View Single Post
Old 11-30-2010, 09:33 PM   #309
Marco911
Marcosexual Fan Club, CEO
 
Marco911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: US Bush-country
Posts: 7,741
Thanked 823 Times in 284 Posts
Failed 236 Times in 113 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by zulutango View Post
They might have killed someone while racing. That's what the argument for seizure is focusing on, the fact that their actions were dangerous and might have hurt someone. Even though the truth was that no one was hurt in this situation. Other than the car owners.
That's what fines, driver point penalties, and license suspensions are for - they punish the offender. There is no reason to go after an asset in civil court, if the govt. cannot apply this across all cases.


Quote:
So if someone takes a gun and fires off a few shots that just miss hitting and killing someone, you must apply the same reasoning. If you had done so, the crown would seize your gun, so why the different opinion about cars?
I fail to see how the analogy fits since weapons are controlled by regulations and permits. Private citizens can't freely carry or discharge firearms in Canada. A more appropriate analogy would be to seize and sell the cars of anyone caught driving intoxicated - even first time offenders. Do you have a different opinion about this?
__________________
Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.

Last edited by Marco911; 11-30-2010 at 09:39 PM.
Marco911 is offline   Reply With Quote