Quote:
Originally Posted by dangonay
How do you know they won't go after every driver/vehicle who drives as aggressively as these guys? You're making a huge assumption that the government is only going to seize cars from wealthy people and ignore people who drive less expensive cars. Especially since this is the first case of its kind and there's no track record to go on. This is why your argument is flawed - you're arguing about what might happen, not what actually is happening.
|
False. The law has been amended since 2008 such that they can pursue forfeiture of cars used for "street racing." The fact that this is the first case of its kind tells me that they only go after cars that are worth seizing since I'm sure there have been others that have been charged with excessive speeding and street racing since the law came into effect. Don't take my word for it? Let's see what criteria the Director uses in deciding which assets to go after:
When deciding whether or not to initiate civil forfeiture proceedings,
the CFO assesses each referred file based on a set of principles:
• The protection of the public interest;
• Compliance with privacy and information-sharing laws;
• The nature of the alleged criminal or other unlawful activity;
•
The potential return on investment; and,
• The probability of a successful outcome.
As you can see, the penalties are not being applied evenly as they have a preference to go after those where they can achieve a "return on investment." Clearly this law is discriminatory if the government doesn't apply it evenly to all violators.
Quote:
|
Still, the fact is they settled. Which means they don't give a damn about civil rights or standing up for what they believe in. They made a decision that cost them the least amount of money, which means they only think about themselves. You want to support someone like this who had a chance to challenge a law that's unjust and simply took it up the ass 'cuz that was the least painful route for them?
|
Whether people fight or settle is a personal decision. This has no bearing on the argument on whether this law violates the principles of civil rights and charter rights. You have thus far argued that you are ok with the law because the offenders in question "deserved" the punishment. That's the type of logic and thinking that allowed German citizens to rationalize Nazi behavior when laws were put into place to strip Jews of their assets. No citizen living in a free society should take an infringement on their rights by the government lightly.