Seifer86

Members
  • Content Count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Neutral

About Seifer86

  • Rank
    Aces Star

Recent Profile Visitors

1,854 profile views
  1. January 15 and the bar has already been set quite high for most useless back and forth. One person saying “racist” over and over again to get a reaction. And the other biting hard on the offering but maintaining an air of self-righteousness the whole way through. Bravo...
  2. This is incorrect. Insurance may pay out the claim of the person you hit if the car you used is registered to someone else. There is also UMP with ICBC. But if you are in breach, ICBC will come after you to recoup everything they paid out in any lawsuit.
  3. Then that’s the root of the argument. If more walls are not effective, it won’t reduce the cost to America.
  4. Do door locks cost 5 billion dollars?
  5. Seifer86

    "Baby It's Cold Outside" pulled from radio

    How bout the new Struts single, Body Talks: "You could pretend you don't want it now But I read the signs from your head to your toes Yeah you don't need to say a word 'cause Ooh, ooh your body talks" Sounds like the song promotes implied consent. Outrage!
  6. Seifer86

    Rate The Last Movie You Saw - 2

    What is going on with her wrist and hand?
  7. From what I can tell, half the board has him on ignore. I imagine this is his way of getting any kind of attention.
  8. Seifer86

    Rate The Last Movie You Saw - 2

    Thor: Ragnarok - 1/10 DNF I must have missed something here. Was it supposed to be a children's comedy? I couldn't finish it. Every scene was just full of silly jokes. I'm not a huge super-hero movie fan but this can't be right. What am I missing? The 1/10 is for Goldblum as I absolutely love that guy in any role.
  9. I completely support a move to prop rep. But I am curious as to the bold part of this post. What is not getting done?
  10. By not doing anything to prohibit their freedoms, you are respecting their freedoms. You are showing them respect that they deserve by simply existing.
  11. That is quite the contradiction.
  12. Graat v. The Queen, [1982] 2 SCR 819, 1982 CanLII 33 (SCC) ...Nor were the police officers relying on any special qualifications when they gave their opinions. Both police and non-police witnesses are merely giving a compendious statement of facts that are too subtle and too complicated to be narrated separately and distinctly. Trial judges should bear in mind that this is non-expert opinion evidence, and that the opinion of police officers is not entitled to preference just because they may have extensive experience with impaired drivers. The credit and accuracy of the police must be viewed in the same manner as that of other witnesses and in the light of all the evidence in the case... By law, courts are not to give preferential treatment to police opinion. Being a police officer alone does not give you "expert" status in a court of law. If you believe that police officers opinions are preferred over other lay witnesses, then your issue is with judges and juries (the fact-finders). Would you like judges and juries to be automatons? You can also take a look at R. v. Jenkins, 2018 ONSC 1165 for a more recent application of Graat. It's a case on surveillance of drug trafficking but the law on evidence is the same across the board.
  13. This is one thing that really bothers me. If you looked at CNN's site last night, they had about 10+ different articles posted about the Parkland shooting. In nearly every article they call it "one of the top 10 mass shootings in modern US history". I wish they'd stop saying this. Some deranged, murderer sees this and thinks it's some sick, little rating system for his "achievement" of shooting unarmed kids. This isn't @*#&ing Call of Duty.