wait.......what??? Street racers got nailed???

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

Once you get past the fact that these are basically children - really spoiled really really spoiled rich children....what I question is this:


"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"


How does that work exactly?

Yeah this infuriates me. If they have multiple witnesses, they have all the evidence they need. Confiscate the cars, sell them off at the auction, relinquish the drivers licenses of ALL the drivers and prohibit them from driving for 5 years, 2 year jail terms, a nice hefty fine to them and the owners of the vehicles involved. There's only one way to deal with idiots like these, and it's to use them as an example for the rest of the world to see. All they have done with this is set the precedent that as long as you don't get caught by the cops racing your mummy's car, you'll get a heavy slap to the wrist. Especially if it's spoiled rich kids, what fees are incurred is only a drop in the bucket to them. It certainly isn't going to deter them from doing it again.

The fines are related to the actual speed. Witnesses can say they saw cars running fast but they can't testify on the actual speed.

Hmmm....what they "allegedly" did was dumb and reckless. But I have a hard time believing that anyone should be ticketed or fined if they weren't caught on radar, video or seen by the police.

SheWolf wrote:

Yeah this infuriates me. If they have multiple witnesses, they have all the evidence they need. Confiscate the cars, sell them off at the auction, relinquish the drivers licenses of ALL the drivers and prohibit them from driving for 5 years, 2 year jail terms, a nice hefty fine to them and the owners of the vehicles involved. There's only one way to deal with idiots like these, and it's to use them as an example for the rest of the world to see. All they have done with this is set the precedent that as long as you don't get caught by the cops racing your mummy's car, you'll get a heavy slap to the wrist. Especially if it's spoiled rich kids, what fees are incurred is only a drop in the bucket to them. It certainly isn't going to deter them from doing it again.

So what if the police came to your house and confiscated your 250R because they "had witnesses" that reported you were speeding and tresspassing on private property while doing hooliganism type riding stunts.

The police didn't witness any of this. There's no video. There's nothing other than "reports from witnesses".


I'm confused at how the police can do anything in this case.

If I was stupid enuf to do something like that, I deserve to not ride and own the bike. These asshats don't deserve to be behind the wheel of a vehicle.

SheWolf wrote:

If I was stupid enuf to do something like that, I deserve to not ride and own the bike. These asshats don't deserve to be behind the wheel of a vehicle.

But what if it wasn't you?

What if it was somebody else on a blue Yamaha "dirt bike" looking thing with wild graphics and a pony tail hanging out from the helmet?

My biggest issue with the authorites is they appear to be confiscating the property of one person because of the actions of another person. That CANNOT be legal, even under our nanny state laws.

Maybe some of those kids took the cars without their parent's permission or knowledge but now the state is confiscating the car that belongs to the parents who did nothing wrong? We don't know at this time but under no legal system in the world should any person be held responsible or punished for the actions of another person. Even the people advocating harsh penalties for the drivers can appreciate that.

The other thing that kills me is some of those cars had the new driver "N" pasted on the back window. What kind of parent in their right mind hands over the keys to a $200,000 supercar to a new driver?

Half of me says "those little whipper snappers should have their spoiled asses kicked all the way back to shanghai"
the other half of me says "Yaaaa, I want a Gallardo and be 19" can you imagine the chicks you could pull with that car
All of us have pulled shit, none of us have done it in a Ferrari

"The other thing that kills me is some of those cars had the new driver "N" pasted on the back window. What kind of parent in their right mind hands over the keys to a $200,000 supercar to a new driver? "

The answer is "a new Canadian" I bet you cant pronounce any of the names of these kids

motokid wrote:

But what if it wasn't you?

What if it was somebody else on a blue Yamaha "dirt bike" looking thing with wild graphics and a pony tail hanging out from the helmet?

Unless they actually have the licence plate number, they won't do squat. I don't let anyone ride my bike, so I don't run the risk of having someone else do stupid shit on my bike and having it impounded. All the cars they got all had license plates given by witnesses. That's how they caught up with many of these little peckerheads in the first place. Pity the someone else riding the blue Yamaha, though. Won't be me or my bike getting that.

I think you're missing the point.

The police saw nothing. They are basing everything on a "he said/she said" scenario.

If I call the police and say I saw you shoplift something from the liquor store and I give them your tag number can they come
press charges against you?

If I say I saw you throwing litter out of your car window and give them your tag number can they come press charges?
Obviously there's plenty of litter on the side of the road. Maybe you turned me down in a bar one night and I'm pissed off at you
you dirty lesbian bitch. So I decide to make a few calls to the cops telling them about your illegal behaviors.


Can, and/or should the police be able to enforce laws and such based on nothing more than a few phone calls from civilians?

I'm not saying the kids in the cars don't deserve to be in trouble. I'm just a little concerned about cops being able to
charge people with crimes when the only evidence is some phone calls from regular people.

If enuf ppl saw it, then yes. 3 credible witnesses is what it takes to press a charge. What do you think happens in an assault case? 3 credible witnesses is enuf to take it to a charge, other than the victim. You pretty much have them by the balls. You have rights under citzens arrest to confront ppl; one has to be careful tho with the use of force. One call they would probably ignore, but muiltiple calls can't and shouldn't be ignored. Those little mother fuckers coulda killed someone, besides themselves...so do we have to wait until there's death and mayhem before something is done? The fact there were multiple complaints is more than enuf to take action. And, when it comes to the question of the speed of the cars, considering if you drive on the highway down there, the average traffic flow speed in the 100km/h zone is about 120...it's not hard to tell when someone's speeding when they blow by you. The person can dispute it, but they will also be up against the witnesses who have to be willing to go to court to testify against them. The judge will then decide who's full of shit.

0007onWR wrote:

the other half of me says "Yaaaa, I want a Gallardo and be 19"

Damn thats actually a good point. I hate spoiled rich kids......but fuckit, were all young and dumb at some point.

Yeah but not THAT dumb.

motokid wrote:

So what if the police came to your house and confiscated your 250R because they "had witnesses" that reported you were speeding and tresspassing on private property while doing hooliganism type riding stunts.

The police didn't witness any of this. There's no video. There's nothing other than "reports from witnesses".


I'm confused at how the police can do anything in this case.

What he said. In case of doubt...

SheWolf wrote:

Yeah but not THAT dumb.

I woulda if I had an opportunity, when I was 19 I was bulletproof
I remember doing 125mph on westside road on a Seca Turbo in 1984, Now that was dumb, I wouldn't do it today but my point is, guys do that, when we get older we say people should be shot for doing it but........secretly........
If I was 19 and had a Ferrari, I would be an asshole LOL, and I think if you were in the passenger seat you would be screaming "My Turn!!!!"

trav72 wrote:

Hmmm....what they "allegedly" did was dumb and reckless.

Actually, the proper term is "criminal" - unless of course you don't have a problem with a gaggle of drivers on their learner's permits racing at 130 mph towards your wife and child on a public highway. Blocking traffic behind you does not account for oncoming traffic nor traffic coming through intersections. But, criminal negligence and dangerous driving charges won't be laid in this case because of the improbability of a conviction. So they do get away with a slap on the wrist.

Quote :

But I have a hard time believing that anyone should be ticketed or fined if they weren't caught on radar, video or seen by the police.

Following that line of reasoning, as most murders aren't caught on video or witnessed by police, then they shouldn't be charged either, right? The burden of proof in court in Canada is the same as in the US - beyond a reasonable doubt, but there are other ways of establishing that beyond video or police actually witnessing the offense.

CDNSXV wrote:

My biggest issue with the authorites is they appear to be confiscating the property of one person because of the actions of another person. That CANNOT be legal, even under our nanny state laws.

Oh yes, Virginia, it is indeed quite legal. and proper. And here's how it works, even in Canada.

First, if you read closer, the cars were seized, not confiscated, related to the commission of the offense. Which is exactly what would happen if you were charged for impaired driving in Canada in most instances. Or caught riding your motorcycle down a local pedestrian stairway, or whatever. That varies somewhat from province to province (because we're talking about this event in Canada, right)? So they ended up paying the tow charge. And the impound charge. But they didn't lose the cars.

Quote :

Maybe some of those kids took the cars without their parent's permission or knowledge but now the state is confiscating the car that belongs to the parents who did nothing wrong?

This is just my theory, but I'd bet some serious coin that most of those cars were titled in the name of the kid who was driving it. Luxury cars as gifts to rich kids is kind of a Lower Mainland status tradition.

Assuming that it's true they took somebody else's car without permission, then it gets simpler yet - all the owner has to say is that the offender stole the car and was driving it without their permission. Then the police go back to the original offender for THAT offence as well - and the owner gets their car back. Nice, eh?

Some people don't like it of course, because it kind of forces personal responsibility when they'd prefer law enforcement to be some kind of game with all kinds of "home free" bases for offenders to avoid legal sanctions. I'm going to take a wild assed guess here and say I suspect a lot more Canadians are pissed that they got their cars back than would be pissed if they'd actually lost them. And would still think the same way if they were a bunch of Oil Patch Kids racing in beat up pickups instead of rich Chinese-Canadian kids racing sports cars worth more than their houses.

But, see above - no, the state (in this case, province) did not confiscate the vehicles.

Quote :

We don't know at this time but under no legal system in the world should any person be held responsible or punished for the actions of another person.

You would be wrong on your assertion regarding legal systems. There are many strict liability offenses and reverse onus offenses which do just that. For example, if the kid comes in and says "Hey Wai, the gang are going to do a little racing on King George Highway in Surrey... can I borrow the Ferrari?", should gramma be held responsible for handing over the keys? If the kid has continually been street racing, should gramma be held responsible for handing over the keys anyways?

Now for the confusion as to how police can do this. It's been a while since I wore the uniform, but street racing and other unwitnessed offences haven't changed much in the last few decades, so this is probably how it generally went.

Because witnesses could only provide plate numbers and couldn't testify to speeds - and a defense lawyer will negate speed testimony even if you try that route - police charged them with the only thing they could make stick. Driving without due consideration for others - the act of blocking traffic behind is all that is needed to convict on that offense, and they had ample witnesses to THAT. If you want the really short version after that, the drivers simply ratted each other out once confronted with it. Most do. They get picked off for some little thing, get caught in their inconsistencies, you tell "A" that "B" just said the whole race was his idea, and "A" then says "That's not true... followed by the REAL version of the story". You go to "B", try the story in reverse... and whaddya know, "B" gives you about the same version as "A". They helpfully corroborate each other. While ratting out others, of course. And you just keep working your way down the line.

It isn't hard most of the time. That's how Clifford Olsen got caught after murdering about half a dozen kids. That's how they twigged to Robert Pickton, who murdered at least several dozen hookers. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes... you just have to put it all together.

The Lower Mainland has had at least half a dozen people murdered (I deliberately use that word) by street racers in the last couple of years, including several small children run down on the side of the road and one police officer. Frankly, these assholes should be in jail and looking at about 30 before they're ever considered for a driver's license again.

I do take some solace in the fact that many hard working Chinese parents will hand out much, much more strict discipline over this than the courts will. Credit cards are probably in "revoked" status even as we speak. In my experience Chinese parents usually held themselves very accountable for the actions of their children, kid or young adult. I'd rather take a young offender home to Oriental parents than to white parents, statistically speaking, in hopes of hitting parents that would actually do something about it.

SheWolf wrote:

If enuf ppl saw it, then yes. 3 credible witnesses is what it takes to press a charge. What do you think happens in an assault case? 3 credible witnesses is enuf to take it to a charge, other than the victim.

Actually, all it takes is exactly ONE (1). Criminal or provincial. And that one can be the victim, or simply a bystander.

What matters is the quality of the evidence given by the witness. Corroboration obviously matters, and the quality is generally decided by the Crown in evaluating it for whether it will meet the test of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Which explains much of what is referred to as "the dark figure of crime". It's pretty unlikely that the Crown will ever choose to proceed under "He said/she said" circumstances. But a lot of times, when confronted by a witnesses' statements, most offenders happily choose NOT to remain silent and happily convict themselves while the member sits there taking notes. If they simply sat there and refused to say a thing - which is their right - then probably at least half the people who get done for the offenses they committed, provincial or criminal, would walk free. Happily, most chirp away trying to BS you, and just end up convicting themselves with their own statements - or providing enough evidence you didn't even know existed to put it all together to convict them.

Quote :

You have rights under citzens arrest to confront ppl; one has to be careful tho with the use of force.

You do have the right of citizen's arrest in Canada, but it has to be for finding somebody in the commission of an offense against yourself and/or your property. Or in the commission of an indictable offense. Ignoring the physical impossibility of making such an arrest in this instance, I don't think grounds for such an arrest would exist for witnesses here. And "use of force" requirements are exactly the same for non-sworn people as they are for peace officers: you can use as much force as is reasonably necessary, up to and including lethal force when justified, to effect the arrest and detain the prisoner until turning them over to police as soon as practicable.

Quote :

Those little mother fuckers coulda killed someone, besides themselves...so do we have to wait until there's death and mayhem before something is done?

Well, little whatevers like them have been killing pedestrians, police, kids, other drivers, etc with a fair amount of regularity the last few years. Enough that BC's Motor Vehicle Act and the federal law have been introduced to deal with it:

Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318, permits authorities to impound your vehicle and suspend your licence if suspected of street racing. Section 241 defines a 'race' as: "circumstances in which, taking into account the condition of the road, traffic, visibility and weather, the operator of a motor vehicle is operating the motor vehicle without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may cause harm to an individual, by doing any of the following: …outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles; preventing or attempting to prevent one or more other motor vehicles from passing; or driving at excessive speed in order to arrive at or attempt to arrive at a given destination ahead of one or more other motor vehicles;"

The Federal government introduced Bill C-19 pertaining to penalizing street racing, but without doing some Google thing, I have no idea if it ended up as law in some statute or other.

And now, I'm going to do what I came home to do... change out my boots for my new Heidenau's that arrived today. Why is it that I always have so much trouble getting that first side of a new tire on, no matter how much Windex and tire irons I use?

Oh yes... thinking of falsely giving a sworn statement against somebody who turned you down in the bar because you had BO or whatever?

Well, the law has a charge for that as well. It is a criminal offense to give police a false statement leading police to initiate an unwarranted investigation. And they'll happily use your sworn statement to hang you with. That's why you generally give your statement in your own handwriting, finish it with a paragraph along the lines of "I give this statement freely without any threats or inducements, and it is the truth to the best of my knowledge and belief", and then put your signature under it. It is evidence of SOMETHING.

That kind of thing kind of pisses police off, y'know, and once they figure they're being used by some jilted lame Romeo, they kind of put a little extra effort into making sure THAT doesn't happen again.

You might get away with not getting nailed for the false statement. But probably not.