Speeding BMW driver convicted after online boast

[BlackFlash]

I am in total agreement with cj350s. Well said.

Originally Posted by 1HungryMan

He wasn't committing a crime, he was speeding. ...technically he wasn't acting criminally he was speeding....

I don't get this. There are laws that set rules for how you must drive in Ontario. The basis for this is the Highway Traffic Act, at it was amended to deal specifically with scenarios such as this via Bill 203. See here:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bil...en&BillID=1594

If you are breaching these laws, how is that not acting criminally? These aren't pretend laws, or some sort of sub-laws with lesser punishments. These are full on laws and violating these is committing a crime. What are you talking about?

You make it sound as if a crime is committed and it isn't witnessed or there isn't some material evidence left behind, it didn't happen. Wrong. Every person on that street had their lives endangered that day, and whether or not he killed or maimed someone or a cop had a radar gun aimed at him doesn't matter. It was a crime to endanger those people's lives.

I have no doubt that if he vehemently denied the whole thing and claimed the posting was just baseless make believe, there wouldn't have been sufficient evidence for a conviction and that would have been the end of it. Instead he plead guilty immediately, which, believe it or not, was the honest and right thing to do.

[1HungryMan]

Originally Posted by BlackFlash

I am in total agreement with cj350s. Well said.



I don't get this. There are laws that set rules for how you must drive in Ontario. The basis for this is the Highway Traffic Act, at it was amended to deal specifically with scenarios such as this via Bill 203. See here:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bil...en&BillID=1594

If you are breaching these laws, how is that not acting criminally? These aren't pretend laws, or some sort of sub-laws with lesser punishments. These are full on laws and violating these is committing a crime. What are you talking about?

You make it sound as if a crime is committed and it isn't witnessed or there isn't some material evidence left behind, it didn't happen. Wrong.

You just don't get it. We have differing laws and differing punishments based on the seriousness of an offense. We don't treat jaywalking as a crime, but it's technically against the law. When you get caught speeding, you are issued a ticket, but you're not considered a "criminal", because people speed every day all day long, unlike people walking around with a gun, which is limited to "criminals".

Again, distinguish between whether the kid was an endangerment to the community, which most of us agree on (including me, hello) and the manner in which he was "brought to justice" so to speak, which is what I'm commenting on. I am not saying he didn't "break the law" or "endanger the community"; I am saying it is a bizarre and perhaps slippery slope form of policing to convict someone not in the act of speeding based on an online boast, a confession after the fact and a serious of witnesses who saw him "speeding" (quotes for lack of radar gun). Speeding convictions are based on RADAR. AT THE SCENE. BY POLICE. I'm not talking about robbery, or fraud or any other "crime". Speeding charges and convictions have their own protocol that differs from other "crimes"/law-breaking.

Yes, he confessed. We're all happy. But if you care about due process you have to be somewhat troubled by the manner in which the cops laid a serious charge of careless driving based on not actually having the guy at the scene with a radar gun. I can't be any plainer. If you cannot see why this is an issue, I can't help you. It actually only matters that he confessed to you and perhaps the police. To me it is a very troubling precedent, as it opens the police to laying charges on what is a hypothetical situation, not actually having radar at the scene/and/or SEEING THE KID "DRIVING CARELESSLY" AS THE LAW DEMANDS. What you have to remember is that there is no crime without radar/and or a police man pulling the guy over, as per the Highway Traffic Act.

Which is why any decent lawyer would have the kid's charges tossed.

Anyway, I've made my point, dead horse beating now.

[fwmcb]

Originally Posted by 1HungryMan

You just don't get it. We have differing laws and differing punishments based on the seriousness of an offense. We don't treat jaywalking as a crime, but it's technically against the law. When you get caught speeding, you are issued a ticket, but you're not considered a "criminal", because people speed every day all day long, unlike people walking around with a gun, which is limited to "criminals".

Again, distinguish between whether the kid was an endangerment to the community, which most of us agree on (including me, hello) and the manner in which he was "brought to justice" so to speak, which is what I'm commenting on. I am not saying he didn't "break the law" or "endanger the community"; I am saying it is a bizarre and perhaps slippery slope form of policing to convict someone not in the act of speeding based on an online boast, a confession after the fact and a serious of witnesses who saw him "speeding" (quotes for lack of radar gun). Speeding convictions are based on RADAR. AT THE SCENE. BY POLICE. I'm not talking about robbery, or fraud or any other "crime". Speeding charges and convictions have their own protocol that differs from other "crimes"/law-breaking.

Yes, he confessed. We're all happy. But if you care about due process you have to be somewhat troubled by the manner in which the cops laid a serious charge of careless driving based on not actually having the guy at the scene with a radar gun. I can't be any plainer. If you cannot see why this is an issue, I can't help you. It actually only matters that he confessed to you and perhaps the police. To me it is a very troubling precedent, as it opens the police to laying charges on what is a hypothetical situation, not actually having radar at the scene/and/or SEEING THE KID "DRIVING CARELESSLY" AS THE LAW DEMANDS. What you have to remember is that there is no crime without radar/and or a police man pulling the guy over, as per the Highway Traffic Act.

Which is why any decent lawyer would have the kid's charges tossed.

Anyway, I've made my point, dead horse beating now.

I agree with you 100% Certainly I'm happy that that idiot is off the street, but in the interest of the integrity of our criminal justice system. Evidence like the evidence in this case should not be the basis for a charge our a guilty verdict. Law were broken. However, the simple violation of a law (any law) does not necessarily make you guilty. Procedure is the only protection that we have. If I were in that kid's position there is no way in hell that I would have confessed.

[BlackFlash]

Originally Posted by 1HungryMan

What you have to remember is that there is no crime without radar/and or a police man pulling the guy over, as per the Highway Traffic Act.

Not correct. Show me the clause in the HTA that requires one of those two.

Evidence for all crimes can come from many different sources. A cop holding a radar gun is but a single possibility. A cop need not be involved at all.

[BlackFlash]

Still baffled by what ominous "precedent" has been set by this. The OP article explains it pretty clearly. I read it again just in case I had somehow overlooked the glaring misconduct:

"As a result of that, we observed this character boasting his dangerous driving behaviour," Const. Barmakov said. "A full-scale investigation was launched to [determine] whether there was any substance to the words."

Mr. Rigenco's posting indicated he was travelling 140 km/hr in a 40 km/hr zone on March 15, Mr. Barmakov said. Armed with those details -- and with photos of the suspect and his vehicle taken from the forum -- police canvassed the relevant area in Vaughan for witnesses, and found several.

"It appears that this was a repeated behaviour," Const. Barmakov said, though the police probe only focused on the one incident.

Police charged Mr. Rigenco in April with dangerous driving, a criminal offence, but charges were later downgraded to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act in light of the 19-year-old's guilty plea.
Const. Barmakov said this is the first time he has launched an investigation because of an online posting, calling it evidence of a new era.

Toronto-based traffic lawyer Volga Pankou noted that such a posting, on its own, would likely not be sufficient evidence in court to prove careless driving.
"If the guy who posted it said, 'No, it was just a joke, I didn't do it,' then police would have to prove during the trial if they had any other evidence," Ms. Pankou said.

So the police got a tip, conducted an investigation (i.e. asked around for witnesses), got witnesses, filed charge of dangerous driving backed by witness evidence (is this what troubles you?), dropped charge to the criminal record avoiding careless driving in exchange for a guilty plea. I am all for civil liberties but this sounds completely reasonable to me. I give up.

[BlackjackMulligan]

Originally Posted by BlackFlash

Still baffled by what ominous "precedent" has been set by this. The OP article explains it pretty clearly. I read it again just in case I had somehow overlooked the glaring misconduct:



So the police got a tip, conducted an investigation (i.e. asked around for witnesses), got witnesses, filed charge of dangerous driving backed by witness evidence (is this what troubles you?), dropped charge to the criminal record avoiding careless driving in exchange for a guilty plea. I am all for civil liberties but this sounds completely reasonable to me. I give up.

I agree completely.

Here's another take on it: How many crimes are actually WITNESSED BY POLICE? Not many I bet, so why does this one need to be?

[1HungryMan]

Originally Posted by BlackFlash

Still baffled by what ominous "precedent" has been set by this. The OP article explains it pretty clearly. I read it again just in case I had somehow overlooked the glaring misconduct:



So the police got a tip, conducted an investigation (i.e. asked around for witnesses), got witnesses, filed charge of dangerous driving backed by witness evidence (is this what troubles you?), dropped charge to the criminal record avoiding careless driving in exchange for a guilty plea. I am all for civil liberties but this sounds completely reasonable to me. I give up.

"Backed by witness evidence"...You're kidding,right? Witnesses:"Officer he was driving fast--really fast".

Sorry that would get tossed in an instant by even the most sympathetic judge. That's not evidence, that's heresay. Did those people have radar guns? Was he doing cartwheels on the sidewalk? Not quite the same as people saying "That man stole that bread from that store." Pretty clear cut.

Without the "confession" ("Yes officer I drove really fast. Exactly 150kh/h as my male brain remembers it. And my penis is also 15"!) there is no case. Thrown out. Even *with* the "confession" ("And the day before I drove 8 zillion km/h officer!) a good lawyer would have had that tossed. "Yes, officer, I remember on January 3rd, between 9 and 9:30pm I was driving well beyond the speed limit on CherryBlossom Lane. Of course I was smoking some weed on a regular basis, so maybe it was the day before and maybe I just lied to continue my stupid story to save face with all my homies on the boards."

If you read the thread and all the news reports you know there's something...off about this kid. The notion that you charge and convict a kid on the basis of a hypothetical speeding situation is as absurd as if the cops came on this board, scoured the threads for all the times one of us says "I got my baby up to 130km/h on the 407 one time" and the cops came to our house and issued a summons. There is no difference. None. It's exactly the same thing. It matters little that he names the street or the time. Speeding is not a crime that can be convicted in abstentia (remember photo radar was outlawed some years back?).

Cops decided he was a menace which it sounds like he was. But don't kid yourself: without a "confession" (still in quotes for me) there is no case. Thrown out. With good reason. Our system does not work that way for traffic violations. Crimes are another story, also with good reason.

It's not about "morality" or what's the "right thing" to do as you so naively stated earlier. It's about justice. For all parties.

I'm not crying for the kid. I don't trust cops to stay within their powers. I'm sorry, I'm older than many of you and I've seen so much abuse. The cops don't like to be taunted and once they have a guy boasting on the boards, they get their backs up. In this case, that might be a good thing, but the way they "convicted" him is rotten for the system and will have wide-ranging implications for online conduct. Naturally if he said he slept with an underage girl or something, totally different story. But speeding is not the same, and our system reflects that.

[larryn]

Originally Posted by 1HungryMan

"Backed by witness evidence"...You're kidding,right? Witnesses:"Officer he was driving fast--really fast".

Yep, that's all it takes anywhere in North America.

If I ever saw some asshole in any car doing a hundred miles an hour in my residential neighborhood, I'd be beyond ballistic. I'd immediately be on the phone, and if I had the plate number or some other proof as to whom it was, I'd be all over the cops to make sure it will never happen again. There are dozens of little kids all around...

If you think I'd be wrong in wanting that bastard hung to dry, in the fruity name of civil liberties, you need to loosen the straps on your Birkis and step away from the hookah. Where's my justice? I did nothing wrong, yet some asshole used my street as a drag strip.

Wait! You can't be saying bystanders are irrelevant, unless there's physical proof?

[BlackjackMulligan]

Originally Posted by 1HungryMan

Speeding is not a crime that can be convicted in abstentia (remember photo radar was outlawed some years back?).

Our system does not work that way for traffic violations. Crimes are another story, also with good reason.

You're making the point for us. He wasn't convicted of speeding, or a traffic violation. He was originally charged with "dangerous driving" which in Canada appears to be a criminal offense. This is much worse than speeding. You say crimes are another story- this is a crime, simple as that.

I actually agree with you about speeding. If someone is saying they went 80 MPH on the highway, should the cops show up at the door with a ticket? No, as you said- speeding is different. It's a minor offense.

What this punk did is as far from a minor offense as you can get. This is not simple speeding! I think that's where the disconnect is here for many people. I consider this to be one of the most dangerous things you could do with a motor vehicle- at least as dangerous and reckless as driving drunk, if not moreso. The cops got a tip, completed their investigation and charged him. When he realized how much trouble his punk a$$ was in, he threw in the towel for the lesser offense.

[Jaguar66]

Originally Posted by 1HungryMan

And my penis is also 15"!

[1HungryMan]

Originally Posted by BlackjackMulligan

You're making the point for us. He wasn't convicted of speeding, or a traffic violation. He was originally charged with "dangerous driving" which in Canada appears to be a criminal offense. This is much worse than speeding. You say crimes are another story- this is a crime, simple as that.

He was charged with dangerous driving on the basis of driving too fast not because he mounted the sidewalk and/or almost killed a pedestrian. And yet there is no radar gun or cop, only a guy who was apparently driving too damned fast. Sorry, our justice system does not convict people on heresay. "I thought he was driving way too fast, officer". This is why cops require radar guns or a witness who said "he almost took out the bus shelter" or something.

Again, no confession no conviction. Period. I guarantee you the police knew they if they lined up the witnesses and confronted the guy, they might/could get a confession, which is what they needed, because they knew the hearsay of witnesses saying he was "driving too fast" would not stand up to the burden required to nail someone on careless driving. Personally I like that cops need a high burden to nail someone. You should too.

Every day you read about some Facebook photo where a woman poses her kid with a bong as a joke and cops feel they should report the parent to child services or arrest the parent. It's insane. We have protections under the law for a reason. And we have protections for lunatic drivers, it's just that--call me old fashioned--but in this case it doesn't pass the smell test.

[1HungryMan]

Originally Posted by BlackFlash

I have no doubt that if he vehemently denied the whole thing and claimed the posting was just baseless make believe, there wouldn't have been sufficient evidence for a conviction and that would have been the end of it. .

I just want to quote this back to you. This is my point.

[larryn]

Originally Posted by 1HungryMan

He was charged with dangerous driving on the basis of driving too fast not because he mounted the sidewalk and/or almost killed a pedestrian. And yet there is no radar gun or cop, only a guy who was apparently driving too damned fast. Sorry, our justice system does not convict people on heresay. "I thought he was driving way too fast, officer". This is why cops require radar guns or a witness who said "he almost took out the bus shelter" or something.

Again, no confession no conviction. Period. I guarantee you the police knew they if they lined up the witnesses and confronted the guy, they might/could get a confession, which is what they needed, because they knew the hearsay of witnesses saying he was "driving too fast" would not stand up to the burden required to nail someone on careless driving. Personally I like that cops need a high burden to nail someone. You should too.

Every day you read about some Facebook photo where a woman poses her kid with a bong as a joke and cops feel they should report the parent to child services or arrest the parent. It's insane. We have protections under the law for a reason. And we have protections for lunatic drivers, it's just that--call me old fashioned--but in this case it doesn't pass the smell test.

Okay, Mr Civil Liberties.. what do you suggest.... anarchy - allowing anybody to do whatever they want unless caught by a police officer (first hand), or have Big Brother cameras along every street and house? I think that you do not pass the smell test, you cast away testimony, ad-infinitum, to suit your argument.

You DO NOT need to be an expert witness to call the cops to say that "Here's a plate number of some crazy kid in a new M5 that had to be hitting a hundred going down my street just now".

I'm done here.. I don't think you're old fashioned at all (you are delusional if you think you are), but rather a total lost cause hippy, in my mind. Go smoke some more dope and watch the cars speed past your house, laugh, and have a grant ole fashioned time.

When questioned, he admitted speeding wrecklessly...

[cj350s]

Not to send an already beaten-to-death topic off on a tangent, but whenever Police officers are referred to as “the cops”, the obvious bias detracts from any point being made.

We might end this discussion with a quote from Forrest Gump; “Stupid is as stupid does”.

Frankly I’ve never quite understood that line but I pray there’s at least one 19-year old in Vaughan who does fully appreciate the meaning now.

[1HungryMan]

Originally Posted by larryn

Okay, Mr Civil Liberties.. what do you suggest.... anarchy - allowing anybody to do whatever they want unless caught by a police officer (first hand), or have Big Brother cameras along every street and house? I think that you do not pass the smell test, you cast away testimony, ad-infinitum, to suit your argument.

You DO NOT need to be an expert witness to call the cops to say that "Here's a plate number of some crazy kid in a new M5 that had to be hitting a hundred going down my street just now".

I'm done here.. I don't think you're old fashioned at all (you are delusional if you think you are), but rather a total lost cause hippy, in my mind. Go smoke some more dope and watch the cars speed past your house, laugh, and have a grant ole fashioned time.

When questioned, he admitted speeding wrecklessly...

What I am saying is rather simple: you can't convict someone of careless driving based on witnesses saying "that guy was driving fast" or someone boasting about it online. It's not sufficient to make a serious charge stick.

Does this irritate you?

[1HungryMan]

Originally Posted by cj350s

Not to send an already beaten-to-death topic off on a tangent, but whenever Police officers are referred to as “the cops”, the obvious bias detracts from any point being made.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while.

Anyway, I'm also done.

[larryn]

Originally Posted by 1HungryMan

What I am saying is rather simple: you can't convict someone of careless driving based on witnesses saying "that guy was driving fast" or someone boasting about it online. It's not sufficient to make a serious charge stick.

Does this irritate you?

WHEN QUESTIONED, HE ADMITTED IT!!!

You are vehemently waving a flag for a situation that didn't occur.

[BlackFlash]

I am actually thinking that 1HungryMan is saying that the investigation shouldn't have occurred and the confession should have been ignored simply because the posting was baseless boasting and the witness testimony is hearsay.

At the end of the day, it's for a judge or jury to decide what is credible as evidence and what isn't. I personally feel that a judge would have agreed with an eye witness' ability to identify a car going greater than 100km/h in a 40km/h zone. I don't think the driver needed to go up on a sidewalk or almost hit a pedestrian to make the violation into the realm of dangerous driving more evident. I think a few unbiased witness' account that the car was going far far far in excess of the speed limit (particularly in a quiet residential area) would have been sufficient as evidence for dangerous driving. Obviously the attorney general's office thought it was, or they wouldn't have pushed the charge. But perhaps I'm wrong.