ArcticCrusher Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 52 minutes ago, revrnd said: Take it up w/ Wynnebag. Mind you since it probably doesn't infringe on the rights of the LGBT community, she couldn't give a rip. Stick and stones break bones, but now names are somehow much worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puzzleboy Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 Like I said, many unconstitutional laws have been passed. Worse is the 3 month suspension for an over .080 and/or Impaired Driving charge. You've not been convicted of anything. 1 hour ago, ZRSledhead said: Stunting charge, burns my behind something fierce. Not the fact it exists (althought did we not already have charges for speeding or dangerous driving??), it's the fact you've had a sentence carried out upon you (seizure of vehicle and lic suspension) before you've even appeared before a judge. Further, if charges against you should be later dismissed, you've been suspended n out cost of tow, storage and likely taxi's to get around while yer wheels were impounded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boered Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 1 hour ago, ZRSledhead said: Stunting charge, burns my behind something fierce. Not the fact it exists (althought did we not already have charges for speeding or dangerous driving??), it's the fact you've had a sentence carried out upon you (seizure of vehicle and lic suspension) before you've even appeared before a judge. Further, if charges against you should be later dismissed, you've been suspended n out cost of tow, storage and likely taxi's to get around while yer wheels were impounded. You know they caught a pig charging people with that whom were not in fact going anywhere close to 50 over. This is exactly why people with an IQ of 105 have no business acting as judge and jury on the side of the road. It is utter bullshit we give this type of power to what are basically people with average intelligence at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puzzleboy Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 I whole-heartedly agree (but not on the IQ part - trust me, I've met intelligent cops, and dumb Engineers), but the cops did not give that power to themselves. Idiotic legislation pushed by fanatical groups did. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odot1 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Boered said: You know they caught a pig charging people with that whom were not in fact going anywhere close to 50 over. This is exactly why people with an IQ of 105 have no business acting as judge and jury on the side of the road. It is utter bullshit we give this type of power to what are basically people with average intelligence at best. Ahhh. the irrational fear of police returns!! I've missed you!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boered Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 1 hour ago, odot1 said: Ahhh. the irrational fear of police returns!! I've missed you!! Fear no, disgust, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poncho Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 Sounds like you two have been nailed with impaired charges before...you both are very angry....get over it...just open your wallets and pay out...... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boered Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Poncho said: Sounds like you two have been nailed with impaired charges before...you both are very angry....get over it...just open your wallets and pay out...... Not me. Not angry either, but certainly disgusted we have our rights violated when police are able to take punitive action when no charges are ever filed, as in the case with.05-.08 and also before any conviction in the case of the stunt driving laws and the impaired laws. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odot1 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Poncho said: Edited April 16, 2017 by odot1 Wrong quote 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odot1 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 7 hours ago, Boered said: Fear no, disgust, yes. Sounds / looks like you're afraid to me. All the typical signs. Name calling, lumping all into same categories. Hiding behind a keyboard. It's ok to admit you're afraid. It's similar to those who rant about homosexuality the most. There are groups and Dr's to help you. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odot1 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 5 hours ago, Boered said: Not me. Not angry either, but certainly disgusted we have our rights violated when police are able to take punitive action when no charges are ever filed, as in the case with.05-.08 and also before any conviction in the case of the stunt driving laws and the impaired laws. You do know that driving is not a constitutional right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRSledhead Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 To those that don't remember or not aware, push for this to become law was built on an outright lie / deception from the get go. (Queen's Park) Oak Ridges MPP Frank Klees tabled legislation today to shut down street racing. The Street Racing Bill, 2006 which received First Reading today will empower front line police officers to issue on-the-spot licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments to drivers they have reason to believe were involved in street racing. The Bill also bans the connection of after-market nitrous oxide fuel systems on all public streets and highways and provides for fines of up to $2000 and jail terms of up to 6 months for convictions. Klees has accused the McGuinty government of failing to act on legislation that he introduced in May of 2003 when he was transportation minister. That legislation was interrupted by the provincial election and was never reintroduced by the Liberals. Klees introduced the Private Member's Bill in memory of his constituents Rob and Lisa Manchester and in honour of their seven year old daughter Katie Marie Manchester who was orphaned when her parents were killed in an alleged street racing incident in Richmond Hill on May 27, 2006. "We can't legislate responsibility, but we can ensure that there are serious consequences for anyone who is willing to put innocent lives at risk. Street racing is a serious threat and our front line police officers need the authority to deal with this issue." said Klees during introduction of the Bill. "We can't bring back the lives of victims, but we can, and must send the message through our actions as legislators that street racing is illegal, dangerous and unacceptable in Ontario ". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRSledhead Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 (edited) Wanna see just how badly we are lied to and minipulated? A little girl had tragically just lost her parents but all we heard about was the two street racers, never a mention that her father was impaired and behind the wheel. Nope, not so much as a word. Emmotionally charged n pushed by constituants, the bill sailed through. Closing a chapter in a fatal high-speed car crash last year that orphaned an eight-year-old girl and became an overnight byword for the hazards of street racing, two young men who pleaded guilty to dangerous driving were spared prison terms yesterday and sentenced to house arrest, probation and long driving prohibitions. In fact, neither of the accused were street racing, Mr. Justice William Gorewich told a packed courtroom, citing an agreed statement of facts by prosecution and defence. "This is not a case of road rage and this is not a case of racing." Moreover, the judge stressed in his ruling that when Rob and Lisa Manchester died in May of last year as they drove down Yonge Street in Richmond Hill on the evening of their 17th wedding anniversary, Mr. Manchester had almost twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system - a fact that did not emerge until several weeks later. Judge Gorewich described the case as one of the toughest he has ever had to deal with during his 40 years at the bar. "No one involved will ever be the same," he said in sentencing 22-year-old Ruben Rodrigues of Maple and Marco Gasparro, 20, of Richmond Hill. "The actions of these two young men altered the lives of so many that the ripple effect is impossible to assess. ... Both accused will live with the consequences for the rest of their lives." So too will the Manchesters' daughter, Katie, now in the care of her aunt and uncle. The little girl moved spectators to tears last August when she delivered a heart-wrenching victim-impact statement and spoke of being "mad at the guys who killed my parents." Recently toughened federal and provincial laws have taken aim at racers, dozens of whom are said to have died in Ontario during the past decade. Provincial legislation that took effect last Sunday permits police to impound the car and suspend the licence of anyone charged with driving faster than 50 kilometres an hour above the speed limit. Those parameters seemed to fit this case - at first. Citing witnesses, York police said at the time that Mr. Rodrigues and Mr. Gasparro may have been travelling at up to 140 km/h when Mr. Rodrigues's car broadsided the Manchesters' vehicle as it made a left turn. A blizzard of subsequent news stories suggested the pair were racing each other, rather than merely driving too fast. But according to the agreed statement of facts, Mr. Rodrigues and Mr. Gasparro were travelling at a maximum speed of 112 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. Mr. Rodrigues was driving the car that struck the Manchesters and in May he pleaded guilty to two counts of dangerous driving causing death. His friend Mr. Gasparro, who was ahead of Mr. Rodrigues as the pair sped northward on Yonge Street but returned to the accident scene to await police, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving. Mr. and Ms. Manchester, aged 46 and 43 respectively, were heading south and attempting to turn left when their car was hit. Subsequent tests showed that Mr. Manchester had a blood alcohol reading of .143 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood; the legal threshold is .08 milligrams. Neither of the accused had any drugs or alcohol in their system at the time, neither had been in trouble with the law before, both have voiced remorse and both lead productive lives, the court heard yesterday. Assistant Crown attorney Doug Kasko had nonetheless sought provincial prison terms for both. Edited April 16, 2017 by ZRSledhead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRSledhead Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 11 hours ago, Boered said: You know they caught a pig charging people with that whom were not in fact going anywhere close to 50 over. This is exactly why people with an IQ of 105 have no business acting as judge and jury on the side of the road. It is utter bullshit we give this type of power to what are basically people with average intelligence at best. I find it disturbing the max an officer would have acted in such a manner. Does that make every police officer a scum bag? Of course it doesn't, grow up. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odot1 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ZRSledhead said: I find it disturbing the max an officer would have acted in such a manner. Does that make every police officer a scum bag? Of course it doesn't, grow up. I agree...he should be fired right away. We don't like bad cops any more than anyone else out there. There are bad examples in every profession, from garbage collectors to doctors... Edited April 16, 2017 by odot1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRSledhead Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 ^ Quoted for absolute truth. Said person just happened to be a police officer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddawg Posted April 16, 2017 Author Share Posted April 16, 2017 On 15/04/2017 at 6:45 AM, odot1 said: There is no actual number once you exceed the. 05 mark. Just shows a W or an F if you are above .08. If she blew a warn while truly only having 1 glass, she's either about 95lbs or it was one huge glass. She's 140ils....the ivy has those old small wine glass's, but she said the bartender filled it up! Question odot, if she had requested to be driven to the station to blow, is the officer legally forced to oblige? Also, the accuracy of those car breathalyzers must be questionable, no? Thanks, enjoy the riding season! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boered Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 3 hours ago, odot1 said: I agree...he should be fired right away. We don't like bad cops any more than anyone else out there. There are bad examples in every profession, from garbage collectors to doctors... the problem is he was not fired. Most of the time bad cops are protected by other cops...that is the real problem. You are a bad cop if you protect a bad cop. If one was to hold the statement to be true, then we have many many bad cops out there. If you guys fought hard to weed out bad ones people might respect you more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRSledhead Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 As appauld as they may be, those working along side him are powerless to see him either stay or go. You can guarantee no one is happy to see he's not gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boered Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 7 minutes ago, ZRSledhead said: As appauld as they may be, those working along side him are powerless to see him either stay or go. You can guarantee no one is happy to see he's not gone. I disagree. Most of them cover this type of shit up. If they all are on the up and up why is cops never ever report it when they see another cop physically abusing a person, instead they lose the video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odot1 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 42 minutes ago, yarddawg said: She's 140ils....the ivy has those old small wine glass's, but she said the bartender filled it up! Question odot, if she had requested to be driven to the station to blow, is the officer legally forced to oblige? Also, the accuracy of those car breathalyzers must be questionable, no? Thanks, enjoy the riding season! A full glass of wine with little to no food in her stomach could cause the warning for sure. As for requesting to attend the detachment.. no. To be honest, the roadsides are setup so they always favour the motorist. So the warn could potentially be even higher and a fail would be above .99 The accuracy is great. The technology has been around a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odot1 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 39 minutes ago, Boered said: the problem is he was not fired. Most of the time bad cops are protected by other cops...that is the real problem. You are a bad cop if you protect a bad cop. If one was to hold the statement to be true, then we have many many bad cops out there. If you guys fought hard to weed out bad ones people might respect you more. We do fight hard. Look at Leeds detachment and the four that were arrested and charged. I know of no one that would protect a corrupt cop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boered Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 8 minutes ago, odot1 said: We do fight hard. Look at Leeds detachment and the four that were arrested and charged. I know of no one that would protect a corrupt cop. Ya, cause we see them turning each other in all the time. When they are selling drugs I guess you have no choice, but when they are trampling rights you all turn a blind eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odot1 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Boered said: Ya, cause we see them turning each other in all the time. When they are selling drugs I guess you have no choice, but when they are trampling rights you all turn a blind eye. LOl!! Yes, exactly what we do. Consistently... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boered Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, odot1 said: LOl!! Yes, exactly what we do. Consistently... I do not buy it. Far far too much evidence to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.