Quote:
Originally Posted by zulutango
Also if you are going to quote somewhere atleast give the source, don't worry i found it for you:
http://drivesmartbc.ca/equipment/rad...-laser-jammers
I didn't reference the link you provided and was not even aware it existed. My "quote" was from 28 years of traffic enforcement experience, which included a CC obstruction conviction for using a jammer.
Laser jammers do not obstruct, they simply delay the reading until the operator turns the jammer off, I hardly find 2 seconds delay an “obstruction of justice” the officer will not get a JAM code, not unless they use Laser Atlanta, and those guns will shows JAM for many reasons, if you ever worked with laser guns before, you’ll know those laser guns will show “JAM” because of sunlight hitting the gun, car being too far away, and if the vehicle is not reflective. All modern guns do not show JAM, they simply don’t show a speed.
Nice to know that you also are trained in the operation of Police Laser. This entire quote is not true in my training and experience....eg. sunlight does not show a "jam"....and I have "worked with laser guns"... BTW, trained operators do not call them "laser guns"
|
You took the above out of my quote when I was speaking directly to Tarobbt. So that was not direct at you when I said a source should have been provided. I know full and well that you speak from your own experience and I respect that.
On the note of that quote; it was from someone at the link, I did not validify what he was saying nor am I trained in the use of Lidar. I simply agreed with his general premise that jammers are simply a countermeasure against radar they are not obstructing the officer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spidey
Under the CCC, laser jammers are illegal, as it meets the elements of the offence for Obstruction.
BC may not specifically have a law or section under the MVA regarding jammers, but it does not make it "legal". A lot of provincial and city bylaws do not cover the same offences as the CCC. For example, Richmond does not have a blyaw against fighting in public, but fighting in public is an offence, Cause Disturbance, under the Criminal Code. Just because Richmond does not have a bylaw stating fighting in public is illegal, does not make it legal. That is not how it works.
Unless there is a statute in place in BC that specifically states laser jammers ARE LEGAL, it doesn't make it legal because there's no Provincial statute saying they are illegal.
My question for drivers who own jammers are; How often are you deliberately driving WELL OVER the speed limit, to have to own one of these? You will rarely ever get a ticket for going 10-15 over the speed limit, unless you were in a school zone.
|
Nice try but no, show me where jammers are illegal in the CCC. Lets take this one fucking step at a time:
Ignoring their use, obstruction of justice, or all that other bullshit, IT IS 100% LEGAL TO OWN, DISTRIBUTE, AND HAVE INSTALLED ON YOUR CIVILLIAN VEHICLE A RADAR JAMMER.
I can show you exactly where it says it is ILLEGAL, for a commercial vehicle to have these types of devices, but in that very section (or any other section) it makes no mention of legality in regular civillian vehicles. Wouldn't you say that our brilliant law makers would have included ALL vehicles if that was their intention?
Also this thread has nothing to do with my driving habits, or if and when I need a radar jammer. A simple legal question was asked, so lets stick to that. If you would like to talk about speeding, we can take it back to any number of the other threads which digressed into that topic, where everyone eventually reached a stalemate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarobbt
Woah we got a badass in here.
@meme405
Let me guess, law student?  |
No, I am just a lowly welder, millwright and engineer, but that has no bearing on this thread, also I am not being a badass, I am simply digging into the facts, facts which you have no understanding of apparently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarobbt
Are you volunteering? I would love to see you pick up a jammer and test it out since you seem to have the 'I'm 110% correct' stance. Heck, I would love to see you build a pointless case just to go up to a judge and claim that 2 seconds is not enough to obstruct justice. 
The judges in these cases have already sided with authority. Why? This is to protect the safety of the public and their interests in terms of speeding Just because you know how to question something in context doesn't mean shit. Remember DUI laws that was ruled unconstitutional?
A laser jammer is also not 100% guaranteed to get your ass out of trouble. Even if a lidar unit does not get a reading due to being jammed, a knowledgeable officer in this situation could easily pull you over in search of evidence. This is pretty much a guilty conviction in itself. |
So its not 100%, then why the hell should it even matter?
And no once again having a radar jammer is NOT something thats worthy of conviction. That makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarobbt
Just because it hasn't been outlawed by big brother does not make it legal. Until it becomes a common occurrence, the law in context isn't changing because it is a waste of time. Even though judges have already handed out guilty convictions.
I don't know what's worse, trying to prove your point that with no regards to the reality of the situation or the fact that speeders use laser jammers just so they can speed.
|
What? I don't even understand what point your getting at.
Lets get to the root of this:
1. There was a specific law drafted that made jammers Illegal in commercial vehicles. In this same law they make no mention of civilian vehicles, so by design law makers allowed civilians the right to use jammers in their vehicles. My point everytime I say this is because they could have easily just said "ALL VEHICLES" or banned the use outright, but they didn't instead they specifically only did so for their use in commercial vehicles. So clearly at some point a group of individuals sat down and examined the issue and decided normal people are well within their rights to use this type of equipment withing their day-to-day life.
2. You say I am obstructing the officers ability to do his job, I say that I am simply using a tool at my disposal to protect myself and the occupants of my vehicle. A tool which apparently Law makers felt was perfectly fine for civilians to use.