[deep87]

A vehicle can be used as a weapon just like a gun.(not as easily of course)

go outside and fire off a bunch of rounds in all directions. Im sure the police wont just sell your gun and give you back 20%.
You put other people lives in danger by racing on PUBLIC roads. imo, a slap on the wrist for not hitting someone vs jailtime incase you do is too big a leap in punishment.

Selling the car does bother me aswell, maybe just make them pay 80% of the cars value as a fine. But then again you just demonstrated that your not responsible enough to take it to a track so...

[Marco911]

^^Unless damage has occurred the government has no business taking away private property. The government can impose fines and penalties WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LAW. The government can take away driving privileges, but not apply uneven penalties and damages just because you happen to be driving a Ferrari vs. a Civic.

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by Marco911

We live in a society where protection under the law and fundamental rights are equal for rich or poor. Don't gloat just because some misfortune happened on someone wealthier than you. Think about everyone's rights being eroded.

and yet he^^^ only chimes in when its regarding the wealthy


u didn't respond to my reply so here it is again with a wikilink to where you can read about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section...s_and_Freedoms


I agree with your views and passion over civil forfeiture but before you blow up in a "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU" you need to understand what's entrenched in our laws and realize that as long as it's not a fundamental, legal, equality right the govt. can infringe upon you

seizing a piece of property that has been illegally used to the point of endangering others does not fall into what cannot be infringed upon

[Great68]

Originally Posted by underscore

How many of the supercars in BC get tracked?

There's not exactly an abundance of tracks in BC.

[Culture_Vulture]

Originally Posted by Marco911

...

While I agree with what you're saying, the foundations of your arguments are full of fallacies.

Kant dismisses the issue of property rights. J. S. Mill's philosophy is against property rights, you're thinking J. Locke. And Aristotle (as far as my limited knowledge goes) has never even addressed the issue.
Of the handful of philosophers you mentioned, only Rawls mentions explicitly the negative right to private property rights.

[1exotic]

Originally Posted by Culture_Vulture

While I agree with what you're saying, the foundations of your arguments are full of fallacies.

Kant dismisses the issue of property rights. J. S. Mill's philosophy is against property rights, you're thinking J. Locke. And Aristotle (as far as my limited knowledge goes) has never even addressed the issue.
Of the handful of philosophers you mentioned, only Rawls mentions explicitly the negative right to private property rights.

stop trying to sound smart

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by Culture_Vulture

While I agree with what you're saying, the foundations of your arguments are full of fallacies.

Kant dismisses the issue of property rights. J. S. Mill's philosophy is against property rights, you're thinking J. Locke. And Aristotle (as far as my limited knowledge goes) has never even addressed the issue.
Of the handful of philosophers you mentioned, only Rawls mentions explicitly the negative right to private property rights.

In my original argument, I did not attribute the concept of private property rights to any specific philosopher. I merely stated that the principles of justice in our society was based on the philosophical thought and debate between some of the philosophers I cited.

[jing]

What if the owner of the confiscated Ferrari bought it back from the dealership that it was sold to?

[penner2k]

Originally Posted by Marco911

Yes, actually it would make me feel better if the seize occurs after an injury/death occurs.

Most of you morons are not educated enough to realize that most of our fundamental freedoms and the principles of justice in free societies are based on the philosophical thought of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Jon Stuart Mill and John Rawls. Whether it's called a constititution, or charter of rights, laws in free societies are written with reference to these philisophical principles. Fundamental to these freedoms is the concept of "private property rights." You will note that in societies that are not free, such as with Communism and Fascism, private citizens do not have private property rights and the state can confiscate property at will from its citizens. You see this happening right now in Iran and North Korea.

In a free society, confiscating private property is a big fucking deal. According to philosophers, government should only be allowed to confiscate property under the following conditions:

(1) Property has been gained through illicit means - This is why we allow courts to confiscate property of Madoff or drug dealers as part of "proceeds of crime" legislation because they did not gain these assets fairly and harmed society in acquiring these assets.

(2) Civil compensation to VICTIMS

Since (1) does not apply, the government has decided to use (2). In this case, the excessive speeding is a victimless crime UNLESS someone suffers damages. Did the government compensate the woman with her kids or any other pedestrians? No, because there are no victims for this crime. The offence should never have reached a severity of confiscating a citizen's private property since the government had as its disposal, other means to reduce perceived "risk" to society: - They are able to rescind the driving privileges of perpertrators. The fact that the govt forces a sale of the vehicles and keeps part of the proceeds is THEFT by the government.

Now if someone fought this and brought up these points and the courts sided with them couldnt pretty much every person that loses their cars to this bs law turn around and sue the govt?