Topic: $235,000 speeding ticket

[my2cents]

I don't think this has been posted yet.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/cars/Ferrari+impounded+forfeited+after+street+race/3877674/story.html

[Sival]

Racing (not just speeding) at 200 Km/h in a 60 Km/h zone... I'd say it's deserved. I've no sympathy, none at all, for the driver.

[Wolverine]

They had it coming for sure. They can do something stupid if they want, but don't put innocents at risk with their stupidity.

[dr_spock]

Probably cheaper to rent track time...

[rrocket]

Give him a speeding ticket...give him jail time.  But seizing their car and selling it off so the gov't can pocket the money?  Sounds like organized crime....

[JSCC]

Give him a speeding ticket...give him jail time.  But seizing their car and selling it off so the gov't can pocket the money?  Sounds like organized crime....

Better than crushing the vehicles. 

[EV Dan]

Give him a speeding ticket...give him jail time.  But seizing their car and selling it off so the gov't can pocket the money?  Sounds like organized crime....

It's a shame ... it happened in Canada. If we stop respecting peoples' rights to private property than sooner or later the government will be deciding for us what cars we should be driving, what homes we will own and how much we are allowed to have in the bank account before the money is seized and divided among the poor.
Charge them with attempted murder even, and let the lawyers sort it out, but have some respect for ppl who pay you taxes.

[mmret]

Agree that forfeiture of property is a dark, dark path.

More worrying though, is this:

Aside from the Ferrari and BMW, the province is also pursuing forfeiture of two Harley Davidsons captured on film by the Air 1 traffic helicopter as they allegedly reached speeds of up to 160 km/h along the Trans-Canada Highway before exiting on First Avenue in Vancouver. The RCMP seized the motorcycles from two full-patch Hells Angels who were allegedly racing on their way to the funeral of slain teen Laura Szendrei on Sept. 29.

160 on the Trans Canada and you're going to confiscate property? The RCMP is leading our charge towards third world banana republic status.

[rrocket]

Agree that forfeiture of property is a dark, dark path.

How much you want to bet if it was a 1993 Mustang GT they wouldn't be selling it off......

[mmret]

Agree that forfeiture of property is a dark, dark path.

How much you want to bet if it was a 1993 Mustang GT they wouldn't be selling it off......

I dont get it?

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Cry me a river.

Their property wouldn't be seized if they weren't racing. Ferrari owners can surely afford proper legal representation, can they not?

It's a bizarre world when taking away someone's freedom is seen as more acceptable than taking away mere property.

Personally, I think fines should be a set percentage of gross income. Then everyone feels the pain equally.

[mmret]

Cry me a river.

Their property wouldn't be seized if they weren't racing. Ferrari owners can surely afford proper legal representation, can they not?

It's a bizarre world when taking away someone's freedom is seen as more acceptable than taking away mere property.

Personally, I think fines should be a set percentage of gross income. Then everyone feels the pain equally.

a few points

-There is no direct incentive to take away someone's freedom, because you can't reappropriate it to your own advantage (not easily anyhow). However there is a direct incentive to take someone's property: you can use it or sell it. So the motivation for abuse is far greater.

-Property rights are fundamental to a well functioning free market society. If it was not obtained through illicit means, you should be able to keep it. Perhaps there are certain sensible exceptions but I doubt this can be construed as one of them.

[ArticSteve]

The Ferrari will be sold to a local dealer for $235,000, with 50 per cent of the proceeds going to a relative of the driver who was part owner with the driver but was not involved in the incident. The province will receive 20 per cent and the driver 30 per cent. Coleman said some of the sale money has to go back to the owners because they have bank loans to cover..

What have bank loans got to do with forfeiture  

[Blue01]

Give him a speeding ticket...give him jail time.  But seizing their car and selling it off so the gov't can pocket the money?  Sounds like organized crime....

It's a shame ... it happened in Canada. If we stop respecting peoples' rights to private property than sooner or later the government will be deciding for us what cars we should be driving, what homes we will own and how much we are allowed to have in the bank account before the money is seized and divided among the poor.
Charge them with attempted murder even, and let the lawyers sort it out, but have some respect for ppl who pay you taxes.

Yeah, cry me a river too.  
If these guys maybe respected other peoples lives, then it wouldn't be a concern.  But does respecting private property take precedence over respecting lives?
What would the end cost have been if one of these cars had hit a pedestrian?  Oh, I guess that's not as important as protecting their private property.
These guys knew the law and they choose to ignore it.  Besides, the gov't only gets 20% of the sale of the Ferrari.
Police state?  Bull Crap!  That's just a feeble excuse at trying to  justify breaking the law.

As for seizing the Harleys from the HA boys, that is sweet.  Hit them where it really hurts, their bikes.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Cry me a river.

Their property wouldn't be seized if they weren't racing. Ferrari owners can surely afford proper legal representation, can they not?

It's a bizarre world when taking away someone's freedom is seen as more acceptable than taking away mere property.

Personally, I think fines should be a set percentage of gross income. Then everyone feels the pain equally.

a few points

-There is no direct incentive to take away someone's freedom, because you can't reappropriate it to your own advantage (not easily anyhow). However there is a direct incentive to take someone's property: you can use it or sell it. So the motivation for abuse is far greater.

-Property rights are fundamental to a well functioning free market society. If it was not obtained through illicit means, you should be able to keep it. Perhaps there are certain sensible exceptions but I doubt this can be construed as one of them.

The countries that do have property rights like the US (5th & 14th amendments), always stipulate something to the effect of "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law". By having that last bit stipulated, the state can still seize property. It is very likely that the BC law would pass constitutional muster in the US.

The US even with constitutional protection of property rights still has eminent domain legislation that allows governments to seize property as long as the owner is compensated whether they have given consent or not.

[johngenx]

These types of laws have led to draconian enforcement that increases the punishment dramatically, well past the real point of the offense.  Lose your house for smoking a joint?  That seems insane, but happens in jurisdictions where seizure laws have been allowed to expand.

True that 200 in a residential 60 zone deserves a severe punishment.  What about suspending their licenses for a long term with the immediate move to jail of they are caught driving?  Perhaps a combination of incarceration, fine and driving prohibition?

The comments about the state not having a vested interest in punishment is important.  This is what has led to the massive increases in the use of photo radar and red-light cameras.  They are nothing more than revenue generation.

Taking the car away serves no purpose to protecting the public.  Taking the DRIVER off the road does.  This is why I think highly dangerous behaviour deserves mandatory incarceration.  Drunk driving is a prime example.  Jail does not reform the criminal, but it does protect the innocents against repeat offenders.

[mmret]

Give him a speeding ticket...give him jail time.  But seizing their car and selling it off so the gov't can pocket the money?  Sounds like organized crime....

It's a shame ... it happened in Canada. If we stop respecting peoples' rights to private property than sooner or later the government will be deciding for us what cars we should be driving, what homes we will own and how much we are allowed to have in the bank account before the money is seized and divided among the poor.
Charge them with attempted murder even, and let the lawyers sort it out, but have some respect for ppl who pay you taxes.

Yeah, cry me a river too.  
If these guys maybe respected other peoples lives, then it wouldn't be a concern.  But does respecting private property take precedence over respecting lives?
What would the end cost have been if one of these cars had hit a pedestrian?  Oh, I guess that's not as important as protecting their private property.
These guys knew the law and they choose to ignore it.  Besides, the gov't only gets 20% of the sale of the Ferrari.
Police state?  Bull Crap!  That's just a feeble excuse at trying to  justify breaking the law.

As for seizing the Harleys from the HA boys, that is sweet.  Hit them where it really hurts, their bikes.

These guys are already going to jail and/or facing huge fines. The Ferrari guy's career is probably over.

Given that, is it really necessary to take the property and sell it? Is it justice, or is it just vengeance, greed, or a populist stunt to appease the public?

You make it sound like they're not being punished. Why stop at the cars? Why not take his house, confiscate his bank account, take over his share of the accounting firm, take custody of his children, etc.? After all, he knew the law and chose to ignore it.

The countries that do have property rights like the US (5th & 14th amendments), always stipulate something to the effect of "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law". By having that last bit stipulated, the state can still seize property. It is very likely that the BC law would pass constitutional muster in the US.

The US even with constitutional protection of property rights still has eminent domain legislation that allows governments to seize property as long as the owner is compensated whether they have given consent or not.

Same reply.

Do you really believe it is a good idea to confiscate and sell his car for this?

[rrocket]

Give him a speeding ticket...give him jail time.  But seizing their car and selling it off so the gov't can pocket the money?  Sounds like organized crime....

It's a shame ... it happened in Canada. If we stop respecting peoples' rights to private property than sooner or later the government will be deciding for us what cars we should be driving, what homes we will own and how much we are allowed to have in the bank account before the money is seized and divided among the poor.
Charge them with attempted murder even, and let the lawyers sort it out, but have some respect for ppl who pay you taxes.

Yeah, cry me a river too.  
If these guys maybe respected other peoples lives, then it wouldn't be a concern.  But does respecting private property take precedence over respecting lives?
What would the end cost have been if one of these cars had hit a pedestrian?  Oh, I guess that's not as important as protecting their private property.
These guys knew the law and they choose to ignore it.  Besides, the gov't only gets 20% of the sale of the Ferrari.
Police state?  Bull Crap!  That's just a feeble excuse at trying to  justify breaking the law.

As for seizing the Harleys from the HA boys, that is sweet.  Hit them where it really hurts, their bikes.

These guys are already going to jail and/or facing huge fines. The Ferrari guy's career is probably over.

Given that, is it really necessary to take the property and sell it? Is it justice, or is it just vengeance, greed, or a populist stunt to appease the public?

You make it sound like they're not being punished. Why stop at the cars? Why not take his house, confiscate his bank account, take over his share of the accounting firm, take custody of his children, etc.? After all, he knew the law and chose to ignore it.

My gripe is...why is the fine $225,000 for one guy, but maybe only $2000 for another guy?

[Sir Osis of Liver]

My gripe is...why is the fine $225,000 for one guy, but maybe only $2000 for another guy?

Giving a $225k fine to Bill Gates isn't going to hurt nearly as much as giving me a $2k fine.

[rrocket]

My gripe is...why is the fine $225,000 for one guy, but maybe only $2000 for another guy?

Giving a $225k fine to Bill Gates isn't going to hurt nearly as much as giving me a $2k fine.

But you're saying the crime is more severe if you drive a Ferrari than a Mustang.

Or you could break that law easily with almost any $1000 motorcycle...