: Be careful the next time you are speeding



JimmyH
06-19-07, 02:37 PM
Gonna make me think twice the next time I drop the hammer:

http://www.nbc5.com/news/13526593/detail.html

weister42
06-19-07, 02:51 PM
Well he was going 127mph in a 35mph zone so...but why would they confiscate a Viper then turn it into a DARE(Drug Abuse Resistance Education) car? Do they serve in the normal police force or just on special occasions?

EcSTSatic
06-19-07, 02:57 PM
Well that's just plain stupid! He should have his car taken away. Driving is a privelige, not a right!

gary88
06-19-07, 02:59 PM
Haha that's like 15 minutes away from me. If I didn't work tonight I would go check it out. Always nice cars at that show, there was an Enzo last year.

The police in my town have a DARE trans-am they confiscated from a drug dealer. That makes more sense than a viper they got from a non drug abusing speeder.

JimmyH
06-19-07, 03:58 PM
If I wasnt almost in Wisconsin, I would go, but Plainfield is just too far to go during the week

Florian
06-19-07, 04:03 PM
No biggie, Bloomfield Hills, MI uses an 06 Z06 and a 06V for their cop cars....courtesy of heavy footed drivers.


F

Spyder
06-19-07, 04:06 PM
Huh...I don't know that I agree with taking his car. How do they justify that?

Night Wolf
06-19-07, 04:18 PM
I agree.... no drug crime... he was speeding, yes... so take his license away or something.... but to take something he owns? I dunno....

Spyder
06-19-07, 04:32 PM
Yea, for speeding that's a little invasive. If the car was gained by illegal means, then I'd say yes, without a doubt. But if the car was legally purchased with legally earned funds, there is no WAY that it should be able to be taken away.

CIWS
06-19-07, 04:41 PM
"The driver was eventually charged with felony fleeing and eluding police"

He apparently didn't just speed 100mph over the speed limit. Much less that kind of speed in a 35mph zone.

Spyder
06-19-07, 05:20 PM
That still doesn't mean that anyone has a right to steal his legally earned property, government or not.

CIWS
06-19-07, 05:45 PM
They do if it's the law. :thumbsup:

You may not agree with it, but it doesn't change the fact. I believe it's California where they have the right to confiscate your car if you're caught street racing. No matter how much it costs or you owe. It's supposed to serve as a deterrence. One hell of a fine.

Spyder
06-19-07, 05:52 PM
Just because the government says its ok doesn't make it legal. It's still downright out and out theft. Larceny. Would you take someones house if they were caught cheating on an inspection? No. Fine 'em, send 'em to jail if its a big deal, but you wouldn't take it away and leave them homeless.

It's BS.

Now, doing that in a 35 zone, he obviously didn't think at all. He should be punished. Severely. I know many of us on this forum, if not MOST of us on this forum, have driven our cadillacs or other vehicles well in excess of a hundred miles an hour. Most of those that admit to it, however, admit that they did it in an area where there was nothing for them to damage and no one for them to hurt but themselves. That's different, a little.

But taking someones $70,000 vehicle because they were speeding? That's outright theft and illegal, whether the "law" says its ok or not. Laws have been found illegally written and illegally practiced before. This one should be the same.

Night Wolf
06-19-07, 05:57 PM
Well, I know in FL they could take your car if you were street racing too....

and I heard something along the lines that if you broke 2 laws at the same time while the cops are trying to pull you over... like speeding and not using a turn signal to change lanes... then they can take your car.

I agree it was stupid, 35mph zones are usually school or residental. it dosn't seem like he really tried that hard to run from the cops, who knows.. they always try to tack on extra....

Still tho... I don't think its right to take his car.

AlBundy
06-19-07, 06:02 PM
That's total BS. There are other ways to deal with things like this other than taking someone's car away. Put a limiter on his car of 55mph and have him check in every week or so to show he didn't screw around with it or something. Imagine having a Viper that couldn't go pass 55mph.

Rolex
06-19-07, 07:47 PM
http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/icon_smile_blackeye.gif (javascript:insertText('[B)]');) Sux to be this guy. Reckless driving, felony fleeing and eluding came with a sharp penalty. :eek: It's hard to know how to feel about this one. On the one hand I agree with Spyder. ON the other hand if this guy was driving 100 over and eluding in my neighborhood, putting my child in danger, I'd be out for blood. :mad:

JimmyH
06-19-07, 08:42 PM
He was convicted of a felony, by a jury of his peers presumably. Had he just pulled over when the cop came after him, he would still have his mopar and could work on the next ticket.

I said mopar, Spyder:Poke: :D

JimmyH
06-19-07, 08:48 PM
I know many of us on this forum, if not MOST of us on this forum, have driven our cadillacs or other vehicles well in excess of a hundred miles an hour.


Where's Whistler? :burn:

RightTurn
06-19-07, 08:51 PM
Where's Whistler? :burn:

He's driving his "date" back to Lost Wages. :lol:

CIWS
06-19-07, 09:03 PM
Just because the government says its ok doesn't make it legal.

If it's the law, that makes it legal. Sorry you don't agree. They cannot convict and prosecute him on a whim or wish. There has to be a law.



I know many of us on this forum, if not MOST of us on this forum, have driven our cadillacs or other vehicles well in excess of a hundred miles an hour.

On the highway, yes. In a 35 mph zone, no fracking way. Most 35s are in residential or business areas that have a large pedestrian and/or vehicle traffic. Much less kids at play.


But taking someones $70,000 vehicle because they were speeding? That's outright theft and illegal, whether the "law" says its ok or not. Laws have been found illegally written and illegally practiced before. This one should be the same.

He wasn't convicted of just "speeding" But then we covered that and you didn't care. The truth is you just don't feel it's right to have the car taken away under any circumstances. So instead we'll convict him of a felony and put him in jail for several years. Then we'll see how he's not able to make his car payments in prison and it gets taken away from him by the bank.

JimmyH
06-19-07, 09:18 PM
Take it easy fellas, I hadnt intended a philosophical debate here; we dont want this to turn into:gun2: :gun2: :peeking: :brutal: :brutal:

Tommy Deville
06-19-07, 09:24 PM
I'm not sure if this was a done deal or not, but with a good lawyer he should get out of the car confiscation, Thats juts BS pure & simple, & what usually happens in these cases is that who ever has the Lein on the Car will not allow the offender out of the lease or payment agreement & will not surrender the tittle clearance to the agency trying to take the car away, I' have seen this happen I know for a fact that The Lein Holder will @ its own expense send there attorney to fight alongside your attorney in court to help retrive the banks/your property.
Somthing similar happened to a friend of mine in NY when he was nailed on A DUI. He got the car back, it took 8 months & alot of money, but its still crap. As far as elluding the Cops during a chase goes if he was doing 130MPH it probaly took the Cop a little bit of time to catch up to him & pull him over, Im betting The cop is alledging the time it took him to Slow down & come to a complete stop as Elluding, I would love to see the Dash cam tape of this "hot pursuit".
In Addition if this Cop was cocky enough to tell this guy thanks for the car when he dropped him off at lockup than that was unprofessional & he should be repriemanded. I myself woul have slaped him around if he had the balls to take the cuffs off of me, Screw it, the guy was already getting railroaded might as well go down swinging.

:rant2: :want:

CIWS
06-19-07, 09:35 PM
Take it easy fellas, I hadnt intended a philosophical debate here; we dont want this to turn into:gun2: :gun2: :peeking: :brutal: :brutal:

Why not, several of us have plenty of firepower :D

JC316
06-19-07, 09:36 PM
What a crock of shit. I don't care what the crime is, the police have no right to steal property. But that falls into the same category of being caught with large amounts of cash, they will confinscate it on "Drug" charges and you never see it again.

EcSTSatic
06-19-07, 10:27 PM
Consider it payment for court costs, fines and police involvement. In other words, other taxpayers' money.:rant2:

Spyder
06-19-07, 11:20 PM
If it's the law, that makes it legal. Sorry you don't agree. They cannot convict and prosecute him on a whim or wish. There has to be a law.




On the highway, yes. In a 35 mph zone, no fracking way. Most 35s are in residential or business areas that have a large pedestrian and/or vehicle traffic. Much less kids at play.



He wasn't convicted of just "speeding" But then we covered that and you didn't care. The truth is you just don't feel it's right to have the car taken away under any circumstances. So instead we'll convict him of a felony and put him in jail for several years. Then we'll see how he's not able to make his car payments in prison and it gets taken away from him by the bank.

Many many many many MANY "laws" have been found unconsitutional and illegal. Just because its on paper doesn't make it legal! I don't know of any other way to make this clear. It is ENTIRELY possible to have "illegal laws" on the books.

On the highway, yes. That's exactly what I said. We've done it in much safer places. I also said it was entirely wrong of him to do it where he did and that he should be HEAVILY penalized. Stealing his car is not penalizing, it is stealing.

I do care that he was convicted of more than just speeding. And I do care that he is being and SHOULD be punished for other acts which he committed. The "punishment" of stealing his car is NOT the way to go about it. That only makes the department and the DA criminals themselves. I don't understand how this isn't clear. If you play your stereo too loud does that give local jurisdiction the right to take it away? If you wear a shirt with an offensive slogan should it be stolen from you by someone who doesn't like it? Ridiculous, yes. I agree. No different, though, than having any other legally owned and purchased possession taken from anyone for breaking a law. It is an unfair, unjust and illegal punishment. Jail him so he can't work and can't make the payments. I'm fine with that. Flat out taking it away? No. It's theft of personal property.

Jonas McFeely
06-20-07, 08:27 AM
I'm not sure if this was a done deal or not, but with a good lawyer he should get out of the car confiscation, Thats juts BS pure & simple, & what usually happens in these cases is that who ever has the Lein on the Car will not allow the offender out of the lease or payment agreement & will not surrender the tittle clearance to the agency trying to take the car away, I' have seen this happen I know for a fact that The Lein Holder will @ its own expense send there attorney to fight alongside your attorney in court to help retrive the banks/your property.
Somthing similar happened to a friend of mine in NY when he was nailed on A DUI. He got the car back, it took 8 months & alot of money, but its still crap. As far as elluding the Cops during a chase goes if he was doing 130MPH it probaly took the Cop a little bit of time to catch up to him & pull him over, Im betting The cop is alledging the time it took him to Slow down & come to a complete stop as Elluding, I would love to see the Dash cam tape of this "hot pursuit".
In Addition if this Cop was cocky enough to tell this guy thanks for the car when he dropped him off at lockup than that was unprofessional & he should be repriemanded. I myself woul have slaped him around if he had the balls to take the cuffs off of me, Screw it, the guy was already getting railroaded might as well go down swinging.

:rant2: :want:


Agree 100%.



Many many many many MANY "laws" have been found unconsitutional and illegal. Just because its on paper doesn't make it legal! I don't know of any other way to make this clear. It is ENTIRELY possible to have "illegal laws" on the books.

On the highway, yes. That's exactly what I said. We've done it in much safer places. I also said it was entirely wrong of him to do it where he did and that he should be HEAVILY penalized. Stealing his car is not penalizing, it is stealing.

I do care that he was convicted of more than just speeding. And I do care that he is being and SHOULD be punished for other acts which he committed. The "punishment" of stealing his car is NOT the way to go about it. That only makes the department and the DA criminals themselves. I don't understand how this isn't clear. If you play your stereo too loud does that give local jurisdiction the right to take it away? If you wear a shirt with an offensive slogan should it be stolen from you by someone who doesn't like it? Ridiculous, yes. I agree. No different, though, than having any other legally owned and purchased possession taken from anyone for breaking a law. It is an unfair, unjust and illegal punishment. Jail him so he can't work and can't make the payments. I'm fine with that. Flat out taking it away? No. It's theft of personal property.


Also agree 100%

What they did was theft. Yeah he was wreckless,yeah he should be punished severely,but taking his car is theft any way you look at it.

And using it for something as clown-shoes as the DARE program? Dont get me started on that complete failure and waste of tax-payers money. I had the DARE crap shoved down my throat my whole childhood.Believe me it doesnt work.Dont take my word for it, Google "DARE program failure"

CIWS
06-20-07, 08:30 AM
Many many many many MANY "laws" have been found unconsitutional and illegal. Just because its on paper doesn't make it legal! I don't know of any other way to make this clear. It is ENTIRELY possible to have "illegal laws" on the books.

If the law is on the books, it's not illegal. It may be found unconstitutional if appealed, or recended. But until it is, it's a legal law. The courts can not enforce illegal laws, only legal ones. But a higher court can overturn a ruling via an appeal.


I don't understand how this isn't clear

You're telling me.


No different, though, than having any other legally owned and purchased possession taken from anyone for breaking a law. It is an unfair, unjust and illegal punishment. Jail him so he can't work and can't make the payments. I'm fine with that. Flat out taking it away? No. It's theft of personal property.

So you don't agree with the laws in most states that say if you're convicted of dealing drugs, any drug that earns a "dealing" conviction that the law can confiscate your home, cars, bank accounts, and anything else they deem might have been purchased with drug money ?

Spyder
06-20-07, 11:43 AM
You missed my wording, entirely. LEGALLY OWNED AND PURCHASED through LEGAL MEANS. That is NOT drug money as that would be ILLEGALY purchased with ILLEGALLY obtained funds.

This whole time I've been assuming that the car was bought through legal means. I've stated that many times. Legal means. Meaning a legit job. Meaning no drug dealing.

I have also stated that IF it was purchased through money obtained from drug dealing, I have no problem, at all, with the confiscation. Don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.

And no, you're flat out wrong. Laws CAN be deemed illegal. That's what unconstitutional IS. When a law is found unconstitutional, it is an ILLEGAL LAW.

Our individual definitions of legal and unconstitutional may be the problem here. Unconstitutional is illegal. Plain and simple. An unconstitutional search and seizure is an illegal search and seizure. An unconstitutional arrest is an illegal arrest. The terms are interchangeable.

Thesaurus.com Unconstitutional: illegal, illegitimate, unauthorized.

Roget's College Thesaurus: Unconstitutional: adj. Illegal, unfair, unjust, against one's rights; un-American. See Illegality.


The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence says the following in regard to constitutionality:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

Sooooo, if the law is void, the taking of the car is THEFT.

Silver Dollar
06-20-07, 11:55 AM
No biggie, Bloomfield Hills, MI uses an 06 Z06 and a 06V for their cop cars....courtesy of heavy footed drivers.

F

Looks like they have more than one F........

http://www.z06-corvette.com/Z06-Corvette-Police-1.jpg

http://media.knuttz.net/0702/police_vehicles/police_vehicles_011.jpg

http://media.knuttz.net/0702/police_vehicles/police_vehicles_013.jpg

Silver Dollar
06-20-07, 12:01 PM
By the way, go as fast as you want in Souix Falls................

advertisement deleted ~ NO HOT LINKING! ;)

Spyder
06-20-07, 12:04 PM
Yer pictures don't work! And I wanna see 'em! :)

JimmyH
06-20-07, 12:41 PM
Ok, I give up, duke it out boys....

By the way, I want to be a cop in Bloomfield Hills MI

JimmyH
06-20-07, 12:42 PM
Yer pictures don't work! And I wanna see 'em! :)

Silver Dollar is slipping...:thepan:

dkozloski
06-20-07, 01:34 PM
The dame that backed into me had no liability insurance. She had a DUI conviction and was supposed to have S.R.22 assigned risk pool coverage. Her vehicle was forfeited and she is doing jail time. It's the only way to get the idiot's attention.

AlBundy
06-20-07, 01:37 PM
He has to do better if he's gonna be a Gold Dollar.:histeric:

Silver Dollar
06-20-07, 02:48 PM
I can see the pics.

JimmyH
06-20-07, 04:19 PM
I can see the pics.


advertisement deleted ~ NO HOT LINKING! ;)

tyvm

CIWS
06-20-07, 05:33 PM
You missed my wording, entirely. LEGALLY OWNED AND PURCHASED through LEGAL MEANS. That is NOT drug money as that would be ILLEGALY purchased with ILLEGALLY obtained funds.

If I buy a house, pay for it. Then decide I want to start growing pot in it, in quantities that exceed personal use and then I get raided and they take my house, what's that ? The house was purchased with funds that I earned before I started growing, but that doesn't change the fact I will lose my property. They feel that's the concequences for me making the choice to grow a lot of pot. The law doesn't provide for me any means to justifiy at which point any of my property was obtained. The same with something like a Viper. I could have bought it before I start "dealing", but that won't save it after the fact.



Don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.

I didn't, you misuderstood the point of the post about the law being able to confiscate property for a crime such as "dealing". As posted above even if that property was obtained before any criminal activity took place, you still lose it.


And no, you're flat out wrong. Laws CAN be deemed illegal. That's what unconstitutional IS. When a law is found unconstitutional, it is an ILLEGAL LAW.

No you are not clearly understanding what's being posted. Of course a law can be found to be unconstitutional or recended. BUT until it is, it's legal.

Get it ?


Our individual definitions of legal and unconstitutional may be the problem here.

Hmm could be. For me a legal law is one that is on the books and can be enforced by the courts, as in the case of the law originally stated in this thread.
A law that is unconstitutional, and there by becomes illegal and unenforceable by the courts is one that has been so judged by a higher court and removed from the books, making it to where a court cannot enforce it. Until that determination has been made, the law is enforceable and therefore legal, whether an individual or group may not care for it or think it's not right. i.e The Patriot Act.


Sooooo, if the law is void, the taking of the car is THEFT.

If the law is void, which this one so far has not been determined to be, then a court can not enforce that law because it does not exist in criminal statutes. There would be no confiscating of the vehicle, or theft as you call it, because there would not be a law on the books to allow it.
But in this case there is, and unless I missed it in that article, so far a higher court has not deemed the action and said criminal statute unconstitutional. Can you point out and quote where it was ?

CIWS
06-20-07, 05:34 PM
Ok, I give up, duke it out boys....

By the way, I want to be a cop in Bloomfield Hills MI

We are by no means "duking it out". Spyder and I are simply having a discussion. One in which we may not agree on certain issues, but who ever said everyone has to agree on everything. :)

dkozloski
06-20-07, 06:05 PM
In many jurisdictions you can forfeit your car for multiple drunk driving offenses or lack of proof of financial responsibility after an accident. If you loan your car to someone who gets stopped for possession of drugs it can be forfeit and you have no recourse except to the guy you loaned it to. People do all kinds of stupid things and then refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. The only way to get their attention is to set them afoot. A lot of this stuff is done administrateively in Alaska under implied consent. Putting your signature on your application and license implies that you agree to abide by the rules or suffer the agreed on consequences. Ignorance is no defense. Jailhouse lawyers love to spout constitutional law until they are shown their signature on the dotted line. Try telling the bail bondsman that he can't clap you in irons and drag you clear across the U.S. to stand trial after you sign the bail contract. It's the same principle. Driving a car is a privilege and not a right. You agreed to follow the rules. It's a big shock when they don't cave in like your parents did when you squealed.

JimmyH
06-20-07, 07:01 PM
We are by no means "duking it out". Spyder and I are simply having a discussion. One in which we may not agree on certain issues, but who ever said everyone has to agree on everything. :)

I was just being facetious :bouncy:

JimmyH
06-20-07, 07:02 PM
In many jurisdictions you can forfeit your car for multiple drunk driving offenses or lack of proof of financial responsibility after an accident. If you loan your car to someone who gets stopped for possession of drugs it can be forfeit and you have no recourse except to the guy you loaned it to. People do all kinds of stupid things and then refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. The only way to get their attention is to set them afoot. A lot of this stuff is done administrateively in Alaska under implied consent. Putting your signature on your application and license implies that you agree to abide by the rules or suffer the agreed on consequences. Ignorance is no defense. Jailhouse lawyers love to spout constitutional law until they are shown their signature on the dotted line. Try telling the bail bondsman that he can't clap you in irons and drag you clear across the U.S. to stand trial after you sign the bail contract. It's the same principle. Driving a car is a privilege and not a right. You agreed to follow the rules. It's a big shock when they don't cave in like your parents did when you squealed.



The guy just didnt have a good enough lawyer (probably spent all his money on the snake)

A good enough lawyer will get you out of just about anything, even this.

Red_October_7000
06-21-07, 12:41 AM
That's scary shit right there. But then again I completely disagree with RICO, emminent domain, and anything that lets the government sieze private property of any kind, for any reason, with the only exception being to return stolen goods to their rightful owner. I'd burn my posessions in a barrel before the government laid hands on them. Sooo. yeah. I'm a libertarian. Big surprise there :) Speeding is a bullshit crime to begin with, about 90% of speeding enforcement is simply for proffit of the government.

FL01SS
06-21-07, 09:32 AM
There are laws like this all over the U.S. Chances are the guy who got his Viper taken away had heard of the law before. I highly doubt he was the first person to get his car taken away in that state. And even if he was, that would mean the law was newly implemented and probably got a decent amount of news coverage. Anyways, my point is is that it is the law in this guys state and there's a good chance he'd heard of it. And even if he didn't know about it, it still doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to him. There's all sorts of laws on the books that people don't agree with, but ya know what, if you don't break them you don't have to worry about it. If this guy hadn't had been going over 100 mph in a 35 mph zone, then he never would have been in this situation to begin with. It sure set on hell of an example too. How many people do you think are speeding in that town lately???

I think of it like this... Would I want my car taken from me? Hell No! Do I completely agree with them taking his Viper? Not 100% But it was the law and he chose to break it. I would be glad they took his car if he was driving like that around here. There are lots of children around here, including my own, and if some A-hole went by here at 100+ I'd track him down and beat the snot out of him for putting the kids in the neighborhood at risk. He could have killed someone & he's lucky he didn't. I'm not against going fast, not at all, but 127 in a 35 is absurd. It's a hard lesson for the guy to learn, but it could have all easily been avoided.

AlBundy
06-21-07, 11:42 AM
A lot of law that deal with profit for the government are enforced through your home and your car. The government knows that everyone needs a place to live and most people want to get around in a private fashion. Its a privilege to drive but there's also a profit that goes along with that privilege. Where does the profit go? Cops here have a monthly quota of how many tickets to write or be reprimanded so how many cops out there are going to write bogus tickets. A lot of these laws are supposed to be for the protection of the general public and not for profit. If this was that cop speeding in that Viper its a 90% chance that this discussion wouldn't be happening. If the government is so greatly concerned about the speed limit, limit all cars to 55/65mph and lets see some lawyer/judge who's late for court complain about if he/she could only have gone faster. As far as the eluding charge that's BS. That cop knew it was going to take some time to catch up with that car.

dkozloski
06-21-07, 12:03 PM
I wonder what the source of these stories about ticket quotas is. Anywhere I've ever driven there are so many bad drivers on the road that the average cop could spend 100% of his time just writing up the odiots. Everybody coasts through stop signs. Everybody cheats the caution lights and a goodly percentage push clear into the red. Put this together with all the unsafe lane changes, no turn signals, burnt out lights and expired registrations and you soon quickly realize how rediculous these stories about quotas are. At least half the drivers have no liability insurance. This is such a strong indicator of stupidity that the largest share of the people responsible for the accidents are uninsured. After midnight at least 40% of the drivers on the road are impaired or up to no good. My guess is that the majority of the cops go out of their way to avoid writing tickets. If you get one you must be just like the prisoners in the jailhouse, you are among the most stupid of the stupid.

FL01SS
06-21-07, 01:50 PM
I'm in 100% agreeance with Koz on this one. Do you actually believe it would be hard for a cop to fill any sort of quota? I mean seriously! Have you looked around lately!?! Maybe it's because I've lived in highly populated metro areas for the last decade, but I see people breaking all sorts of laws constantly. If I had the power to write tickets, and wrote one for every violation I saw, it would take me at least a couple hours to drive the 10 miles home from work every night because I'd be pulling someone over every other block. Just the speeding and stoplight violations would be enough to meet any sort of monthly quota. I'm not saying that the quotas aren't a reality, but knowing how people drive these days, it's hard for me to believe that any cop in any city would have to write a bogus ticket just to fill a quota.


And people are so positive that the eluding charge was bogus. OK, where you there? Obviously not. So to say it's BS is in it's self BS. And it was obviously not made up either, or else this guy's lawyer would have gotten this guys Viper back for him pretty easily. There's lots to this story that we don't know, but if a judge was presented with sufficient evidence to show he was not eluding, then the charge would have been dropped. Are you forgetting about cameras too? Even the podunk Midwest town I grew up in has cameras in their cruisers. It would be rather easy to prove the charge one way or the other with a video of the entire incident.

It sucks for this guy that he lost his Viper, but it is his own fault! The bottom line is he never would have been in this situation to begin with if he wouldn't have been going 127 mph in a 35 mph zone!!! The cops would have never pulled him over, they wouldn't have had a reason to charge him with a "bogus" felony & he wouldn't have gotten his car taken away.

Playdrv4me
06-21-07, 04:03 PM
A law can not be "illegal" or it therefore would not be the "law" to begin with. Whether or not the law is right or wrong is for a different court to decide, until such time, that law stands, and anything which opposes said law is illegal.

However, there just are not sufficient facts to back this story up. My whole feeling about this situation is that the county very likely offered this fellow a deal to give up the car for the sake of a good cause and in return they would reduce or substantially eliminate the charges. Charges which could result in jail time or the loss of one's license. Lest we not forget this idiot was driving a 30k, once 70k car he may very well have bought new. Money probably was no issue for this dude (no one drives 127mph in a 35 and isnt ready to accept the reality of the charges he/she may face unless they are just plain drunk, which it doesnt say he was) and he may not really miss the car much at all versus whatever he might have been facing otherwise.

I also pretty much agree about quotas... most cops I see on the road are actually pretty tolerant to alot of stuff. I hate them as much as anyone else when I DO get caught, but to this day I have never been pulled over for 49 in a 40, or 79 in a 70mph zone. Easy tickets if they really had a quota.

JCM1
06-21-07, 04:15 PM
I'm almost sorry I found this post. Very stupid for driving over 100MPH in a 35MPH however, the no law enforcment agency of any kind has any business seizing property that was not aquired by ill gotten gains. I am a HUGE property rights advocate and this case definatly turned my blood hot. I suppose it is no surprise considering how individual rights are being turned into floor mats these days. Give the offender a big fine, and yes, he deservises it. But to blatently seize property for a non drug, murder, sexual related offense, I think not. Someone takes what I worked hard for I will go down fighting with guns blazing.

Playdrv4me
06-21-07, 04:30 PM
I'm almost sorry I found this post. Very stupid for driving over 100MPH in a 35MPH however, the no law enforcment agency of any kind has any business seizing property that was not aquired by ill gotten gains. I am a HUGE property rights advocate and this case definatly turned my blood hot. I suppose it is no surprise considering how individual rights are being turned into floor mats these days. Give the offender a big fine, and yes, he deservises it. But to blatently seize property for a non drug, murder, sexual related offense, I think not. Someone takes what I worked hard for I will go down fighting with guns blazing.

Again, I dont totally disagree with you, BUT we still dont have all the facts. For example, it was not for the COP to decide whether they were gonna take this idiot's car away.

Someone jumped on the cop for saying "Thanks for the car"... but in reality that doesnt mean a whole hell of a lot. The cop very well may have just been taking the car to be impounded and being a smartass.

Its after the vehicle was IMPOUNDED and charges were brought against this fellow that I am VERY curious to find out what transpired between him and the county. Something just isnt straight here, and to have gone as far as spending the dough to get the vehicle covered in vinyl decals illustrates the county was pretty damn sure they are gonna keep that car.

Remember the drive-by media loves to give you just enough of the juicy details to grab your attention, often excluding (purposely or by sheer stupidity) substantive detail.

JCM1
06-21-07, 04:36 PM
Yes, I suppose that is true. As suggested, it might have been a settlement offer due to the felony charge. If that is the case then certainly that is different, that was the choice of the owner. Simple government seizure of property unless in a situation of ill gotten gains is totally out of line. I would be interested to know if additional information about this case will be released.

AlBundy
06-21-07, 05:33 PM
Still looking for Chicago's quota info or should I call it performance expectation.http://ezinearticles.com/?id=47204
Ohh and I should have known the "you weren't there card was going to be pulled".

Playdrv4me
06-21-07, 06:12 PM
Still looking for Chicago's quota info or should I call it performance expectation.http://ezinearticles.com/?id=47204
Ohh and I should have known the "you weren't there card was going to be pulled".

So it's not a valid point? :hmm:

AlBundy
06-21-07, 06:35 PM
:rockon: Yes it is.

FL01SS
06-22-07, 08:32 AM
What the heck is ezine articles? And why are they the authority on this?