From: D Walford on
On 29/07/2010 7:58 PM, John_H wrote:
> Doug Jewell wrote:
>> John_H wrote:
>>> Doug Jewell wrote:
>>>> If they really want to seize motor vehicles from hoons, then
>>>> crushing is a stupid waste. If the vehicle is roadworthy
>>>> or very close to it, why not donate it to a charity, or sell
>>>> it and donate the proceeds?
>>>
>>> Highway robbery takes on a new meaning!
>>>
>>> How can you possibly condone theft by the state, especially over a
>>> relatively trivial traffic offence, when the same lot hardly ever
>>> manage to recover or confiscate the proceeds of real crime (fraud,
>>> theft, crooked share deals, bogus financial schemes, etc)?
>>
>> I don't condone it at all. As I said in my post, but which
>> you trimmed in your reply, real crims often get smaller
>> sentences.
>
> I'm fully aware of what you said, but selling the car (in effect
> stealing it and using it or the sale proceeds) is an entirely seperate
> issue to sentencing the offender. Plenty of crims are sentenced for
> their crimes while the proceeds of their crimes are seldom
> confiscated, either because the state doesn't have the will or the
> legal powers.
>
>> But, if siezing motor vehicles is going to happen, then far
>> better that they actually put it to a decent use rather than
>> just wasting it.
>
> What you still seem to be saying is that stealing the offending item
> (dangerous car, deadly weapon, instrument of crime, or however you
> might see it) is preferable to destroying it. A rough analogy might
> be a savage dog that bites some innocent kid. Destroying it is
> usually seen as justifiable but selling it on and pocketing the
> proceeds, or even handing it over for medical research, certainly
> wouldn't be.
>
> A better analogy might be Israel bulldozing terrorists' houses, which
> gets them plenty of flak but surely it would be vastly more immoral if
> they were to evict the terrorists and sell their houses. There's an
> underlying moral issue here, you and others seem to be missing, and it
> probably harks back to the days when convicted felons forfeited their
> property to the king who ruled over 'em.
>
> Or is it just me? :)
>
Seems that way, I don't understand your argument.
I agree taking someone's property is a very harsh punishment and doesn't
fit the crime but if that is to happen it makes no sense to me to
destroy that property.
In either case the owner looses their property so how its disposed of
shouldn't make any difference to them.


Daryl
From: Noddy on

"D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4c516d69$0$28656$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...

> In either case the owner looses their property so how its disposed of
> shouldn't make any difference to them.

It shouldn't but it probably does.

I know if I was ever stupid enough to have some car that I'd put time and
money into confiscated I'd be a lot more pissed off if it was crushed than
if it was still cruising around in the hands of someone else.

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: Noddy on

"D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4c516e66$0$28656$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...

> Maybe but what if the car was worth a lot of money?
> Would the arseholes still crush it or do they only punish poor people that
> can't afford an expensive car and also can't afford a good solicitor.

I think they're only crushing cars that they consider to be a dead loss. Ie;
the cost to get them to a saleable condition is greater than what the
vehicle is likely to fetch at auction. Still, that to me doesn't make sense
as *plenty* of run down cars make their way through the bargain basement
alley of your local auction house every day. I suspect the *real* reason the
shitfighters are crushed is to prevent the owners (or their friends) buying
them back at bargain basement prices.

Either way, you're unlikely to see anything valuable turned into scrap
metal.

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: John_H on
D Walford wrote:
>On 29/07/2010 7:58 PM, John_H wrote:
>> Doug Jewell wrote:
>>> John_H wrote:
>>>> Doug Jewell wrote:
>>>>> If they really want to seize motor vehicles from hoons, then
>>>>> crushing is a stupid waste. If the vehicle is roadworthy
>>>>> or very close to it, why not donate it to a charity, or sell
>>>>> it and donate the proceeds?
>>>>
>>>> Highway robbery takes on a new meaning!
>>>>
>>>> How can you possibly condone theft by the state, especially over a
>>>> relatively trivial traffic offence, when the same lot hardly ever
>>>> manage to recover or confiscate the proceeds of real crime (fraud,
>>>> theft, crooked share deals, bogus financial schemes, etc)?
>>>
>>> I don't condone it at all. As I said in my post, but which
>>> you trimmed in your reply, real crims often get smaller
>>> sentences.
>>
>> I'm fully aware of what you said, but selling the car (in effect
>> stealing it and using it or the sale proceeds) is an entirely seperate
>> issue to sentencing the offender. Plenty of crims are sentenced for
>> their crimes while the proceeds of their crimes are seldom
>> confiscated, either because the state doesn't have the will or the
>> legal powers.
>>
>>> But, if siezing motor vehicles is going to happen, then far
>>> better that they actually put it to a decent use rather than
>>> just wasting it.
>>
>> What you still seem to be saying is that stealing the offending item
>> (dangerous car, deadly weapon, instrument of crime, or however you
>> might see it) is preferable to destroying it. A rough analogy might
>> be a savage dog that bites some innocent kid. Destroying it is
>> usually seen as justifiable but selling it on and pocketing the
>> proceeds, or even handing it over for medical research, certainly
>> wouldn't be.
>>
>> A better analogy might be Israel bulldozing terrorists' houses, which
>> gets them plenty of flak but surely it would be vastly more immoral if
>> they were to evict the terrorists and sell their houses. There's an
>> underlying moral issue here, you and others seem to be missing, and it
>> probably harks back to the days when convicted felons forfeited their
>> property to the king who ruled over 'em.
>>
>> Or is it just me? :)
>>
>Seems that way, I don't understand your argument.
>I agree taking someone's property is a very harsh punishment and doesn't
>fit the crime but if that is to happen it makes no sense to me to
>destroy that property.
>In either case the owner looses their property so how its disposed of
>shouldn't make any difference to them.

There's a huge difference if you care to think about it!

Confiscating and/or destroying a crim's tools of trade is a long
established practice. Graffitists (is that a word?) loose their spray
cans, druggies have their bongs taken away, illegal fisherman and
smugglers have their boats burned, etc, etc. Most people would have
no problem with the principle, except crushing someone's car for a
minor traffic offense seems pretty harsh IMHO, but at least it's not
without precedent.

OTOH the state's powers to seize property for its own gain were
severely curtailed by the Magna Carta... even if it did only stop the
state from robbing the barons. IIRC it didn't prevent the barons from
robbing the serfs (that came much later) but it still has to seen a
quantum leap forward. :)

No modern democratic state has the powers to seize property for it's
own gain, at least not to any extent, and nor should it. Even the
power to recover the proceeds of crime is limited... it'd be a
minefield if it weren't.

IMHO the principle of GovCo seizing someone's car and selling it for a
traffic offence is no different to seizing a house and selling it
because someone smoked dope within its walls!

Where's all the legal minds when you need 'em most? :)

--
John H
From: Brad on

"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message
news:gab256h313rns40kal8lc20mrkbr458hao(a)4ax.com...
: Doug Jewell wrote:

:
: Highway robbery takes on a new meaning!
:

: --
: John H

Still have the Ned Kelly type here. One of my workers were injured on
Tuesday in an attempted roadside robbery. Luckily they had only home made
guns and didn't think that the vehicle was worth using the ammunition.
Slingshot at about 5m left a nasty lump and cut on his arm but they got
nothing. I would have run them over.


--
Brad Leyden
6� 43.5816' S 146� 59.3097' E WGS84
To mail spam is really hot but please reply to thread so all may benefit (or
laugh at my mistakes)
>
>