REVscene Automotive Forum - View Single Post

dangonay · 11-30-2010, 06:31 AM

^ If the government used the argument "you might have killed someone, therefore we're taking your car" then I'd agree with you.

But how do we know what portion of the law would have been used? As I already said, this thread is full of non-lawyers taking specific snippets of law and making assumptions about how the law would be applied. These guys never went to court, so making claims that the only reason they had their cars taken was because of something they "might" do or because they were "expensive" cars is pointless.

People always complain about the media only reporting specific facts of a story to make it more sensational or to twist the story. How is that any different from people in this thread arguing about specific clauses of law and expanding on those specific points to draw their own conclusions?

Marco. Come on, bringing up the Nazis and Jews? Stretching things a little, aren't we?

BTW, when you say "The potential return on investment", why do you make the assumption this means they will only go after the wealthy? When I think of return on investment I think of expenses vs income. Expenses being the time & money to go to court and the income being the return from assets. You are only talking about the income side of things, not the expenses. If the police have concrete evidence of someone doing something wrong, then they will go after them, even if the car is only worth $20K. I highly doubt that these guys would have lost their cars based on the poor testimony of a person walking up Cypress (their lawyers would have a field day with some lady trying to explain how she was able to calculate the vehicle speed). It was their bad luck an officer was there and witnessed first hand how they were driving. Therefore the expense side of the equation was small, making this a good return on investment.

11-30-2010, 06:31 AM	#300
dangonay Ready to be Man handled by RS! Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Burnaby Posts: 1,798 Thanked 1,502 Times in 506 Posts Failed 418 Times in 151 Posts	^ If the government used the argument "you might have killed someone, therefore we're taking your car" then I'd agree with you. But how do we know what portion of the law would have been used? As I already said, this thread is full of non-lawyers taking specific snippets of law and making assumptions about how the law would be applied. These guys never went to court, so making claims that the only reason they had their cars taken was because of something they "might" do or because they were "expensive" cars is pointless. People always complain about the media only reporting specific facts of a story to make it more sensational or to twist the story. How is that any different from people in this thread arguing about specific clauses of law and expanding on those specific points to draw their own conclusions? Marco. Come on, bringing up the Nazis and Jews? Stretching things a little, aren't we? BTW, when you say "The potential return on investment", why do you make the assumption this means they will only go after the wealthy? When I think of return on investment I think of expenses vs income. Expenses being the time & money to go to court and the income being the return from assets. You are only talking about the income side of things, not the expenses. If the police have concrete evidence of someone doing something wrong, then they will go after them, even if the car is only worth $20K. I highly doubt that these guys would have lost their cars based on the poor testimony of a person walking up Cypress (their lawyers would have a field day with some lady trying to explain how she was able to calculate the vehicle speed). It was their bad luck an officer was there and witnessed first hand how they were driving. Therefore the expense side of the equation was small, making this a good return on investment.