Taylor's been drinking again. Maybe its time for some therapy bud. You seem to have misplaced your sanity.
Posted via RS My balls on your chin

how the fuck is blocking traffic an unlawful activity? all they could be doing is driving side by side at the speed limit.

according to your retarded brain. they might as confiscate every fucking car that gets a speeding ticket in the future!

I can't believe this is STILL being discussed!

It's not really a gray-area type of a case here...It's pretty black and white...The RCMP Media Relations has already announced a handful of times that there is NOT enough evidence to proceed with Criminal Charges yet people on here continue to think that the RCMP have yet to discover the evidence that the RS Detectives have...

As I have stated in this thread before, there is way too much speculation going on here. Honestly, this thread can be an efficient conversation but for the love of god, STOP giving your own interpretation of the law! It doesn't matter what YOU think the law is or what YOU think the law ought to be...It is what it is! If the RCMP proceed based upon statues and laws we have in place, I have no objection to any outcome here...But if they're not doing that, then that is where we can argue over whether it is right or wrong.

Taylor, no offense man but your understanding of the law is so far off. You keep talking about Civil Forfeiture and how it used against people who commit crimes...You're contradicting yourself when you use the phrase "proceeds of crime" and then fail to read that NO CRIME has been committed and NO PERSON has been charged with a crime! That's a FACT, don't argue it, it's not up for discussion.

And I hope you understand the difference between a TRAFFIC VIOLATION VS A CRIMINAL ACT.

1) Property used in the commission of a "crime" is a slippery slope. A landlord that has his property confiscated because his tenants used it for a grow-op is a perfect example.

2) What crime was committed here? There isn't even enough evidence to charge them criminally and I conjecture barely enough for a traffic violation to stick.

Idiot. Laws in Commonwealth countries are all based on the same principles following English Common law.

I'm not sure how this supports your argument that confiscating a vehicle, while allowing the driver to keep their driver's license keeps these drivers off the road.


You don't even have a fucking clue what a right is and you have the audacity to call me a dumbass? Let's dissect the logic of your previous statement: "We wouldn't be discussing this if private property was a right cause criminal and civil forfeiture wouldn't exist."

That's like saying individuals have no liberty rights either because then we couldn't put people in jail.

Hint: I am much smarter than you.


Idiot. That fits with my previous point about "COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS." THERE ARE NO VICTIMS, so there is no situation to remedy. If any of those vehicles struck a pedestrian while being driven in a dangerous manner, by all means confiscate the car to compensate the victim.

That breathless leap of logic would be immune to any counter-argument I could make so I'm going to leave it as it stands.

Bad laws are written all the time that get repealed. This is one of them. BC is leading all provinces in the abuse of civil rights.

Idiot. If you're driving in a convoy and one of the drivers in the convoy happens to be drinking and has an accident, do you really think that all the drivers in the convoy should be charged for drunk driving? That's what happened here. All 13 drivers charged with the same offence based on conflicting eye witness testimony on SOME of the drivers.

did they bring out the glasses and ultraviolet light yet? QUICK, look for semen stains! [/sarcasm][/CSI]

You should be used to it. Isn't that how China works?

Matt Zhang star witness at your service!:okay:

No he wouldn't... You can't confiscate imaginary cars...

The penalties for murder are high, with even the death penalty in some U.S. states applying yet people still commit them. Furthermore, many people who do commit crimes, also do not believe they would get caught or at least the thought does not cross their mind at the time. Regardless, this just proves that there is never going to be a sanction tough enough to prevent any crime 100% of the time.

This is completely irrelevant to the civil forfeiture, but I just like to point out:

Driver on right MVA 150

150 (1) The driver of a vehicle must confine the course of the vehicle to the right hand half of the roadway if the roadway is of sufficient width and it is practicable to do so, except

(a) when overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same direction,

(b) when the right hand half of the roadway is closed to traffic while under construction or repair,

(c) on a highway designated and marked by signs for one way traffic,


(2) The driver of a vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing must drive the vehicle in the right hand lane then available for traffic, or as closely as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or when preparing for a left hand turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.


Sorry, but anyone who feels like they have the right to block the flow of traffic by going below traffic speed on left lanes just gets on my nerves.

Should we stop charging people with speeding, drunk driving, running stop signs and any other traffic related activity, since they all relate to potential harm to someone? A drunk driver who gets pulled over hasn't caused any harm to anyone. Likewise with a speeder. The only time we should charge somene with an offence is after they've caused harm? When that drunk driver actually kills or injures someone or the speeder has an actual accident? Because up until that point, there are no victims of speeders or drunk drivers.

The Civil Forfeiture act as its written has more than your two examples of Proceeds of Crime or Compensation for Victims. There are also clauses that say "likely to cause harm to an individual" or "likely to be used in the commission of a crime". These clauses are the same as how we treat drunks or speeders - we fine/charge them (depending on offence severity) before they cause harm since their activities are likely to cause harm.


If someone gets stopped for a severe traffic offence (whatever your definition of severe is), and their previous traffic violations were your typical things people get stopped for (for example, speeding by 20-30 km/h), then I do not think they should lose their cars. If a person commits a "severe" offence and gets warned that the next time they could be subject to forfeiture, and they still go and do it again, then I think they should lose their cars since they were well aware of the consequences.

I don't know the records of the 5 individuals nor do I know what evidence they have on them in this latest case. But if they have a history of dangerous driving or other severe offences plus concrete evidence this time around, then I won't be upset if they lose their cars one bit. If their "history" is your usual stuff and there is nothing "severe", then I don't think they'll lose their cars.

Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior. This is how insurance companies are able to increase premiums for people with multiple accidents or multiple speeding tickets. If you've been cuaght several times for the same thing, you're not going to be able to convince someone you won't do it again. This is probably the aspect they'll argue in court that these drivers have continually driven in this manner, and are likely to do it again.


Now we have to wait and see what happens and if this actually goes anywhere (my opinion is it won't even make it to a full court hearing and will be quietly dropped before then).

I think a lot of the media circus is the police trying to scare people into the 'potential' consequences of this type of behavior. Regardless of the eventual outcome, hopefully the next gathering of spoiled rich kids think twice before doing something so blatantly stupid.

NUMEROUS calls from different drivers, all with the same report, is how.

If you shoot someone in the middle of a downtown street, and two dozen different, unrelated people take the stand in court to say they witnessed you shooting someone, you WILL be convicted - it doesn't require the smoking gun, or for a cop to have witnessed the shooting, or for someone to have video of it.

Great response! Looks like you hit the limit of your intelligence.

Shhhhhhhh don't feed the idiots good informatiion, they want to live in a fantasy land of TV laws.

Soundy, you're absolutely right, witness testimony from even 2 sources can be enough to put charges against these guys...But before that is done, investigators need to corroborate their stories. No two accounts are ever the same. NEVER....There is always SOMETHING different in witness testimony and investigators take into account whether those differences in testimony are relevant or irrelevant in getting a reasonable and reliable witness testimony. You of course, are no stranger to this information. Whenever several witnesses are involved, investigators have a better chance of corroborating different testimony to make a case. However, in this case, it simply did not happen.

I don't know this because of any other source than the same source we all have access to...Media releases. The Media Relations Officer has mentioned several times that they simply weren't able to get reliable witness testimony. If they had it, they would've pressed for charges...

Edit: Taylor, you're calling other people idiots but you're not educating yourself on FACTS. Soundy seemed to have been talking in general terms which makes his posts reasonable but irrelevant. But your posts are pertaining to this particular case and you are simply wrong!

"“After speaking to witnesses and gathering information, police determined there was not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges,” says Supt. Norm Gaumont, head of Traffic Services for the RCMP in the Lower Mainland. “With the criminal avenue closed to us, we decided to see if there was enough evidence to proceed civilly.” - Supt. Norm Gaumont, head of Traffic Services for the RCMP in the Lower Mainland.

Do you understand what that means?? Yes, it is entirely possible for these witnesses to have collectively put together testimony that could be used as evidence against these guys, but that simply didn't happen! What more is there to discuss and argue! "THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROCEED...." So once again, yes there may have been some evidence that inferred that these guys were criminally negligent...Was it ENOUGH EVIDENCE? I'm not going to answer that one and let's see if you can answer it instead...Or will you continue to be narrow-minded and blind to the facts that have been provided to us "public citizens."

Yet you still fail to link a law that proves me wrong. Oh wait, tat's cause you're wrong.

I rightfully call you a dumbass, and next I will demonstrate how uch smarter I am than you.

You do know people in jail still have rights, right?

Please stop watching TV, its made you dumb.

Would you like to me to link the BC civil forfeiture law I took that definition from? I'm not relying on your definitions since you've been proven wrong so often.

If you had bothered to read the law you'd understand, yet since you're still taking TV law you're a misinformed dumbass.

Translation: You haven't read the actual law so all this went over your head.

Wait... you just went from saying I'm wrong about laws and rights in Canada/BC, to admitting there's bad laws? Can you pick a side of the fence rather than be a hypocrite. Thanks in advance.

Fuck, can you get any more stupid? if all drivers in the convoy are driving legally, then there's no issue.

If you want to keep pretending some of the kids were not speeding with the rest, again go ahead. I'm not that stupid, yet you sure are.

You do know that's illegal, right? More fucking dumbasses.

Something wrong with the law. I thought it was 7 business days.

My friend had his car impound for 3 days on a friday nite, but he didn't get it back until Wednesday. That's b/c ICBC counts business day.

Edit: you joined the dumbasses who are still talking about CRIMINAL forfeiture, while the police said long ago they are pursuing CIVIL forfeiture.

It seems like you stopped reading before you got the the part I bolded. Now go back and review the numerous posts where I have addressed CIVIL vs CRIMINAL forfeiture. FFS.

I'm far from a "dumbass" when it comes to the field of law. If you would like to dispute it, feel free to come by our office and see exactly how well we handle the law in our daily practice. Criminal, civil, MVA, Real Estate, and Immigration to list a few are the areas of practice that I've had the privilege of working with for and with clients. What about you?

Yes, there is a difference between civil and criminal but that is still irrelevant. The same guidelines are used by BC Forfeiture office! They look for 4 or more mitigating factors and then obtain evidence that correlates with those factors being used against them. If there wasn't enough evidence by witnesses to proceed with criminal charges, what makes you think there will be enough to go forth with civil charges. The RCMP have simply recommended that they look into it...It's an alternative to doing nothing at all about the case.

Where have you read or learned that the BC Civil Forfeiture Office requires less evidence to prove the same things that a Criminal case couldn't?

The last time the BC Civil Forfeiture Office seized vehicles, they had solid evidence for both criminal and civil repercussions.

Civil or Criminal, irrelevant. The law works the same way as far as evidence obtained and evidence used to proceed.

PM if you need the address to the office, I would be happy to let you read through our legal library.

I'm done with this conversation because you obviously feel that you are more familiar with the law than a person who has studied it all his life. Again, if you want to continue this conversation, read through legal literature and show me your point rather than basing it on things that you GOOGLE.

[sitsdownandgrabspopcornputshisfeetupandretractslaz yboy]
Posted via RS Mobile

Nice non-sequitur. I stated that we should not use the civil forfeiture laws in circumstances where there were no victims. I did not say that individuals should not be charged with speeding offences. There are already fines, penalty points, threat of losing your license. Those are sufficient penalties for infractions where there are no victims.

ONLY in BC are they written that way and that's the point I am trying to make, that it is an erosion of civil rights. In NB, there are protections built in to ensure the law is only meant to seize assets used in "ongoing criminal activity." timestranscript.com - Civil Forfeiture Act: Protection or breach of rights? | By Craig Babstock - Breaking News, New Brunswick, Canada
They specifically cite that drivers would not lose their vehicles for speeding.

At what point are people allowed to rack up these "severe traffic offences" and still keep their license? Once again, I do not think it is appropriate to use civil forfeiture when there are other remedies which are far more appropriate and do not erode our civil rights.

You need to step back from the emotional aspects of this particular case and consider what you consider to be your fundamental civil rights. The legislation was initially sold to be targeted toward criminals to ensure "crime doesn't pay." If you look at their first 2 year status report, this principle was featured prominently. http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/subjects/d...tureoffice.pdf

If you look at the chart on Pg 4, all the assets seized were from:
1) Investment fraud
2) Money Laundering
3) Drug activity

This follows the 2 philosophical principles of justice allowing asset seizures from private citizens: 1) Proceeds of crime 2) Compensation for victims.

Now that BC's AG Shirley Bond has EXPANDED the powers of the Civil Forfeiture Office, they are trampling on civil rights way beyond the scope of the original legislation..

All valid points but does not justify an erosion of civil rights since there are other remedies that can protect society from such offences.

Idiot. We're trying to argue the fairness of BC's civil forfeiture law, we're not trying to argue whether the law, based on how it's written, can be applied in this particular case. Based on how generally the law is written, it can be applied to first time drunk drivers, and speeders, so of course it can be applied in this case. I am arguing that it is a BAD law and should be repealed.