Canadian street racers, $2MILL in impounded cars

Jim Goose · 04-09-2011, 10:07 AM

This just proves that stupidity knows no bounds... just because your rich doesnt automatically mean you have brains.

Note the age of the drivers... all under 21.
And the cars...
Spoilt little rich kids anyone?

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/02...n-street-race/

Quote:

This could be the plot for a movie, "Fast and Furious Canada," or maybe "Fast and Furious, the Young and the Rich."

Police in British Columbia say they impounded $2 million worth of high-end vehicles this week after witnesses reported the 13 cars racing on a metro Vancouver highway at speeds of 125 mph (200 kph).

The high-end race cars included a Ferrari, Lamborghinis, Maseratis, an Audi, an Aston Martin, Nissans and a Mercedes, according to a Royal Canadian Mounted Police press release.

Two of the racers would run side-by-side to block other traffic going in their direction on the highway while the others cars would take off in a race, witnesses told the RCMP.

"These drivers seemed to be looking for attention. Well, they definitely got the attention of police," Cpl. Holly Marks, spokesperson for the Lower Mainland District Regional Police Service, said in the press release.

What the racers, who police said are all under age 21, won't get is harsh punishment.

"Each driver will be charged with Driving without Reasonable Consideration and receive a violation ticket with a specified penalty of $196. Additionally, these drivers will be responsible for all associated towing and storage charges," according to the RCMP press release.

That's because police didn't actually catch them in the act and acted only on witness accounts. They weren't caught on radar, video or seen by a police officer, Superintendent Norm Gaumont, RCMP officer in charge of traffic enforcement for the Lower Mainland, told the Surrey Now newspaper.

"I know there's a lot of disappointment, wondering why we only charged them with an offence of $196. They fact of the matter is, we have to look at all the evidence we have and what we're able to prove," Surrey Now quoted Gaumont as saying. "That's why we've charged them with driving without due consideration for the public."

If police were able to charge the 13 drivers with more severe offenses, they could have faced forfeiture of their vehicles, according to a Vancouver Sun report.

The RCMP said most of the drivers were operating their vehicles on "N" class licenses, which means they had not yet attained full driving privileges. Only one of the drivers was the registered owner of the car they were driving, Gaumont told Surrey Now.

The drivers included 12 men and one woman, according to Surrey Now. Gaumont told the paper they were on their way to have a meal when they decided to race.

According to the Sun, the vehicles were:

2007 Ferrari 599
2010 Lamborghini Gallardo
2010 Lamborghini Gallardo
2009 Lamborghini Gallardo
2009 Audi R8
2012 Nissan GT-R
2010 Nissan GT-R
2010 Nissan GT-R
2010 Maserati Turismo
2010 Maserati Turismo
2011 Mercedes SL63
2011 Mercedes SLS
2005 Aston Martin DB9

tex · 04-09-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

That's because police didn't actually catch them in the act and acted only on witness accounts. They weren't caught on radar, video or seen by a police officer, Superintendent Norm Gaumont, RCMP officer in charge of traffic enforcement for the Lower Mainland, told the Surrey Now newspaper.

And where do they pluck 200kmh from, some witness' a@rse. Spose it's a nice round number.

So they can't actually prove anything, have zero evidence - but still impound personal property and issue fines.

And that's a good thing?

Slippery slope.

Jim Goose · 04-09-2011, 10:23 AM

If there is a lot of witnesses who came forward and willing to testify that they were all overtaken by cars at high speed..... and I daresay there was.

Not to mention they were doing rolling blockages...

tex · 04-09-2011, 10:45 AM

I don't for a moment condone dangerous use of motorvehicles in an inappropriate setting.

What worries me, is the response to complaints, complaints unsubstantiated by ANY evidence what-so-ever. None.

And to throw around estimates of the speeds attained. That's just silly.

Witnesses said the cars were going so fast, they could tell by the sound of their exhausts......???????????????? At least 200kmh, at least...........????

How many of those 'fast cars' just happened to be there at the time, possibly no connection to the racers? Wrong place, wrong time.

But I guess they were young and were driving a car with potential for racing, so they must have been racing, witnesses said so...... And well, they're young with apparently lots of money, so they deserve to lose the car for while in any case.........

Similar situation exists where I live, if complaints are made related to a particular vehicle, the registered owner can have his / her licence revoked at the discretion of the licence issuing authority. True. Unsubstantiated complaints, unproven, not even any proof that it was the registered owner driving the car! Sounds absurd, and flys in the face of the fundimentals of our legal system.

Like I said.

Slippery slope.

Jim Goose · 04-09-2011, 10:48 AM

You do realise the eyewitness testimony is considered evidence?

flappist · 04-09-2011, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

If there is a lot of witnesses who came forward and willing to testify that they were all overtaken by cars at high speed..... and I daresay there was.

Not to mention they were doing rolling blockages...

Yes but there is extreme danger here. How fast was the overtaker doing? What is hight speed? 100km/h is hugely fast to a 80km/h highway driver.

If they have no actual measured evidence then there can be no charges unless someone admits to it. The other path leads to chaos.

After all me and my buddies saw you do 175km/h in a school zone tomorrow, now prove you didn't.......

gtxb67 · 04-09-2011, 10:52 AM

aren't witness accounts taken into consideration with other crimes - traffic accidents, fights etc. where there is no real proof of who did what

tex · 04-09-2011, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

You do realise the eyewitness testimony is considered evidence?

Yes Mr Goose, I do realise it's admissable as evidence.

Like Flappy said, I saw you do 150 through a school zone yesterday, I'll drop a dime on you, and you can rot in a jail while big bubba teaches you a lesson.

You prove otherwise.

fmc351 · 04-09-2011, 11:31 AM

Sad state of affairs when a simple witness statement (not testimony until in court) is enough to remove freedom or property.

Charges, maybe. There should be nothing more until proven in court.

gcg2503 · 04-09-2011, 12:34 PM

Odds on the guy with 2005 DB9 was ostrocized for having a 6 year old car!

Jim Goose · 04-09-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

"Each driver will be charged with Driving without Reasonable Consideration and receive a violation ticket with a specified penalty of $196. Additionally, these drivers will be responsible for all associated towing and storage charges," according to the RCMP press release.

That's because police didn't actually catch them in the act and acted only on witness accounts. They weren't caught on radar, video or seen by a police officer, Superintendent Norm Gaumont, RCMP officer in charge of traffic enforcement for the Lower Mainland, told the Surrey Now newspaper.

The charges given were of a lessor nature because of no actual Police evidence other then what people saw.

If you see someone doing a burnout in the street, other then your testimony what proof is there that it was that actual car? None.. unless rubber has a specific DNA compound?

The charges according to the paper were not for speeding but endangering the public.

xisled · 04-09-2011, 01:26 PM

I know in Vic that unless the police witness you being a stupid in the car, they can not do anything. How I no this is that some guy filmed my mate in my car doing burnouts while I was interstate. Gave the footage to the police, the police turned around and said they can not do anything, as they can not prove when the offence happened or who was the driver. They also said if they did go and impound my car and found they had got the wrong person they are open to being sued.

I think what has happened in the article, the witnesses have confirmed the cars going fast, but they can not confirm who was driving or how fast they were going.

GTP 290 · 04-09-2011, 08:36 PM

The only thing I got out of that article was this

Quote:

The high-end race cars included a Ferrari, Lamborghinis, Maseratis, an Audi, an Aston Martin, Nissans and a Mercedes

I find it amazing that with the addition of a single model you find an entire car manafacturer have their status raised to be within the likes of true top end luxury/sports car manafacturers. Car anyone guess which one of these I am refering to?

creative · 04-09-2011, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP 290

The only thing I got out of that article was this

I find it amazing that with the addition of a single model you find an entire car manafacturer have their status raised to be within the likes of true top end luxury/sports car manafacturers. Car anyone guess which one of these I am refering to?

audi?

TheInterceptor · 04-09-2011, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creative

audi?

Not just any audi, an R8

Ben73 · 04-09-2011, 11:16 PM

Me and my mates used to all hate the same guy. I guess we should ring the cops and say we all saw him driving like an idiot speeding and hooning.

Then he could get his mates to do the same thing to us.

Stupid if you can get in trouble with no proof that you did anything wrong.
Guilty until proven Innocent.

fmc351 · 04-09-2011, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creative

audi?

I knew it was coming, and I still lol'ed.

jaydee · 04-09-2011, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tex

And where do they pluck 200kmh from, some witness' a@rse. Spose it's a nice round number.

So they can't actually prove anything, have zero evidence - but still impound personal property and issue fines.

And that's a good thing?

Slippery slope.

It says they are being charged with not giving reasonable consideration to other road users, not speeding or hooning etc.
They ran a rolling road block and were racing. If they didn't then they have the right to take it to Court and test the Polices evidence and the witnesses.

Thats why the Police were disaappointed they only got a $196 fine, because they couldn't prove the speeding side of it.

SteveJH · 04-09-2011, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

Not just any audi, an R8

Which is basically a rebodied Gallardo isnt it?

EDManual · 05-09-2011, 12:07 AM

If they were doing rolling road blocks at the speed limit, there should be no complaints, as if you want to go faster you are a criminal as well (and you wouldnt complain).

So in future, anyone who wants to do such a terrible crime should do it at the speed limit.

Must say, sounds like fun!

**DJR-351** · 05-09-2011, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gcg2503

Odds on the guy with 2005 DB9 was ostrocized for having a 6 year old car!

Musta been a blow in with a wreck like that.....

Jim Goose · 05-09-2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EDManual

If they were doing rolling road blocks at the speed limit, there should be no complaints, as if you want to go faster you are a criminal as well (and you wouldnt complain).

So in future, anyone who wants to do such a terrible crime should do it at the speed limit.

Must say, sounds like fun!

You better learn the road rules me thinks....

Yellow_Festiva · 05-09-2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gcg2503

Odds on the guy with 2005 DB9 was ostrocized for having a 6 year old car!

Haaa I was thinking the same thing. I can see them all now elbowing each other "Ok, which one of you invited the poor kid"...

**Sorted** · 05-09-2011, 01:45 PM

This is my interpretation of what actually happened

A Car Club has a organised a Cruise with Dinner Included at some agreed place

While driving on their said route a few of the cars cruised next to each other side by side (as you do) on a car cruise.

Other Car Club members that were doing the same thing infront of the above cars side by side cruising gave their cars a bit of gas and OH NO THEY ARE ALL HOONS

As this is not the sort of thing you see everyday they drew attention to themselves as anyone seeing that type of convoy would remember

A few jealous people called the cops and the rest is all BS

Cruising like this http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?v=2326772488233 yes its on Facebook so i hope it works

They make it out like they did this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA62xLg0utE

tex · 05-09-2011, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydee

It says they are being charged with not giving reasonable consideration to other road users, not speeding or hooning etc.
They ran a rolling road block and were racing. If they didn't then they have the right to take it to Court and test the Polices evidence and the witnesses.

Thats why the Police were disaappointed they only got a $196 fine, because they couldn't prove the speeding side of it.

They can't prove squat, and still impounded personal property.

You reckon it's ok because they only got a 196 fine, for something not a single copper saw, yet alone can prove.

Nice one.

Stefan · 05-09-2011, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tex

They can't prove squat, and still impounded personal property.

You reckon it's ok because they only got a 196 fine, for something not a single copper saw, yet alone can prove.

Nice one.

Not sure what you a banging on about. I'm sure most criminal activity is not witnessed by the Police. Does a copper need to see you beat the crap out of your wife to charge you with domestic violence? Only people who are witnessed by police killing someone can be charged with murder?

Probably plenty of people in prison for crimes not witnessed by the plod. Maybe we should set them all free?

Matty4 · 05-09-2011, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

Not sure what you a banging on about. I'm sure most criminal activity is not witnessed by the Police. Does a copper need to see you beat the crap out of your wife to charge you with domestic violence? Only people who are witnessed by police killing someone can be charged with murder?

Probably plenty of people in prison for crimes not witnessed by the plod. Maybe we should set them all free?

Evidence............it's called physical evidence.
Everything you have stated above contains physical evidence to prove the offence. There was none here, only eyewitness testimony (which can sometimes be a bit shaky or one-eyed).

XR_6falcon · 05-09-2011, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matty4

Evidence............it's called physical evidence.
Everything you have stated above contains physical evidence to prove the offence. There was none here, only eyewitness testimony (which can sometimes be a bit shaky or one-eyed).

Agree 100%

What ever happend to innocent untill proven guilty?

Jim Goose · 05-09-2011, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matty4

Evidence............it's called physical evidence.
Everything you have stated above contains physical evidence to prove the offence. There was none here, only eyewitness testimony (which can sometimes be a bit shaky or one-eyed).

Here we go again... you dont need physical evidence to convict someone.
EYEWITNESS.... anyone???

If you read the article there were complaints made by motorists that they were doing a rolling blockade... also note that all drivers involved were all "P" plate equivilant and shouldnt have been driving alone by the sounds of it.

flappist · 05-09-2011, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Here we go again... you dont need physical evidence to convict someone.
EYEWITNESS.... anyone???

If you read the article there were complaints made by motorists that they were doing a rolling blockade... also note that all drivers involved were all "P" plate equivilant and shouldnt have been driving alone by the sounds of it.

And these eyewitnesses, they are all experts in judging speed?
Their own equipment is accurate and carries current certificate?

YOU DO NEED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

As a person who has has some involvement in the military I find it rather strange that you do not realise that so many of your comrades fought and even died to ensure that we retain laws in place to stop EXACTLY what you are trying to promote......