Parking Ticket Woe

[LordLoki]

yes, you are correct, incall is what it is commonly called but it IS illegal for YOU to go to someone's permanant or temporary residence for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts for money.

Seems I am having a few basic problems when trying to have an intelligent augment with you. First you state foolish things that have no basis in fact. The statement above is a classic example. Please make at least a token effort to know what you are discussing.

So my friend you are caught, turn yourself in!!!

Secondly you continue to demonstrate this compulsion to try and attack the person when your arguments are empty. This entire thread is about facing the music when you are caught breaking the law. You babbling some nonsense is hardly getting caught. Actually you stating something could be considered proof it is not true.

The story is really simple. A guy got caught parking illegally. The guy admitted he is guilty. The guy whines about it. People say... “pay the damn fine, you admitted you are guilty and you got caught”.

I will repeat, your broad strokes statement insinuates that as long as you don't get caught, you can do anything you want...which is NOT the case.

Please refrain from interpreting me. I however still do maintain that if I choose to park illegally I am assuming the responsibility of accepting the penalty if I get caught.

 

[tboy]

"Seems I am having a few basic problems when trying to have an intelligent augment with you. First you state foolish things that have no basis in fact. The statement above is a classic example. Please make at least a token effort to know what you are discussing."

Ditto.....and the problem YOU have in having an intelligent augment?? (wtf is an augment other than a character in a star trek episode??) is a shortcoming of YOUR intelligence.....

If you can't follow the logic let me explain it to you. According to YOUR rules:
1) You knowingingly or unknowingly broke the law: Incalls and visiting them are illegal in Canada. You can SAY they aren't, you can piss and moan that they aren't, but that doesn't change the fact that they are....EOS
2) You admitted to visiting one. Thereby you admit guilt. Thereby according to YOUR arguments, being a man means owning up to your guilt.
3) Pay the fine: Being a man (your argument) means owning up to the law that you broke thereby pay the fine without wasting the court's time,
4) Getting Caught: you never said you had to be caught and charged by an official of any sort. Therefore you are CAUGHT.

All the criteria have been met by your statement of what a man should do.

I will repeat:

BE A MAN PAY THE FINE DO THE TIME [edited by moderator for the last time.]

 

[hunter001]

Seems I am having a few basic problems when trying to have an intelligent argument with you.

I guess you haven't read his post history. If that is what you are looking for, you are wasting your time.

 

[oldjones]

Ok, so consider yourself caught for breaking the law which in this case being a found in in an illegal incall.

I expect Loki to be a "man" and turn himself in to the nearest police station.

If you DON'T turn yourself in Loki, STFU already.

Sorry, the criminal offence is "being a found-in". Absent the party finding him in, there can be no offence. This keeps most TERBarians pure as the driven (most of the time). This does not compare w/ parking bylaws where the offence is to park in a forbidden spot.

A propos of Canada Post in earlier responses: When engaged in loading or unloading (which does NOT include the driver delivering the parcel to the tenth floor) a vehicle is not considered parked, though it is most definitely stopped, and may be ticketed for that if it's in a No Stopping area.

And of course there's always the issue of the Blue Hornet, in the name of the Queen in right of the city issuing a ticket to the Queen in right of Canada as sole owner of Canada Post. A very inefficient way to transfer my tax money from the feds to the folks at City Hall.

 

[oldjones]

…

STOP! When you edit quotations on the board, DO NOT EDIT OUT THE [/quote]!!!
It makes them soggy and hard to read, to paraphrase a sign seen above another fount of wisdom.

Please, for all our sakes, go back to your posts and where you see

, hit the Edit option. Only the OP can do this. Then add [ /quote ] w/o any spaces, (not

which signals the start of a format) to the end of the quoted material. See how the ugly square bracket stuff magically is replaced by pretty formatting that makes your post way less annoying to read.

 

[oldjones]

Seem to remember that there is something different in how the law treats parking tickets, where you are guilty until proven innocent.

…edit…

And the offences are straightforward enough that most people are guilty. Nonetheless, the legal assumption still is innocence, they just make the admission of guilt and payment of the penalty a whole lot easier than going to court.

But in front of the magistrate, it will be the officer who first has to establish that on the stated day and time the defined offence was committed by the vehicle registered to you, and described in the properly issued summons. If she fails to do so, by her own evidence or yours, your innocence remains unimpeached, and you win.

Example: In the days of handwritten tickets, mine said "Park during prohibited hours" i.e. rush hour "near something-something-oh-8 Danforth". Officer had to guess at the carbon-paper blur and said "…oh-three Danforth" which put it on the other side of the street, where there was no rush hour restriction. Dismissed. I never got to make my, oh so brilliant, case.

 

[LordLoki]

STOP! When you edit quotations on the board, DO NOT EDIT OUT THE

!!!
It makes them soggy and hard to read, to paraphrase a sign seen above another fount of wisdom.

Please, for all our sakes, go back to your posts and where you see [ quote], hit the Edit option. Only the OP can do this. Then add [ /quote ] w/o any spaces, (not [ quote] which signals the start of a format) to the end of the quoted material. See how the ugly square bracket stuff magically is replaced by pretty formatting that makes your post way less annoying to read.[ /QUOTE]

I am trying. Honest I am!!!! and fixing this one was even harder than the other one

 

[tboy]

Sorry, the criminal offence is "being a found-in". Absent the party finding him in, there can be no offence.

Well, this could be challenged in court but as Loki wouldn't want to attend since he's such a "man" and willing to admit his guilt I'd argue that by his admission of being a "found-in" is enough to obtain a guilty verdict should it actually need to go to court.

Admission of an offence negates the need to actually catch the person in the act.....

For eg: If a person walked into a police station and told the duty officer he had committed a crime. There may be no witness to the crime, there may be no officer present when the crime was committed, that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed and the person can't be charged.

As Loki defined a "real man" being one that a) admits his guilt b) knows of his guilt, c) is caught we have met ALL his criteria to him owning up to his crime and being fined or imprisoned for it.

 

[LordLoki]

I guess you haven't read his post history. If that is what you are looking for, you are wasting your time.

Oh. Yes. I see. You are wise oh Hunter # 1

 

[Moraff]

So, you're saying that no one who actually commited a crime or any sort should get a fair trial?

If you've actually committed the crime why would you need a fair trial (other than to set the punishment I guess)? If you're guilty all you would be hoping for would be to get off on a technicality.

LOL yeah ok, RIGHT....so only the truly innocent get to use the court systems?

Well it would speed things up if the truly guilty would stop their games of trying to get off on technicalities.

 

[tboy]

Well, I wasn't going to comment on this thread any longer (because the naysayers think we should re-write our entire justice system) but moraff, I just couldn't let your comments pass by:

1) Even if you've committed the crime, gotten caught and charged, a trial is used to insure that the police have done their job properly and to actually find you guilty or innocent. That's, ahem, why they call it a "TRIAL"...Just because the police SAY you've committed a crime, doesn't mean you're guilty. The police, and prosecutors have to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that a) you've actually committed a crime, and b) that no laws were broken in apprehending you or discovering evidence.

2) But what is "truly" guilty? Is one guilty just because LOKI (for eg) says you are? Here's an example for you: You're paralell parking your car. As you're backing up, someone walks behind you, kneels down to pick up a loonie off the ground, and you crush and kill him between the two parked cars. You've killed him, but are you gulity of murder or gulty of an unfortunate accident? Who's fault is it? You for backing up or the person for being dumb enough to walk behind you?

According to Loki, you're guilty, go to jail without a trial because, YOU did kill the person with your car.

Now you're guilty, what should be your punishment? 15 yrs to life? Why should you do ANY jail time, it's not like you did it on purpose...or did you? Did you know the person? Did he fuck you in a previous land deal? Did you plant the loonie knowing he'd bend down to pick it up?

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TRIALS.

For you people that don't think "the gulity" should get a fair trial, and call them "technicalities" what do you propose? Letting the police do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want?

Are you ready to give up your right to privacy and unlawful search and seizure?

Are you ready to give up your right to a fair trial and the right to be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty? because the city has done just that: you're guilty until YOU prove you're innocent and THAT my friends is what we're complaining about.

 

[Edifice]

A couple of weeks ago I went to pay for a parking ticket at the bank and the teller told me that I can't pay these new tickets at the bank anymore since they are on 'fax like' paper. What's the deal? How come we were able to pay for the older 'construction like' paper parking tickets at the bank and not these new ones?

 

[elmufdvr]

cause the F@cking banks don't want the B#llshit of transacting the paperwork... the F@ckers want you to regester your bills so they can process them... what the FA . they rake you over the coals and they bend you over when you need a loan... at least they should offer you a kiss after the F@ck you over...or at least a reach around.... they banks are just as bad as the church ... at least a priest would buy you candy.

 

[LordLoki]

Well, I wasn't going to comment on this thread any longer (because the naysayers think we should re-write our entire justice system) but moraff, I just couldn't let your comments pass by:

1) Even if you've committed the crime, gotten caught and charged, a trial is used to insure that the police have done their job properly and to actually find you guilty or innocent. That's, ahem, why they call it a "TRIAL"...Just because the police SAY you've committed a crime, doesn't mean you're guilty. The police, and prosecutors have to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that a) you've actually committed a crime, and b) that no laws were broken in apprehending you or discovering evidence.

2) But what is "truly" guilty? Is one guilty just because LOKI (for eg) says you are? Here's an example for you: You're paralell parking your car. As you're backing up, someone walks behind you, kneels down to pick up a loonie off the ground, and you crush and kill him between the two parked cars. You've killed him, but are you gulity of murder or gulty of an unfortunate accident? Who's fault is it? You for backing up or the person for being dumb enough to walk behind you?

According to Loki, you're guilty, go to jail without a trial because, YOU did kill the person with your car.

Now you're guilty, what should be your punishment? 15 yrs to life? Why should you do ANY jail time, it's not like you did it on purpose...or did you? Did you know the person? Did he fuck you in a previous land deal? Did you plant the loonie knowing he'd bend down to pick it up?

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TRIALS.

For you people that don't think "the gulity" should get a fair trial, and call them "technicalities" what do you propose? Letting the police do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want?

Are you ready to give up your right to privacy and unlawful search and seizure?

Are you ready to give up your right to a fair trial and the right to be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty? because the city has done just that: you're guilty until YOU prove you're innocent and THAT my friends is what we're complaining about.

Hi tboy,

I seems to remember, the focus is on someone who said he parked illegally. Admitted to everyone he was guilty. And asked if he should go to court to try and get out of paying the fine. It is $60.

The only person who even remotely perceives this is an attack on our legal system is you.

 

[hungry]

Hi tboy,

I seems to remember, the focus is on someone who said he parked illegally. Admitted to everyone he was guilty. And asked if he should go to court to try and get out of paying the fine. It is $60.

The only person who even remotely perceives this is an attack on our legal system is you.

Sorry to all, I didn't mean to start such a controversy. I agree, I am guilty, but my concern is the penalty, I feel 60 bucks is unjust, an hopefully a judge would agree. To add more to this, one of the vehicles that was also ticketed was a Canada Post van. What irks me is that the city even acknowledges this as a cash cow. There was a front page story in the Star a few weeks ago saying how much the city makes on parking tickets and they target all courier companies raking in about 60 million a year. Meaning we all pay for it. I feel for the little guy who has to pay out of his own pocket. Puro, UPS, Canada Post, etc., just give the tickets to their boss. In the end we all pay for it. I am sorry for Toronto's debt, its not my fault. I have only lived here 3 months. Should I be responsible? Its like when I move to Ontario from Alberta, and got hooked up with power, there was a charge to pay for a previous debt. WTF, I wan't here, but I had to pay. I guess what I am saying is 60 bucks fair. I say no! But, I guess, I will pay, but Toronto is the loser. I will spend as little as possible here and when my lease expires, screw you Miller.

 

[oldjones]

!!!…I am trying. Honest I am!!!! and fixing this one was even harder than the other one

Very amusing Trrickkster.

But because I have no sense of humour, I'll attempt a ABC explanation: Special formats like

quotes

, bold, italics, URLs are done the same. At the start of the format you put a square-brackets tag signalling the format: (quote) and where you want the formatting to stop you put the corresponding square-brackets and slash tag: (/quote). Likewise: (b)(/b), (url)(/url) etc.

The software will re-format everything between the start and stop tags and make them invisible—which is why I used round instead of square brackets to illustrate.

But you knew that, didn't you.

 

[oldjones]

Sorry to all, I didn't mean to start such a controversy. I agree, I am guilty, but my concern is the penalty, I feel 60 bucks is unjust, an hopefully a judge would agree.…edit… What irks me is that the city even acknowledges this as a cash cow.…edit… Should I be responsible?…edit…I guess what I am saying is 60 bucks fair. I say no!…edit…

Nice of you to tell us what you really were bothered about after two pages. Thanks be you didn't go to court, without a lawyer you could really have screwed things up and we'd all have to pay for it. Making 'badguys' pay for such stuff seems an OK sorta concept to me.

We have a way of deciding what's a fair parking fine. Vote for the City Council candidate who says they're too high. Go to meetings and wake him/her up to your grievance with well thought out arguments. We call it democratic government. It's your city, running on about injustice on an escort board or running away won't help it run better. Only you can do that.

Meantime, ask the drivers sweating in molasses-like traffic behind your illegally parked car if $60 is 'fair'. Since it didn't deter you from parking, I'd be inclined to say it was way more than fair.

Be grateful you weren't towed.

 

[oldjones]

…edit…Are you ready to give up your right to a fair trial and the right to be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty? because the city has done just that: you're guilty until YOU prove you're innocent and THAT my friends is what we're complaining about.

Not true. As you have said several times, it is at the trial that guilt or innocence is proven. If you want a trial, you must say so. It tells you how on the ticket. Nothing in that deprives you of your right to one.

If you'd rather admit your guilt and pay the fine, or pay it even if you believe you didn't offend, then so be it. Until you do you're most certainly innocent.

If you decline, they don't come after you to actually collect until there's been a trial at which evidence against you was considered, and none was presented for you. Only then are you pronounced guilty—you and a few thousand others that day.

If you choose not to avail yourself of the right to trial of guilt or innocence, you must pay. If the law didn't have ways of dealing w/ in absentia situations we'd have chaos.

I pay my tickets over the telephone, and I note that nowhere in the process is the question of guilt ever raised. Perhaps to spare our feelings. Consider it a stiff sorta lottery-like parking fee for using a special space, rather than a fine why don't you, and save legal logic for a bigger fish-fry.

 

[tboy]

Sorry OJ, you're automatically charged with the offence and if you don't admit your guilt within a week, the charge/fine increases. Even if you decide to fight it, the fine increases and as stated in this thread, you end up paying court costs in order to exercise your right to a trial. In fact, there is no trial without you asking for one. The ticket automatically goes on your record and if you don't admit your guilt within a certain period of time. It is well documented in the media about how draconian the parking enforcement situation is. The sun has done countless stories on it and how it goes against our charter of rights and freedoms.

This is no different than someone robbing a grocery store and someone getting arrested for the crime. If he confesses? he gets 3 yrs...if he wants to go to trial? He gets 6 yrs.....automatically The difference here is that he MIGHT face a longer sentence IF he is found guilty.

Loki: have you proved your manhood yet by turning yourself in to face the consequences of you breaking the law?

 

[Samthe12man]

Let's say that you do go to court and that you do eventulaly appear in front of a judge ....... WHAT IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU SAY??? WHAT'S YOUR ARGUMENT???? You really have no case at all, do you?