Online Forum Speeding Boast Leads To Conviction 457
Meshach writes "In Canada, a nineteen-year-old man has lost his driving license for six months and is facing one year of probation after the police arrested him for dangerous driving as a result of a post on an online message board. The tip apparently came from an uninvolved American who called the Canadian authorities after he saw the post bragging about how fast the man went."
Without any evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Without any evidence? (Score:5, Informative)
What evidence was there, other than the bloggers post, that an offence had occurred?
How could the police charge him without it?
He admitted it himself. Admitting your crimes on the internet are no different than admitting them in real life. There also were pictures and videos of his crime.
Same laws apply to Internet as real life. It would be pretty stupid to go tell police that. Well, they can read the internet too.
Re:Without any evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the pictures and videos are the important elements, because they constitute actual evidence. Otherwise, there are fairly stringent tests for what makes something a legitimate confession that's admissible in court. People do sometimes brag about things they didn't actually do, especially in pseudo-anonymous environments, and that isn't a crime. It may be stupid, and it may cause you a lot of hassle as you try to convince police / a judge that you were just making empty boasts, but courts do still have to try to sort that out: if they determine the confession was indeed not a genuine confession, it isn't sufficient for conviction.
For things of this sort, I don't think police would normally pursue it even IRL unless there were more evidence (like the photos/video in this case). If someone in a high-school hallway tells their friend that they were going 90 last night, that's pretty weak evidence, since it's quite likely to just be bravado.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I understand, pictures and video are not evidence unless someone testifies to their veracity. Under questioning, all he has to do is say he photoshopped the "evidence" for his own amusement at the reaction they would provoke in the forum. I suspect what happened instead is that he verified that the media were real to the police, and that's why he was charged. That's speculation though, as the article doesn't have enough information to determine the basis for the charge.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This should be modded up. I was going to say something similar. Someone could be bragging and be using doctored video indeed. But, more importantly, is there a timestamp to the video? Like, maybe someone did it years ago. What prevents from someone being charged multiple times for the same crime if there lacks a timestamp? Aside from one's aging body.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the pictures and videos are the important elements, because they constitute actual evidence. Otherwise, there are fairly stringent tests for what makes something a legitimate confession that's admissible in court. People do sometimes brag about things they didn't actually do, especially in pseudo-anonymous environments, and that isn't a crime. It may be stupid, and it may cause you a lot of hassle as you try to convince police / a judge that you were just making empty boasts, but courts do still have to try to sort that out: if they determine the confession was indeed not a genuine confession, it isn't sufficient for conviction.
Which is not to say it won't fuck your life up royally.
Interviewer: "So, can you explain what you've been doing for the last 9 months?"
Interviewee: "I was remanded in custody because I wanted to look big and clever and so bragged about a serious crime which I didn't commit"
Interviewer: "Okay, so we've established that you're a prat. Have you got any questions you'd like to ask me?"
Re: (Score:2)
> I think the pictures and videos are the important elements, because they constitute actual evidence.
How are they sure the evidence isn't tampered with? Did the camera correctly register the vehicle's speed? Have the pictures been edited?
Re: (Score:2)
If someone in a high-school hallway tells their friend that they were going 90 last night, that's pretty weak evidence, since it's quite likely to just be bravado.
And if overheard by the teacher it would likely land you in the principles office. And if you then admitted it again to the principle by pleading guilty you'll likely get ... [won't go into if your school can punish you for something outside of school but the point was made].
I'm willing to bet that any dumbshit lawyer could have fought this off, this guy just said "guilty".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The CBC story doesn't mention photos and videos.
Re: (Score:2)
A fair system of justice should never rely on (such) a single point of failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is probably why the police officer asking for witnesses.
Re: (Score:2)
In the United Kingdom even a signed confession is insufficient to get a conviction. There *MUST* be other corrborating evidence. Unfortuantely people with learning disabilities and other problems have in the past confessed to crimes right up to murder when they where in fact innocent, in the process leaving dangerous criminals roaming free.
Re: (Score:2)
"A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving"
I'm not sure about newspeak. Is there a tripleplusstupid? Speeding on a residential street is stupid. Bragging online was stupid. PLEADING GUILTY was the tripleplus part of it. Had I been stupid enough to pull the first two stupidities, I certainly wouldn't have admitted to a judge that it were so.
"Your Honor, I wasn't going half as fast as I claimed - I was just bragging for all those dilrods on the forum! Hell, man, I'm
It doesn't need evidence, just an admission. (Score:2)
Re:Without any evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Without any evidence? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
(Then again, that's what Obama did)
I don't recall Obama saying he caused world peace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I said I just caused world peace, does that mean I win myself the Nobel Peace Prize?
No, because your claim is much less plausible than his.
In your case, the implausibility of your claim, and the relative ease with which evidence to refute it may be gathered, gives quick rise to reasonable doubt. Any credible news media claim of conflict anywhere in the world negates your Nobel chances immediately.
In his case, the claim is quite plausible. His car is capable of that speed. Many people speed, every day. There is little incentive to lie about such a feat, and no easy way to positively verify
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Little Incentive, huh? How many times have you seen "I've gone xxx mph on my ___"? I see regular posts on other forums where people post the top speed they've gone. I'd suspect every single post is an outright lie. That's what ricers and bogans do, make up stories about how fast they've gone.
2. Onboard tool. I'm not aware of any VCM that logs. I regularly modify my VCM with Hptuners editor and it takes a laptop with software to log the engine data. About the only data the VCM keeps is fuel trim cell valu
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly true. Hearsay is admissible under the right conditions. One example I know of (maybe the only one, maybe not; IANAL) is the police. In America one of the rights they read you says something like, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
Anything you say to the police after your rights are read (and maybe even before; again IANAL) is admissible by the prosecution ev
Re: (Score:2)
No, in this case, the other user meerly alerted police about the post In question. The actual evidence is the post which is made by the accused. Since this isn't someone's recollection of the statement, rather the statement itself, hearsay wouldn't apply. By your logic, any audio recording would be hearsay.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why it's better to claim to have saved peace. Preventing further conflict than what occurred. Why, if it weren't for me, it would've been much worse. Can I pick up my prize now?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or you can do what a guy down the road did.
We had a kid that did that speeding up and down the road. the old guy 4 house down got sick of it and sat in his car waiting for the little asshole to go speeding by and then he pulled out to block the road so the kid had to stop.. The little idiot smashed into the back of his car. Completely totaled that BMW 325 and the old rusted chevy caprice the old man drove was buckled to the rear window but he was unharmed. Kid went to the hospital and the cops later a
Re:Without any evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Without any evidence? (Score:5, Informative)
Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person?
You are not the first to have made that mistake. All that has to be proven is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any shadow of a doubt. While hard proof of a dead person (such as identifiable remains) would obviously give you "beyond any shadow of a doubt", it's quite possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt without such proof, as Hans Reiser's trial demonstrated.
IOW, the police only need good reason to believe that there's a dead person.
Re: (Score:2)
dont they at least have to be sure a crime has been commited at all?
I for instance, can claim i just stole all the gold stored in fort Knox, and hid it in my basement, i can consistently claim i did that. It would however, be rather odd if they convict me off that crime, when a simple visual inspection of either Fort Knox, or my basement (dont have one actually), easily disproves my claim.
If however, all the gold in Fort Knox was missing, and somehow ended up in my basement, then i would agree my confession
Re: (Score:2)
It's a question of magnitude, though.
Someone openly admits to speeding - worst that's likely to happen is they get a fine and (depending on where it takes place) some sort of penalty on their license. Few people openly admit to speeding unless they've actually done so.
Someone openly admits to murder - worst that's likely to happen (again depending on where) is the death penalty - or at the very least life in prison. And - even though it sounds totally absurd to most of us - apparently the occasional lunat
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
According to the article the accused pleaded guilty which is why he was convicted, not because he confessed his crime in a public forum(although that is why he was sued it is not why he was convicted), had he pleaded not guilty it is extremely unlikely that he would have been found guilty by the court so
Re:Without any evidence? (Score:5, Informative)
You wouldn't automatically be charged, but you'd probably be arrested or at the very least invited to the police station for questioning. The police would probably examine your claim, compare it with missing persons reports, and decide whether you're telling the truth or just being a nuisance (in which case, you might get a warning or be charged with wasting police time).
The article has a link to the actual forum post, which is worth a read if you're under the impression that the only proof the police had was a confession. In fact, the driver mentions the location and date of his crime, plus the fact that there were witnesses. There's more than enough information there for the police to conduct an investigation.
In the end, the guy pleaded guilty not just on the internet but in a court of law.
Re:Without any evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is there's no way to prove the physical connection between who typed that comment and posted the pictures and the person potentially breaking the law.
What if he had a falling out with his brother and his brother used the computer to try and frame him for example?
This is quite different to someone admitting in front of witnesses they have committed a crime, because there the witnesses have witnessed the perpetrator in question admitting the crime directly.
This is the fundamental problem with computer crimes, people are arrested and convicted on much lower standards of evidence than have come to be expected in real life. Say a computer is used for a crime online, and the police trace the IP back to the house, and they can somehow prove the IP has always been attached to that computer and only that computer and they search that computer and find evidence of the crime, then can they prove the owner of the computer committed it? Say they check for finger prints and DNA evidence on the keyboard even, can they prove someone didn't just plug in another keyboard for the purpose of carrying out the crime?
It's the fundamental disconnect between the system used to commit the crime and the person who used that system to commit it that is the problem, and short of someone making a mistake and incriminating themselves physically in real life or someone physically witnessing the crime being committed I'm not sure it's ever possible to conclusively prove people responsible for digital crimes, at best you can get a decent amount of evidence, but many cases of non-digital crimes upto and including the most serious have fallen flat on such low standards of evidence even where the person is guilty.
I'm not familiar with this case, but I hope he was convicted on the basis that he also admitted guilt in real life, in person, and not purely on an internet posting as that'd be a bad precedent, a green light for smart criminals to frame people for anything from this sort of crime through to child porn crimes to hacking crimes.
A crime being linked to an IP seems fair enough justification to investigate the system or systems behind that IP and their owners, but not enough in itself to fairly secure a conviction.
Read the article (Score:3, Informative)
He pleaded guilty to this.
Re: (Score:2)
At least that means there's no precedent being set where the conviction is based only on the comment then which is good and really how things should be. As I say, the comments are fair enough reason to investigate, and if he then admitted guilt then it seems a reasonable conviction as it's the admittance of guilt that effectively got him convicted in the end so I don't think there's really any news here.
Re: (Score:2)
How will the police be able to prove that he actually drove that fast? First, he may have been bragging about his speed. Second, it may be possible that he didn't write that forum post at all. And third, while he's an idiot for confessing, in my country a confession without factual evidence of an actual crime or offense cannot be prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
How will the police be able to prove that he actually drove that fast? First, he may have been bragging about his speed. Second, it may be possible that he didn't write that forum post at all. And third, while he's an idiot for confessing, in my country a confession without factual evidence of an actual crime or offense cannot be prosecuted.
1. He wasn't charged with speeding. He was charged with "careless driving", for which they don't need to prove you were speeding.
2. He admitted in his post as to the when and where, and mentioned that there was a person writing something down as he passed, probably a license plate number, but "he was too fast for them".
Given this, the police probably went to that neighborhood and asked around (if no complaint had already been filed, that is). That would give them evidence that a crime was committed. If
Re: (Score:2)
By confessing he's effectively acting a witness to his own online admittance of guilt. The police are effectively using the comment as a witness statement that someone has made, and he's confirming it's truth making the comment valid evidence in itself.
So the evidence is there, but only because he admitted guilt, if he had not admitted guilt they would not have had verified evidence, nor would they have had his admittance of guilt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is there's no way to prove the physical connection between who typed that comment and posted the pictures and the person potentially breaking the law.
What if he had a falling out with his brother and his brother used the computer to try and frame him for example?
This is quite different to someone admitting in front of witnesses they have committed a crime, because there the witnesses have witnessed the perpetrator in question admitting the crime directly.
This is the fundamental problem with computer crimes, people are arrested and convicted on much lower standards of evidence than have come to be expected in real life. Say a computer is used for a crime online, and the police trace the IP back to the house, and they can somehow prove the IP has always been attached to that computer and only that computer and they search that computer and find evidence of the crime, then can they prove the owner of the computer committed it? Say they check for finger prints and DNA evidence on the keyboard even, can they prove someone didn't just plug in another keyboard for the purpose of carrying out the crime?
It's the fundamental disconnect between the system used to commit the crime and the person who used that system to commit it that is the problem, and short of someone making a mistake and incriminating themselves physically in real life or someone physically witnessing the crime being committed I'm not sure it's ever possible to conclusively prove people responsible for digital crimes, at best you can get a decent amount of evidence, but many cases of non-digital crimes upto and including the most serious have fallen flat on such low standards of evidence even where the person is guilty.
I'm not familiar with this case, but I hope he was convicted on the basis that he also admitted guilt in real life, in person, and not purely on an internet posting as that'd be a bad precedent, a green light for smart criminals to frame people for anything from this sort of crime through to child porn crimes to hacking crimes.
A crime being linked to an IP seems fair enough justification to investigate the system or systems behind that IP and their owners, but not enough in itself to fairly secure a conviction.
Such claims are repeated often and aren't quite as meritorious as people think, especially when the standard of proof is merely "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Let's say you trace an IP to a given household during the period in question. On the basis of the forum post and the IP identification, you get a warrant and search the computer. You gain access to logfiles, cookies, browser history. Even if the computer is shared, you'll gain some information that would corroborate the forum post.
You may well allege, at
Re: (Score:2)
See I disagree.
Like many other people, my computer remembers and automatically logs me into almost all of my internet identities. Anyone sitting in front of my laptop can assume my identity online and pretty much the only thing they won't have access to is my bank account.
"I left my computer on downloading X while I went to the mart. I failed to lock my computer before leaving. Anyone with physical access to the premises (i.e. my roommates) could have easily posted whatever it is I am accused of posting."
Wh
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you believe me? If so, you're extremely gullible. If not - the standards of proof in a court are meant to be higher than personal opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
- The Police
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhhh - what is your date of birth? Check out my nick for my year of birth. You had better be - oh - at least ten years older than I am. To really be plausible, you better be 15 years older than me. I was sitting in a 3rd grade classroom when JFK was shot - hardly old enough to be stalking political targets.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can the police prove that the 19 year old was actually the one who wrote the post? Did they have cameras installed facing his keyboard?
Re:Without any evidence? (Score:5, Informative)
His bragging alone would not have secured a conviction. There was also evidence that on the same car forum the man was claiming that he was smoking pot and driving on a different occasion. This however, could not be confirmed and charges were not pursued.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/08/10/facebook-speeding-conviction658.html#ixzz0wIDKdH3a [www.cbc.ca]
Re:Without any evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Greetings and Salutations.
I pulled up that area in google maps (would have preferred openstreetmap.org, but, the blasted search still is too limited). It is a densely populated area, so I suspect it was hardly an hour's work for a couple of officers to canvass the street and find witnesses to the speeding car. It would be interesting to find out how many times there had been complaints from the area about dangerous driving.
My bottom line here is that the kid is getting off easy, as there easily could have been a pedestrian stepping out into the road just in time to get smashed by his foolish act. If he wanted to put the pedal to the metal, perhaps he should have picked the Canadian equivalent of an Interstate highway to open it up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yea...and another thing....about half way down the road, it appears that there is a public school on the North side of the street...so no WONDER the LEOs were interested in nailing this kid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This short post couldn't be more wrong.
(1) It's English, the language very occasionally spoken on the Internet.
Rate = x per y, where y is likely a time unit.
e.g. miles per hour /. poster per day
e.g. kilometres per second
e.g. dumb assertions made by
High rate = high x per y.
(2) Sufficiently high acceleration in an urban area will certainly attract a fine for your local equivalent of dangerous driving. It may even be in violation of a city noise ordinance [lexisone.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I guess every country - and in the USA, possibly each state, has its own laws, but I've never seen a traffic law with acceleration limits. Your car may be very silent, so you might accelerate a lot and still don't break any regulations.
And about (1), I don't think you are right. Speed is the rate that space varies with time. A speed rate, therefore, is not speed, but something else, by definition, either acceleration or something else like the rate speed varies with position of the sun, the beats in
A BMW? (Score:3, Funny)
Doesn't he know he should be driving an Audi now [thespoof.com]?
Re:A BMW? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure why that's posted on a spoof site, in my experience it's quite fucking true! BMWs seem pretty common and run of the mill in the UK now and I don't really encounter many that are driven badly above the norm for most cars, One series seem common as muck and I even saw one with one of those learner signs on the top of it the other day which made me chuckle.
Most Audi drivers on the other hand, there's generally two types, there's the middle England Daily Mail reading wife who drives one because her husband bought her it and she thinks it makes her cool but actually scares the living shit out of her to drive so she sticks to 30mph on safe 60mph roads, and then there's the dickhead, who drives 60mph on safe 30mph roads, overtaking on blind corners down country lanes because he thinks the national speed limit sign means "Drive as fast as you fucking can at a minimum of 60mph down every part of this road", when in reality it means something along the lines of "Drive whatever speed is safe for the section of the road you are on, upto 60mph on safe open straight parts with good visibility".
But then it's also no suprise that on the 25 mile commute each way a day I do, that the cars I see in bushes are also nearly always Audis, driven by both types of driver- the dickhead who lost control, and the middle England Daily Mail reading wife who did a 90 degree turn off the side of the road into a ditch because a tractor was coming the other way on the other side of the road towards her at 10mph and that made her panic.
Still, it could be worse, at least they're not the annoying Nissan Micra and Fiat 500 drivers that seem to exist solely to slow the flow of traffic down to something like 5mph on every stretch of road possible whilst still managing to drift across the other side of the road because turning the wheel to navigate a 2 mile long 10 degree turn is just too much for them!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On my 45 mile commute each way, the only cars I ever see in the bushes have red and blue lights bolted to the top, and everyone slows down by 10-20 mph when approaching one whether speeding or not. They're a real menace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Miles are still the standard measure of distance for motoring in England on every road sign, every map, and in every car.
Cue 'speeding' jokes - here's #1 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cue 'speeding' jokes - here's #1 (Score:4, Interesting)
In this season's last episode of Top Gear there was a review of iirc a Ferrari where the same screen was used for the satnav and the digital speedometer, so one can have either one or the other, but not at the same time. The perfect car for Heisenberg. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I posted the same joke [slashdot.org] a few days ago. Maybe I should issue a DMCA notice :)
Quantum memory may topple Heisenberg's uncertainty (Score:2)
A quantum memory may be all scientists need to beat the limit of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, according to a paper published in Nature Physics.
According to a group of researchers, maximally entangling a particle with a quantum memory and measuring one of the particle's variables, like its position, should snap the quantum memory in a corresponding state, which could then be measured.
This would allow them to do something long thought verboten by the laws of physics: figure out the state of certain pai
I broke the Universial Speed Limit! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I broke the Universial Speed Limit! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I broke the Universial Speed Limit! (Score:4, Informative)
Except that the speed he stated was 1.0000000033c, and that means he went back in time, at least for some observers.
What? (Score:2)
Of course, why bother to link to the forum? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm actually rather impressed at the attitude of the other forum members. Most of them felt it was a bad choice and put pedestrians who might have been in the area at risk, suggesting the racer should go to a local track instead to wind up his wheels.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've actually been a part of a few car forums and that's usually the attitude I run into. It's generally just the occasional young asshole who openly admits to speeding like that. The rest either speak out against it or at least don't admit to it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Excerpt:
#1 by bmw550ifreak > The title says it all basically. Anyways, yesterday I was going back home during the day time after the GYM, and when I hit the street next to my house " Appleblosom dr" the zone there is 40 km/h, as soon as I turn into that street, I stopped the car, pressed the (M) button, DSC off, max short shift, and take off 1st gear ( 8000 RPM, switch) and so on... I hit 140 in like 6 or less seconds lol, some old guy was standing on the sidewalk tlaking to another guy, he had a pencil
Re: (Score:2)
What an idiot. Should have locked him up for two years... see how fast he can race out of the showers.
IIRC, some kids racing in Toronto (Mt. Pleasant area?) one evening at 140 caused an accident that killed a taxi driver a couple of years ago. He left a family with young kids behind him. I've driven in a lot of countries, but some of the worse driving (yes, worse than in Shanghai!) has been in Toronto and along the 401 and 400 (overly fast, tailgating, etc). People in that area seem to have no clue abou
Might not be as bad as it sounds (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone who owns a motorbike with similar performance to that M5 (though it's almost 10 times cheaper!), I have to say there really are times when 100KPH over the speed limit is still safe.
I don't know if these particular circumstances were safe... but he may have been able to accelerate to that speed and drop back down to safe speeds over a very short stretch of road... one where you may have perfect visibility of potential dangers.
Laws based on fixed speed/rules suck. There should be only one offense: driving dangerously under the conditions. Traffic police should be required to prove that it was dangerous every time.
Disclaimer: I was recently fined $300 for something that would have, at the very worst, given me a few bruises if I'd fallen off my bike.
Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds (Score:5, Insightful)
100 km/hr over the speed limit safe?
Not on public roads. 100 km/hr period is not safe on a residential street or any other roadway that gets significant pedestrian traffic crossing.
Part of driving safely is being predictable, and nobody expects somebody to overtake them from a quarter km back in under ten seconds. I had a friend who once pulled this stunt on me. We were on a relatively deserted stretch of interstate in his brand new sports car when he turned to me and said, "watch this." Then he punched it. It was like going to hyperspeed. We hit 155 mph (200 km/hr).
At 200km/hr the horizon comes up very fast. There was an underpass with a slight rise past it, and as we zoomed under it I thought, "what if there's a little econobox trying to pass a big rig up this grade?"
As important as control is to driving safety, it's a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. A machine that gives you plenty of control allows you to drive faster than is safe with the illusion of safety, until you discover you need inhumanly fast reflexes to avoid trouble. Furthermore, my friend was totally focused on what was in front of him (as was I). For all we knew we were leaving a dangerous trail of startled drivers behind us.
If I'd been a cop, I'd have arrested my friend on the spot, friend or not. If I'd been the judge, I'd have thrown him in jail. It was an incredibly stupid, inconsiderate, and unnecessary thing to do. Fortunately my friend got the message, and shortly thereafter he found a closed track and got the need for speed out of his system, becoming an exemplary driver after that.
Nobody's impressed by your ability to drive faster than most people would on a residential street. That doesn't take balls, it just takes a willingness to endanger other people who, by the way, don't get to share in the fun. Go to the track, where you can push yourself as far as you dare, and we'll see what you're made of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You misunderstand the point of the rules of the road. They're not to punish drivers after they've driven dangerously. They're an attempt to prevent drivers from ever driving dangerously. So when you get to the point where a situation may turn dangerous, the law should have the power to stop you. Driving is not some game. Lives are at stake. Nobody gives a shit if YOU bruise your knee, or if YOU fall off and die because of a stupid decision you make. That's why there are tracks that let you drive faster than
Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they're arbitrary. In the UK you have a speed limit of 60mph (max) for single lane roads, 70 mph for dual-carriageways motorways.
The single track road might be a congested winding country lane or an empty dead straight smooth A-road.
The motorway might be crawling like the M25 during rush hour orbe light on traffic with two clear lanes and excellent visibility.
There are plenty of times when you can get to 180 mph (talking about bikes) and not be dangerous. The middle of a city is *obviously* not one of them.
I can't believe the number of posts on this thread which on any other subject would have attracted a derisory "but think of the children" flood of sneers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As someone who owns a motorbike ... I have to say there really are times when 100KPH over the speed limit is still safe.
(and that says enough)
Don't be an idiot. Seriously.
I was driving safely under the conditions once, following the speed limit, wearing the gear, and a truck didn't stop at a stop sign. I hit that truck at highway speeds and spent nearly two years in rehab, and that was when doing everything right. The day after I landed in the hospital some kid had hit a dog in a residential zone and ended up in a coma, and from what I heard he did everything right as well. One guy I knew put his bike down and broke his leg when a bee flew in
Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds (Score:4, Informative)
There is a difference between speeding as in being over the legal speed limit, and speeding as in driving too fast for your abilities.
Dont worry, Google and Verizon will slow them down (Score:2)
The Track (Score:3, Informative)
How about this rocket scientist, take your baby to the track. Go as fast as u want
Bought a kickass cool car that goes fast fast fast? Go for it - take it to the track and drop the hammer and see what the car is really made of. The public streets, with kids and grandmas and, you know, everyone else in the damn world, is not the track. Getting someone else killed just so you can enjoy an adrenaline rush is disgusting.
I'm glad the cops nailed him - I wish they'd confiscated the car (100kmh above the speed limit is, to say the least, excessive).
Public forums are PUBLIC, dumbass! (Score:2)
It's just a shame that this moron didn't weed himself harmlessly out of the gene pool and save Canada the cost of prosecuting his sorry ass.
Oblig. Canada joke (Score:3, Funny)
The Real Story.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Snitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Speeding and then bragging about it is unacceptable. That's willfully risking the lives of other people. It is good that a young driver learns this lesson early, before he kills someone with that attitude. The road is not a race track.
Re:Snitch (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, not speeding but bragging that you did so is typical human nature.
Statements made online are neither the equivalent of testifying in court nor expected to be 100% TRUE. If the only "evidence" the cops had was his online statement, they had no evidence at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No. The man basically confessed to a crime. The forum post is their 'evidence'. It's not even hearsay, as it came directly from the 'horses mouth' so to speak. If you're going to brag about a crime, you damn well better make sure you did it, because your liable if they choose to prosecute, and those bragging rights will cost you. I'm assuming those above who are rightfully being modded as trolls and crying about 'snitches' and 'minding their own business' don't have children, or have ever thought long enoug
Re:Snitch (Score:5, Insightful)
What if such a person killed one of your family?
In that case there'd be other evidence. Plus, you're making a circular argument, by assuming we already know the person did it - here the question is whether he is guilty or not.
Yes I have no sympathy for people actually speeding, but it's not clear that online confessions amount to proof in general. Note, even if people confess in a police interview - and even for crimes such as murder, as you suggest - a confession is not necessarily sufficient proof. People may confess for a variety of reasons other than them being guilty (protecting someone, being intimidated; in this story, reasons might include thinking it's cool to claim you were going fast).
What if it was another crime - someone claiming they'd taken drugs, or drunk when they were under age, or describing their first sexual experience which was under age? Okay for the police to charge all of them, too?
Re:Snitch (Score:4, Informative)
In this case it was enough. This prompted the local police to investigate when someone directed them to the forum post. They found witnesses to the event in the area where he committed the crime, and the guy ended up pleading guilty as a result.
The story doesn't claim that he was found guilty on his confession alone, but it was enough to get him convicted of a crime.
Re:Snitch (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, since the summary was somewhat lacking:
Ref: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/845967--speeding-boast-online-costs-19-year-old-his-licence [thestar.com]
Re:Snitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes I have no sympathy for people actually speeding, but it's not clear that online confessions amount to proof in general. Note, even if people confess in a police interview - and even for crimes such as murder, as you suggest - a confession is not necessarily sufficient proof. People may confess for a variety of reasons other than them being guilty (protecting someone, being intimidated; in this story, reasons might include thinking it's cool to claim you were going fast).
The police don't need proof. The police need enough evidence to make an arrest.
The courts look for proof. If there's not enough evidence, he won't get convicted.
If he didn't do it, then the lesson is simple: don't confess to a crime you didn't commit, because, surprise surprise, you might just get charged with that crime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Speeding is a civil charge. It just has to be shown as more likely than not he did speed.
Not in the US, and it seems kind of odd that it would be in Canada since the government is the one bringing the case.
Re: (Score:2)
But online statements are sufficient reason to have a chat with him. The fact that he confessed ("plead guilty", says the article) means that they had all the evidence that they needed when the time came.
Re:Snitch (Score:5, Informative)
Statements made online are neither the equivalent of testifying in court nor expected to be 100% TRUE. If the only "evidence" the cops had was his online statement, they had no evidence at all.
Do bear in mind the following, tiny fact:
A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving
Doesn't matter if they had "evidence" or not, if the judge accepted the plea, the case is closed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speeding in a residential area is unacceptable.
Fixed that for you.
And then, it still depends on how much you speed and context. Point in case, there is a school (i.e. 30 km/h for about 50 meters) directly after a normal out-of-city street (i.e. 100 km/h). During the last school holidays, they left the limit signs up. Was it wrong to go through those 50 meters at 50 km/h, which is the normal inner city speed? Especially since they removed the signs during this holiday season and in the ones before?
Re: (Score:2)
Was it wrong to go through those 50 meters at 50 km/h, which is the normal inner city speed? Especially since they removed the signs during this holiday season and in the ones before?
Depends if you can prove in court that the school was no longer open and no classes were in session during this day of the holiday season. Schools sometimes do have extracurricular activities that go on during the 1-2 weeks that they have off, public especially. The past two I worked in the IT department for it was not unusual to see students come and go during the holiday breaks for band practice or any other number of things.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it's wrong. What makes you so special that you can ignore posted limits, regardless of what you think their reason is?
I'd also like to know more about this power of clairvoyance you have that makes you so certain there wasn't remedial school in session, or a youth program, or any other activity that might have been a reason to leave the signs up.
On the other hand, perhaps the local officials just realized that when they take the signs down, people get used to going 50 km/h through there, and they conti
Re:Snitch (Score:4, Interesting)
In what universe does it make a difference if a person has done something "wrong" in the past in determining whether some action is "wrong" now?
I stole a transformer toy from k-mart when I was little, does that mean I can no longer say that stealing is wrong in any situtation?
I got into a fight in high school and punched someone in the face, does that mean that I'm forced to accept that it is OK for someone to punch their wife in the face because she burnt the toast?
I'm not allowed to hold ideals that I fail to live up to in all of history?
And of course it's impossible that the officials in charge of the speed limits might have decided to leave them up without informing you of the reason, because you are omniscient.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I've even been ticketed for speeding! I have violated the law in the past by ignoring posted speed limits, rolling through stop signs, and one time I was distracted and got bagged for cutting through an intersection when the light was turning red. I've paid my fines, and I readily admit that I have broken rules.
That does NOT make it "okay" or "not breaking the rules." Just as your assessment that the rules are unreasonable, and therefore may be broken, does not mean that you are not breaking the rul
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Speeding in excess of what current road conditions say is appropriate and then bragging about it is unacceptable. That's willfully risking the lives of other people. "Speeding" and then bragging about it just gets you in trouble with the law.
FTFY, but no, I do not know which the person did.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
TFA says that he was doing 100 km/h over the limit. As far as I know, there are no road conditions in which it's safe to do 140 km/h (minimum) in a residential neighbourhood.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The brag was sufficient cause to place the charges, and the kid pleaded guilty. End of story. Though if further evidence was warranted, I'm sure they could have (and maybe did, the TFA doesn't say) seized the "black box", if there is one, out of the car and gotten some corroborating evidence that way. They also could have canvassed the neighbourhood for witnesses: a beemer doing 150 km/h through a residential area is going to be noticed and remembered. The police may even have gotten complaints from neigh
Re:Snitch (Score:5, Informative)
You are wrong. "A car" in itself is no more dangerous than a fork on its own.
The "danger" of speed increases in proportion to the increase in speed. How, you say?
1) Less reaction time when something unexpected happens - blow a tire, new pothole, sudden curve, animal in the road, child in the road, broken down car in the road...
2) F=ma. When your car, traveling at a given velocity, suddenly and rapid decelerates due to impacting something, that Force is transmitted into you, the fame of your car, and the object you've hit. The higher your speed (velocity), the higher your deceleration (negative acceleration) when you come to a stop due to slamming into something. Therefore, the force involved in the crash is directly proportional to the speed at which you strike an object. More speed = more force, given the same car.
3) Increased braking distance - meaning the time it takes you to *safely* stop and not kill yourself or someone else is greater the faster you are going.
Speed, in and of itself, is dangerous. There are conditions where "60m/h" is a generally safe speed. There are conditions were "20m/h" is generally a safe speed. But no matter how you look at that, the higher speed is "more dangerous" in a given circumstance than the lower speed.