Vancouver Man Shot and Killed in Road Rage Incident

[riffraff]

Just now, mpt said:

And you would make such an immoral leftist who uses violence against someone who is acting within their own freedom and liberty

.......Freedom to be a douche.

[SabreFan1]

Just now, mpt said:

And you would make such an immoral leftist who uses violence against someone who is acting within their own freedom and liberty

1.  Ask anybody who I've had political conversations with, I'm not a leftist, I'm closer to a centrist if labels are required.  My views are all over the political spectrum.

 

2.  If somebody is recording me on my private property, that is not within their freedom to be able to do.

[mpt]

3 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

1.  Ask anybody who I've had political conversations with, I'm not a leftist, I'm closer to a centrist if labels are required.  My views are all over the political spectrum.

 

2.  If somebody is recording me on my private property, that is not within their freedom to be able to do.

Yes that is true.  If your neighbour is recording you in your private place you have every right to remove his camera.  He's violating your rights.  

 

I'm not a conservative, so if you are going to make accusations about someone's political affiliation then be prepared to have it thrown back at you.

[mpt]

6 minutes ago, riffraff said:

.......Freedom to be a douche.

You have all the freedom in the world to be a douche.

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, mpt said:

Yes that is true.  If your neighbour is recording you in your private place you have every right to remove his camera.  He's violating your rights.  

 

I'm not a conservative, so if you are going to make accusations about someone's political affiliation then be prepared to have it thrown back at you.

1.  That's been my point all along.  Also, you can't legally remove it from his property, you have to call the cops to do that.

 

2.  Re-read what I wrote.  I wasn't making an accusation.  I said you would make a good Republican drone.  I didn't say that you were one.  I don't know you well enough to know your political affiliations.

[mpt]

18 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

1.  That's been my point all along.  Also, you can't legally remove it from his property, you have to call the cops to do that.

 

2.  Re-read what I wrote.  I wasn't making an accusation.  I said you would make a good Republican drone.  I didn't say that you were one.  I don't know you well enough to know your political affiliations.

Exactly you call the cops and they could very well charge him.  No one can violate your freedom.

 

Whats wrong with car companies installing dash cams, and you have the ability to turn it on or off, and you have access to the files.  The reason I don't like aftermarket dash cams is they all look ugly in the and aren't integrated.  If it was installed in factory they could make them hidden, streamlined and much more functional than they currently are.    I have a dash cam, its ugly, but its worth protecting myself when BC has a more than 1 in 6 chance of being in an accident every year, few people tell the truth when reporting an accident, and numerous accidents are hit and runs because people are douchebags and care about their own wallets then someone else's well being.

 

Some manufacturers are installing them as an option but they are over 1000.  Put them in every car and the price would be negligible.  None of that though should be government legislated.

 

The province needs to punish bad drivers causing accidents and more than just financially.

[SabreFan1]

24 minutes ago, mpt said:

Exactly you call the cops and they could very well charge him.  No one can violate your freedom.

 

Whats wrong with car companies installing dash cams, and you have the ability to turn it on or off, and you have access to the files.  The reason I don't like aftermarket dash cams is they all look ugly in the and aren't integrated.  If it was installed in factory they could make them hidden, streamlined and much more functional than they currently are.    I have a dash cam, its ugly, but its worth protecting myself when BC has a more than 1 in 6 chance of being in an accident every year, few people tell the truth when reporting an accident, and numerous accidents are hit and runs because people are douchebags and care about their own wallets then someone else's well being.

 

Some manufacturers are installing them as an option but they are over 1000.  Put them in every car and the price would be negligible.  None of that though should be government legislated.

 

The province needs to punish bad drivers causing accidents and more than just financially.

If they are put in every car, the government would soon use it against you.  My SUV is proof positive of that.  Go into it's computer and it will tell you everything I did and the speed I did it at as well as the nav coordinates.  If the cops fingered me for a hit and run, guilty or innocent, they'd easily get a warrant, tow my vehicle away and download the contents of that computer.

[riffraff]

44 minutes ago, mpt said:

You have all the freedom in the world to be a douche.

Wasn’t saying you specifically....but filming people for no reason is all douche.

[mpt]

23 minutes ago, riffraff said:

Wasn’t saying you specifically....but filming people for no reason is all douche.

That is pretty douchey yes

[mpt]

32 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

If they are put in every car, the government would soon use it against you.  My SUV is proof positive of that.  Go into it's computer and it will tell you everything I did and the speed I did it at as well as the nav coordinates.  If the cops fingered me for a hit and run, guilty or innocent, they'd easily get a warrant, tow my vehicle away and download the contents of that computer.

Might be better than someone accusing you and getting you into an expensive legal battle with lying witnesses when you can easily defend yourself.  IMHO dash cams are a good investment to protect yourself especially, look how good they’ve worked for law enforcement.  No more false allegations wrecking lives

[SabreFan1]

45 minutes ago, mpt said:

Might be better than someone accusing you and getting you into an expensive legal battle with lying witnesses when you can easily defend yourself.  IMHO dash cams are a good investment to protect yourself especially, look how good they’ve worked for law enforcement.  No more false allegations wrecking lives

Body cams on cops can work for or against them.  They are public servants so we can force them to wear them. 

 

Personally, I don't want to be forced to have a dash-cam unless I choose to have one.  That said, if they ever became an always-activated standard on every vehicle, I doubt I would boycott buying new vehicles, but that again would be my choice like I have made with my current and last few vehicles that I've owned that have other kinds of recording technology in them that I'm not thrilled with but bought anyways.

[Aladeen]

2 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

If you want a Dash cam, install one. It shouldn't be mandatory. I think a collision avoidance and lane departure sensors are a great idea though. 

I think there should be insurance discount incentives to installing one’s own dash Cam not mandatory but they are damn useful to know exactly what happened in an accident/incident.

[mpt]

1 hour ago, SabreFan1 said:

Body cams on cops can work for or against them.  They are public servants so we can force them to wear them. 

 

Personally, I don't want to be forced to have a dash-cam unless I choose to have one.  That said, if they ever became an always-activated standard on every vehicle, I doubt I would boycott buying new vehicles, but that again would be my choice like I have made with my current and last few vehicles that I've owned that have other kinds of recording technology in them that I'm not thrilled with but bought anyways.

True that

[mpt]

1 hour ago, Aladeen said:

I think there should be insurance discount incentives to installing one’s own dash Cam not mandatory but they are damn useful to know exactly what happened in an accident/incident.

Agreed.

[Senrik Hedin]

You have all the freedom in the world to be a douche.

[CBH1926]

8 hours ago, SabreFan1 said:

That's not how governments work.  I drive a luxury SUV that already has an onboard computer that records everything I do so that if I get into an accident, it can be used for or against me.  If I attempt to turn it off or circumvent it, I would have to face consequences if caught.

 

So basically every move I make is already recorded.  I decided to make that trade-off willingly so I could drive a nice new vehicle.  I could have chosen a cheaper and older car without that technology built-in, but it was my decision to go with the one I bought.  It was not a government mandate.

I am glad that my car does not have any fancy gadgets to track me.

But I also still have a landline, cell phone I use rarely, no smart TV, Facebook, Instagram, Alexa and all that other fancy bull$&!#.

 

I dislike autonomous braking, blind spot monitoring, push button start etc. 

It takes fun of driving imo.

 

[DontTouchMeGuys]

11 hours ago, SabreFan1 said:

It's the beginning of a slippery slope.  When you give up a part of your liberty and/or privacy, you risk getting even more of it taken away. 

 

You don't find mandatory recording devices a problem, so what would stop the government from going one step further and eventually mandating an implantable tracking chip underneath your skin?  If we use your line of arguing, "Unless you're doing something illegal and/or dangerous, what do you have to hide?" there's a built in perfect excuse for a government to do exactly that.

Because a chip under your skin is a section 7 charter violation (right to life, liberty, security). I've read enough case law to know when this applies. Contrary to what people think, the charter only applies when the rights of people are curtailed by the government or state agents, not a car company. 

[skolozsy2]

16 hours ago, nowhereman said:

Unless you're doing something illegal and/or dangerous, what do you have to hide? Hell, the camera's not even pointed at you. If the governments wants to, they can already gather enough information from your cell phones, laptops, tablets, etc. I highly doubt they'd event want to monitor footage of you driving down the street, regardless of whether or not they even could (which they can't).

While the camera isn't pointed at me, there are times that forehead cam might not be as wonderful as it sounds.

 

Pretty sure nobody wants to view my morning dump, and I sure as hell dont want an audience during some of my "do it yourself" moments.

[skolozsy2]

13 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Point is so much for Privacy 

Well, in this situation, I wish privacy was being invaded and cities were watching people as much as you claim, because then the psycho who committed this crime would already be identified. 

[SabreFan1]

6 hours ago, DontTouchMeGuys said:

Because a chip under your skin is a section 7 charter violation (right to life, liberty, security). I've read enough case law to know when this applies. Contrary to what people think, the charter only applies when the rights of people are curtailed by the government or state agents, not a car company. 

Technically it would be against the US Constitution as well, but 10 states have so little trust that the federal government would protect those rights that they've actually spelled it out clearly under state law that forced chipping is illegal. 

 

Unfortunately that doesn't preclude things like moving all personal financial transactions to a subdermal chip.  I honestly can't see it happening in my lifetime though, but I also didn't think that Trump would become president.