Am I the only one who thinks that cop was really nice? Theres one main reason why front tinted windows are illegal. Driver & passenger front windwos that are tinted makes it harder to see head movements of the driver. Its more of a saftey issue more than anything.
for example when ever I come up to a intersection I like to make eye contact with the cars that are waiting to go into the intersection. Or atleast see that their head is looking in my direction.
RCMP is a racist biased revenue generating business.
- To protect the government and to serve civilians with Fines , orders, and impound vehicles.
- RCMP IRSU is an integrated road safety unit officer who is guilty of stunting on camera at 5pm at a busy intersection, no lights no sirens on the wrong side of the road facing sideways crossing a solid yellow and targeting innocent drivers as an excuse to turn her sirens on to get out of stunting .
why do cops bother with small stuff like this? why cant they be out arresting child molesters or murderers...sorry but i lost all love for rcmp after they told me the guy who molested my 4 year old daughter will never get in truble for it just because he said he didnt do it, while there is proof against him..
@SuperBrett1984 we appreciate public discussion over private. when I say I under stand the principle of some thing here is what I mean. ie I put gas in my car turn the key and it starts. the mechanics of it are how it works, ie I put gas in turn the key which supplies power to every thing, the starter engages, turns the engine over, fuel is injected at the right time, spark happens at the right time along with countless other parts and the car runs.
@SuperBrett1984 The Alberta government should make a new law... Stating vehicles can have 30% maximum on front windows, look at the states they are allowed tint we can't we retarded like honestly. I tinted my windows for looks not the opposite. Everyone just gonna get a doctors prescription permit them to have tint for sensitivity to the sunlight <
If your vehicle is not meeting the requirements such as proper operating procedures, window tint, falls into that division of the highway and traffic safety act. Section 2.135 cc will give you the rundown. A Commercial vehicle enforcement has the same rights to pull you over and obtain your vehicle because it is unsafe to drive. Just like a semi being pulled over for a random check. It's for yours the public's and mine to keep a safe environment. We have many rights to seize property against yo
@SuperBrett1984 could you please elaborate, what or who give you the authority over some 1 else to take there stuff against there will, by what mechanism is this done. Because it sure appears like theft to me. Or are we all considered children of the state and government is the parent and the stuff we think we own, is in fact owned by the government, which would mean the government owns us which is involuntary servitude. I am simply trying to understand the mechanics behind it.
@SuperBrett1984 dont get me wrong I agree that we should all maintain our vehicles so that they are safe on the road, I under stand the principle, but I am trying to under stand the mechanics of it. how do you make some one bend to anothers will if they dont agree. after all we are talking about rules here not crimes.
Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "Right to unhindered travel throughout the country" except you must follow the established laws that are in place to make travel safe for everyone. If you dont, find other means. Nobody is restricting your ability travel except for yourself. The government doesn't have to give you a licence.
@jorgslice that ok because you dont need one to travel in your private conveyance, its just more convenient, to not have to go through all the crap of defending your rights at the side of the road or in court.
Hahaha wow. You do realize that you cannot video tape or photograph anyone without a media release consent statement. This is even more applicable to Law Enforcement officers. They have every right to tell you to turn your junk off or you'll be charged with obstructing a police officer. Also, everyone knows tints are illegal, are you that retarded?
@jorgslice actually it legal to record any thing you like as long as one party is aware they are being recorded. so no they cant just tell you to turn off your camera, and exactly how is recording some thing obstructing justice. any thing a cop can do we can do because we are all equal under the law.
@ everyone, we now have a stricter policy of tinted windows in Alberta. First time offense is to meet one week after at a local police detachment to prove that they have taken responsibility to remove the tint. A warning is issued at the time, and if the offender fails to comply. We will find, tow, and suspend your license for two weeks. We have I make it fair for everyone as I don't make the laws, I am simply enforcing them. I understand your frustration . But like everyone in the world. We al
@SuperBrett1984 I under stand that you can take the license, and the plate because they belong to the province, but I have a question that has been bothering me for some time, may be you can answer it. How do you legally and lawfully take some one else's property against there will.
@ everyone . It is very dangerous having tinted windows when you are approaching a vehicle . You don't have the slightest idea if there is a gun pointed at you. Myself as an officer think you should be allowed tint so you can still see the driver. But not black . Just my opinion. Sgt. B. Caparelli . RCMP Red Deer Alberta. That was me in this video
@SuperBrett1984 I appreciate your comment and your point of view, but there has to be some middle ground on this issue, I respect the fact that you worry about your safety, I would be willing to meet half way on this issue, if some one has tinted glass on there car and they roll both windows down at the time of the stop, then that respect for your safety should be recognized and not warrant a ticket. how ever simply pulling some one over cause they have tint makes no sense.
@ORIANA250 Why do you need your windows tinted? It's against the law and causes trouble for you, so why do it? I feel no need to tint my front windows and I don't really understand the mentality behind it since it makes it more difficult to see out of at night.
@wavejumpinseadoo personally I dont have tint, but some people do and I under stand why, some people tint for the simple fact that it looks good, it shields out side light during the day making your visibility out the windshield better as it reduces glare off your dash, also prevents people looking in your car to see what stuff or stereo you have, its a theft deter ant, ever heard the term, out of sight out of mind.
I just got pulled over for tint like an hour ago. When he says raise your window I don't think you have to. Get a warrant you facking bacon eater. I can't stand these brainwashed assholes. 109 bucks. Tax dollars hard at work. Go arrest someone for a real crime you hypocritical assholes! I love when they say turn the camera off. Shut up you facking brain washed idiot! This law needs to be changed! We are just a bunch of sheep being told what to left right and centre!
I pay taxes for the road, its my road. But everyone is just a slave so they will never stand up and do anything. Actually i fully support more police state, and cops should be beating people. The sooner people get angry the sooner this cancer will be exterminated.
Let's see... The cop was courteous, fairly well spoken, and while he did make a request to turn off the camera, he didn't continue to pressure the idea (anyone can ask you to turn something off, cop or not). Front window tint IS an offence in Alberta (under provisions of the TSA), and under both the TSA, and the Provincial Offences Procedures Act, repeated offences can be dealt with by means other than the standard violation tickets, including arrest or vehicle seizure. What's your complaint?
@sdsmith29 my complaint is, the officer is not upholding his sworn oath to uphold the laws that the queen swore to uphold, instead he is upholding contract rules that may or may not apply to the one who was pulled over in the name of the province. further more why is he wasting tax payer money enforcing some thing that does not meet the criteria of a peace officer, I dont see any crime in this video, no one was injured, no property was damaged.
@ORIANA250 Actually, every Cdn police officer is sworn to uphold the laws in the Queen's realm. This includes laws made within the sovereign nations of the realm. THIS includes statutes deemed, by the Federal gov't, to fall under Provincial jurisdiction. Further, a Peace Officer can enforce the TSA. S.1(ff) of the TSA describes a peace officer, including RCMP. Cops don't get to pick WHY laws come into place. If you have a complaint there, complain to your MLA. They just enforce what's there.
@sdsmith29 actually thats dead wrong, the queen swore an oath to uphold the laws of god written in the king james bible. the supreme law is pretty specific in saying that no one is to add or take away from that book that supreme law, what are acts an statutes, there added laws. if its inconsistent with the bible its not law. how ever that does not stop the governing body to rule the people via contracts which is whats being enforced. hence policy enforcer.
@ORIANA250 Clearly you wish to be, or are, a "Freeman," and think that rules don't apply to you. However, common sense must prevail. If you accept the PRIVILEDGE of driving, you accept the rules therewith. You sign and agree to that when you sign the back of your DL. The police certainly are contracted out to enforce these rules. If you don't want to agree, don't sign a DL or drive.
@sdsmith29 dosnt matter if you have one or not, haveing a dl does not prove you are acting through it at the time of the complaint. its like haveing a costco employee card and being asked to produce it when your off duty as a customer in costco as if employee rules apply to you when your off duty.
@ORIANA250 Except that, under the TSA, you agree to produce it when asked by a peace officer (Around S. 160's, IIRC). You agree to this, when operating a motor vehicle. Outside of that, under the Criminal Code (federal law; S. 495 CC specifically) you can be asked to identify yourself when party to some kind of investigation, be it a witness, suspect, accused or victim. Common & Case law both support asking for ID in these circumstances, and then it's not a "provincial" contract matter, either.
@sdsmith29 So, your point of "police are bad for enforcing provincial stuff" goes out the window if you try to argue that. And when you're driving (i.e. not a right, but a priviledge), you have to follow the laws surrounding that (in AB, it's the TSA), which you agree to when you sign your Driver's License. This includes, as I said, producing it when asked by a PO when stopped. This also includes vehicle regulations, such as mudflaps, seatbelts, proper safety features, and tint.
@sdsmith29 I'll argue the "privilege" on page 6 of the criminal code of canada it says,
highway , means a road to which the public has the right to access, and includes bridges over which tunnels through which a road passes:
does that say me accessing the highway is a privileged or does that say its a right.
and like I said before just because your licensed to do business for the government on the highway does not mean your doing that when you get pulled over.
@ORIANA250 You are certainly correct: the public DOES have access to a road and such. However, that does not mean you get to DRIVE on it. Driving is a PRIVILEDGE in Canada (as in most countries), which requires you to agree to certain rules in order to keep you, and everyone, safe. This includes speed limits, keeping your vehicle in good condition, obeying rules of the roads, and other such limitations. If you don't want to follow them, don't drive. As for your last comment... english please?
@sdsmith29 think about what you just said. does that even make fu@#ing sense, if you can't "drive" on the road, clearly you dont have the right of access to it. even the canadian charter of rights & freedoms says you have the right 2 travel. the only real reason I have a dl is because I was told if I dont have 1 there going to beat the crap out of me, kid nap me detain me against my will & steal from me, so is it really a lawful contract having a dl when its under threat and duress.
@ORIANA250 You clearly don't have a clue. You can use public roadways without driving vehicles requiring a License. Bicycles, skateboards, rollerblades or just walking all constitute USE of a roadway. And that also covers your Right to travel. Driving remains a PRIVILEDGE, and you must obey certain rules to do so. You may as well argue that driving 200 km/h everywhere is okay, because the only place it specifically claims it is not is in the TSA, the same document you refuse to agree with.
@sdsmith29 it doesnt matter what your conveyance is traveling is traveling, if you want to call "driving" a privilege fine, I will call it me going over there in my private conveyance. I know blacks law and bouvier's law dictionary define driving as a commercial act for the purpose of making money, how ever thats not what I am doing when I am going some where, there for I am not acting through that "privilege" and I have the right to use the road cause I pay for it through tax.
@ORIANA250 Your tax dollars goes to supporting the Airlines and the Navy, too. Does that mean you can just hop in a plane and operate it as you wish? Likewise, you couldn't just drive a logging truck or school bus without proper class of license, either. You don't just get to "do what you want" because you pay taxes. You, like every Cdn citizen, have to follow and abide by certain rules and laws. I'm not debating this with you, it's a fact, and you've got nothing but baseless opinions otherwise.
@sdsmith29 and you say I am making baseless claims, most people don't own a navy ship or an air plane, and if they did they would probly have taken the training to know how to operate it, so they dont end up killing them selves. I am not saying dont go take training to learn how to operate some thing, I am saying you dont need a piece of paper to tell you that you can do it. and you know as well as I do most traffic tickets have more to do with making money than "safety".
@ORIANA250 Whether you feel traffic tickets, or even court-imposed fines for Criminal offences are just 'money-grabs', the fact remains that they are punishments for valid things. And, yes, sometimes you DO need a piece of paper to say what you can and cannot do. If you work at a job which has mandatory ID, you need it then. You need your bank card to withdraw from the bank. You need a passport to fly to certain countries.
There are rules to these things. Learn them rather than hate them.
@sdsmith29 Likewise, provincial offences are meant, almost exclusively, to keep us safe, as Brett is saying above. Not having 2 working headlights impairs your visibility at night, and can confuse oncoming drivers. Not wearing a seatbelt (or forcing psgrs under 16 to) is an obvious issue. Not having working brakes is another. Driving in a safe fashion (lane, signals, speed, etc.) is about safety, too. I don't know the details behind EVERY law, but they are there for more than just to annoy.
@ORIANA250 Lastly, the only reason you have a DL is because you're going to be kidnapped otherwise? Get a class 8 AB Gov't ID if that's your argument. You can't drive with that, and you still have ID (for getting other things like passports). If you don't want to drive, you don't have to drive. If you don't want to have a DL, you don't need to have one.
Your arguments are clearly baseless, and you have no rationale behind what you say. I doubt there is any point to continuing this discourse.
@sdsmith29 I operate my car, and if I dont have a dl and get stopped I will be beaten up, detained, have property and money stolen from me, how is that basless to say that what your defending is backed with threats and violence. I am willing to be fully liable for my actions if I cause any one harm or damage. do you proof I have an obligation to have government issued id, thats another good point, I would probly be beaten up if I could not produce something I didnt have.
@ORIANA250 I'm not even going to try debating this. You're making COMPLETELY baseless claims that cops are going to "beat you & steal from you" because you don't have a DL? There isn't anything approaching logic/law/fact or sense in that. And as much as you're "willing" to be fully liable, what if you crash and paralyze someone? The costs could be in the millions. This is why we have to have Insurance (another rule from the TSA). You'd never be able to afford it, and the VICTIMS would lose out!
@ORIANA250 Further, nothing about the TSA is "inconsistent" with the bible. The bible doesn't say squirrels exist, for example, either. But they do. So you cannot claim that the bible forsees every possibility and denoted it; there are many things not described in it. Laws of the land, however, are meant to be followed. Read Romans 13:1-7. It is abundantly clear that man needs to obey them.
Lastly, look up the RCMP oaths, and they say much the same.
@ORIANA250 I'll paraphrase a little, for ya: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities", "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.", "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants"
@ORIANA250 Lastly, along the bible path you chose to argue: In a famous passage about taxes, Jesus said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Mark 12:13-17; the same passage appears, slightly modified, in Matthew 22:15-22 and Luke 20:20-26).
This is interpreted by most people to mean that in secular matters follow the law of the land, but for spiritual matters follow the law of God.
@ORIANA250 Additionally, just because something isn't a "crime" under the Criminal Code doesn't mean it's any less of a police matter. If you get a speeding ticket, you could claim "no-one got hurt", but speeding kills thousands of people every year. Likewise with drunk driving; the time you get caught, you didn't hurt anyone/break anything, but that doesn't change the fact that the police try to stop it. I don't claim to know the details behind WHY window tint is a violation, but it still is.
@ORIANA250 ...you're just cranky you got caught, and it's not policy, it's enforcing the law...suck it up whiner, you got nailed for violating the rules....don't like being a slave, move out of the country loser.
@ORIANA250 ..regardless if it's you or not, your comment below is retarded...and yes, i know what a law is.....and how they are enforced, you obviously do not....you sound like a typical wanna be lawyer, read a few items on the internet and think you know it all...you don't like the fact that the LAW was enforced, suck it up princess and move on.
the police make people stop recording them because they don't want to be on camera. an average person can also tell you to stop recording them on video if they do not want to be in it.
@OfficialJMars what is the reason they don't want to be on camera, what do they have to hide. and it works both ways, if I asked an officer to turn off his dash cam they should do it then right, what do think the odds are of them honoring your request. or better yet I dont want to be on camera via cctv so they should turn off there cameras cause I dont want to be in there video stream.
@OfficialJMars only when it suits them, but I can make the same argument, I use my video camera for evidence and safety. I recently had a ticket and requested disclosure because the officer extorted me at the side of the road. I wanted the proof of the extortion cause it was caught on his dash cam and the extortion took place at the side of his cruiser. you know what I got, I got a video with no audio, how convenient that his cruiser had no mics, lol.
@ORIANA250 you have a great point but a police officer is in much higher danger than what you are. he pulls over many people a day and never knows what to expect. what would an officer do you that is overly bad? lol. he's just doing his job, can't get mad at a guy making an honest living. btw, your car sounds like it has an amazing exhaust system. haha
@OfficialJMars I disagree, I'm not the 1 with the gun, and if I choose not to comply with his demands I am in danger of getting shot. I dont think its an honest living either if there out collecting money from people who really did nothing wrong (no one was harmed, no damaged property) honest would be looking for criminals not taxing the
average joe because his windows are dark in the name of so called safety. this is not me in the video and its not my car, just an acquaintance.
@ORIANA250 an officer is not allowed to draw his gun unless someone is suspected to be armed and dangerous and is not allowed to fire unless fired upon. driver tinted windows are illegal so that if a serious crime is committed, the officers can see the operator of a vehicle and make an id on the driver. if there were no police officers, our country would be like a war zone. it sounds to me as if you believe that nobody can do any wrong besides a police officer.
@OfficialJMars lol think about what you just said. "do what ever the guy with the gun says and nobody gets hurt", how is that any different from a criminal, thats extortion and involuntary servitude on a whole different level. We live in slavery and are told its freedom its mental conditioning. You can do what ever you want as long as you do it how ever they say. its all voluntary we are told, do what we say or go to jail, lol. Is that freedom.
@ORIANA250 im done arguing with you. you're completely stubborn. haha. i'd love to see you go to a country without a police force and see how quick you would come crying back.
Under division 3, section 166 (1) a) of the Alberta Traffic Safety Act
A peace officer for the purpose of administering or enforcing an Act or Bylaw may signal the driver of a vehicle to stop and request information from the driver or any passenger in the vehicle.
Wow this officer was really polite and friendly, how the hell is it criminal to ENFORCE the LAW! The law is the law and if you had window tints where they shouldn't be then you are breaking it, he even told you where in the law it says section. 65.1A under of section 77.1; guess what! I bet if you look under there you'll find out what he was saying was TRUE!
@RazorCell7 As far as I know the rcmp ultimatly get there authority from the queen, if they get there authority from the her and swore to uphold the laws the queen swore to up hold. I would say this causes a problem for them or any 1 who claims to uphold the laws the queen swore to uphold. Because the law she swore to uphold is the word of god, the king james bible, I dont recall seeing thou shalt have no tint. but it does say dont add to this book and dont take away from it.
@Oriana250... your right actually. Spoken like a true gentleman. Sorry to waste your time with my immature commentary. I do make an effort to drive civilised and I purchased larger trucks and low horsepower cars to keep me out of trouble and from speeding. Currently 9 demerits. But paying low insurance... 125 a month for a 3/4 ton diesel and small car and motorcycle.
@GeorgeT0C2P0 I dont have a problem with the police, I have a problem with there not knowing the law or knowing where they get there authority from. the guy in the video getting the ticket was neither speeding or driving recklessly. he got pulled over simply because he had a light film of tint on his windows. I was traveling with him in a separate car and watched the cop pass me to pull him over. There is no need for name calling and I don't recommend your driving habits.
You are not above the law dipshit. You don't have a leg to stand on. You know you were wrong so pay it and quite your whining. Just think of it as revenue from a user/loser tax. Back you go to law school Perry Mason!!!
@excursionxlt nobody is above the law, my point is "this is not a law", how can it be a law when it does not meet the requirements to be a law, where is the corpus delicti in this ticket. not only that but is this officer following his oath of office, is he upholding the laws that the queen swore to uphold, I think not.
@ORIANA250 It is not a criminal offence there guy. So corpus delicti need not apply. You do not even need mens rea all you need actus reus....The tint is a Provincial law. The Province has decided that in driving with tint is dangerous and illegal. So they in act this law...The roads belong to the Prov as does your licence and reg...Which means the RCMP,City Police, Sheriffs are appointed to uphold that law. So that is what gives them the right? Anymore lessons needed?
@kebede23 so no corpus delicti is needed because its not a crime, ok I can go with that, so the only thing left for this to fall under is contract. If the police do not require an injured party damaged property and its not a crime, then the only category left it can fall under is contract law. I dont believe my friend signed a contract to obey any such rules so what is being enforced. for the record the public own the highways thats you and me. the province is our public servants.
@kebede23 also I wonder if you know where the police get there authority from, I know where they get it from. and I know the limits of there authority.
@ORIANA250 It's too bad you don't know the limits of the word "there". Your friend has tint where he shouldn't, It's a by-law. Surprise! those are also enforceable. Did he sign a contract that specifically covers tint? Probably not. Did he sign on a line when he got his license? Yes. How about when he plated/registered his car? Yes. Those are agreements that he signed. If he wants to drive gov't roads, he obeys gov't rule. Simple.
@glowerpower sure he may be licenced to act as a gov agent, but was he acting as a gov agent at the time of the complaint or was it just assumed that he was. and they are public roads owned by the public and the public has the right to access public roads because they own them.
@ORIANA250 Don't get me wrong, my new car is bright white and would look much nicer with black-out tint all the way around. I had the factory tint the ones they legally could and leave the ones they couldn't. Why? Not because I signed a window tint contract when I got it, but because I made myself aware of the gov't rules pertaining to tint, so that I don't get pulled over and fined every time a cop has nothing better to do. Pretty good plan, eh?
@glowerpower I think this question has been asked and you would still get a tint ticket. the reason is clearly not specific, first its a danger to you, then its a danger to the officer, then its because they cant see in to see if your on your phone. my point is not that I have no contract to follow one rule, my point is I have no contract to follow any highway traffic act rule, so how is it being enforced legally and lawfully.
@GOUGOUNETTE if a law was broken, who is the injured party and where is the damage, if either of these 2 things don't exist, its not a law. I am not arguing any thing just simply asking questions. here is a good question, why is the highway traffic act not labeled the highway traffic laws, why is the word act used. if they are laws than label them as such.
@ORIANA250 Have your windows tinted too much proves to be a risk to police officers. If they pull over a car that has windows tinted and can't see clearly into it they could walk up without knowing someone has a weapon and is waiting to injure and or kill them. There doesn't need to be an injury or any damage for it to be a law, laws are put in place to maintain order and prevent choas.
@TheDarkKnight181 wrong, laws require corpus delicti 2 be a law. if they dont have that then its a contract. as I have said b4 if one rolls his windows down out of respect of the officers safety then that should be like wise respected. I have a question what was the reason for this person getting pulled over in the first place, was there a breech of the peace or was it simply for a tint ticket, if it was for a tint ticket and you wana use the safety argument, the officer put him self at risk.
@ORIANA250 Tinted windows is risky to anybody, not just police, say you are walking someone where and a car with tinted windows is beside you on the road, you don't think much of it because you assume it is just another person diriving when behind the windows someone with a knife is waiting for the moment you look away to jump out and get you, the fact is laws are put in place to prevent an act in which there is a risk to the public
Front passenger & driver side windows are only allowed to have tint IF it was made that way by the manufacturer it is NOT how ever allowed to have tint if it is peel on or glazed tinting.
@spikesKidz hahahahaha, that's a good one, how about I tell you that you cant where sunglasses because I says so, I mean because I don't like the fact that you could be looking at my wife's cleavage or because I cant judge if you are a safe person because I can not see your eyes to read your body language, so here is your 115 dollar ticket because wearing sunglasses makes you a potential pervert. REALLY I mean come on where do you stop with this Gestapo crap.
@ORIANA250 I don't make the laws the government does and the reasoning behind the not wanting tint int eh driver/passenger side windows OR the windshield is so if someone in the car has a gun and aiming at someone outside the car they can at least see in through the non tinted window , and have a little bit of a chance to get out of the way. It's all for the safety of others.
@spikesKidz I respect your reasoning for safety, would you show compassion to some one who respects your safety and rolled both windows down for you so that you can see in, and then let them go or would you write the ticket, and if so where is the corpus delicti in your ticket. Also some one else on here said this argument would be used, his response was if its about safety, what do you do when you pull over a lifted up truck and you cant even see over the door handle, how do u use that agument
@ORIANA250 Well let's cut out the lawyer talk here haha the BODY OF CRIME as you said in Latin is that the tint was put on manually to the windows which violates one of the many sections in the Highway Traffic Act .. If I was the police officer in this situation then yes I would give you the ticket but I would also give you the option of getting it removed before a certain amount of days and then showing me it was removed then I would get rid of the ticket.
@spikesKidz hahaha, did putting tint on his own car cause a damage injury or loss. Or are you simply claiming that you are enforcing a contract that the owner may have with the province where he agreed to follow all the said acts and statutes, and if so where's the contract. and why is always assumed to be lawyer talk to know the law and know your rights I take offense to that, lol.
@ORIANA250 Nothing says that either of the two occupants in the car were not rude and being resistant to the officer before the video taping started! From what I've learned from officers that I've talked to before is that if your polite and respectful then your more likely to get a break but if you are rude and disrespectful then you will get the ticket !
@ORIANA250@ORIANA250 To your situation about the trucks.. Most of the time safety wise the driver would be told to open his door so that everything is seen on the floor and in his hands rather then just getting on the truck and peering your head in through the window or if someone was really cautious then they could get back up and have one person on the passenger side and another at the drivers side but it's also a law that the truck cannot go over a certain height unless it is a trans truck
desjardins27 .... the reason they can't find the person who broke your window is that they have to waste their time dealing with idiots who break the traffic laws. Just think how much more work they could do if all traffic laws were obeyed !
@CDM976 thats a cop out! 90% of the traffic statutes are about making money, they really have nothing to do with safety. its about making money plain and simple. who in this video was the injured party, and don't give me that crap about window tint being a safety hazard. think about all the work a real police man could do if he wasn't forced to fill a revenue quota, every month. We want police to focus on crime where there is an injured party not victimless noncontract enforcment.
@ORIANA250 Quotas are only in the states RCMP are a federal organization ANY and ALL money that is paid from tickets goes towards the city or town you were given the charge in. If you read the ticket you will see it will say what city/town you were charged in. The states have police for each state so the money that they generate from tickets goes into the town that they police not saying the US police use or have quotas but that is where the money from tickets go.
@spikesKidz thank you for clarifying that police for the most part are revenue collectors, aka policy enforcers.
I would like to see the accounting on said claim about money going back into the community. and if thats true you have not looked far enough, community's borrow money from private banks at interest and thats the problem, so you may be right partly, but I am right in saying it goes to line some bankers pocket through lent money to the community.
@ORIANA250 I think were getting off topic here though if you want to know about where money from tickets go ask an officer or better yet ask someone from a courthouse! All I know is that I posted on here to at least show that the officer issued a ticket for an actual law being broken, and that it is all because it's part of the job! It's tinted windows I mean it's not a big deal to have non tinted windows for the safety of others, is it that big of a deal to have reg windows? instead of tint
@spikesKidz are you claiming acts and statutes are law. and if so why doses it say on the first page of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms that all acts and statutes are given the force of law, think about that for a minute, it does not say they are law. sounds more like a contract 2 me, contracts don't have any force until the contract is signed and consent is given. I trust people at the court house as far as I can throw them unless they are willing to give it to me on paper, signed.
@ORIANA250 I read the CAN charter and never read that in there must have missed it but think about what u said. The Law is made up of ACTS highway traffic ACT/motor vehicle inspection ACT/roads ACT I can go on but these ACTS make up the Canadian Law lol they call them ACTS because they are different sections of the law. WHAT IS A STATUTE? The word statute typically refers to a law. So just tell your friend to pay the fine, and I'm glad I could give this lesson in law ^_^
@spikesKidz thank you for your lesson in law, but I have a few questions, what does the first line of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms say? and why does it say every thing enacted by it shall be given the force of law, dosnt say it is law it says given the force of, sounds like a contract to me. further more what does section 32 of the charter say about who these acts and statutes apply to. then there is section 52 thats a good one.
And for your cell phone usage complaint. It is not just the police that are exempt from using cell phones. It is all emergency response persons. Cell phones are used because sometimes information is needed quickly and a cell phone may be the quick way of getting it. I can tell you that police forces are attempting to put blue tooth into their vehicles but like everything else, it comes down to budgets. I know it's lame to say, but you need to remember. Driving is a privilege not a write. One of
@onbcunknown driving or performing a function of government may be a privilege, but traveling is a god given right and the guy in this video does not appear to be doing any government business, so the ticket is frivolous unless the officer can prove the "driver" was acting in capacity of a government agent.
@ORIANA250 True, you have a right to travel. But when you hop into a vehicle and travel on roads that were put in place by the government, then you have to follow their rules. You dont like the rules, its also your right to fight the ticket. You lose your case, then dont pay the fine, also your right. You just may lose your licence because having a DL is a privillege. Read the fine print when you get or reniew your licence. There is to much complaining in the world today.
@onbcunknown thats fine, you don't need there drivers license to travel on the public roads that we own in your private car, because you are not performing a function of government. read the canadian charter of rights and freedoms, the first lines says the charter recognizes the supremacy of god and the rule of law. acts and statutes are not law or should I say not gods law. now read section 32 and 52 of the charter. it apply's to gov and its supreme over all acts.
Buddy you got to understand that there are lots of different sections to the RCMP. You complain about your window, well that would be a general duty member that deal with that. Unfortunately there is only so much that can be done with that unfortunate and hard to prove incident. Instead of blaming the police, why not blame the boob you wrecked your car. There is also a traffic section who usually would be the one to pull you over. They have these sections basically to keep the roads safe and to
@desjardins27 I agree but what is being enforced here is not a law its an act, they just want you to believe its a law but its not. why do you think they call it the highway traffic ACT, why wouldn't they call it the highway traffic LAWS. so my question is why are they enforcing contracts for a private corperation, why don't they go enforce some laws, like finding the guy that broke my back window, the guy who did vandalism and theft, OH YA there's no MONEY in that.
@RCMPxGRC: that whole thing about officer safety is a load of fucking crap, take your head outta your ass and do your fucking job. Go seek out the drug dealers and the drunk drivers! I have a jacked up 3500 diesel, most cops that pull me over can't see over the door handle, I could have a weapon of some sort or a cab full of ninjas for all you'd know. Tinted windows have saved my truck from being broken into since the glass don't shatter very well when struck, and ya i understand that's unsafe
Well there is really no need to give you a card during traffic stops all the person needs is a badge number. And the reason they are allowed to remove/seize your vehicle after your second violation on tint is because your vehicle would be classified as "unsafe to be on roadways" because of the equipment violation.
@RCMPxGRC I am not concerned with whether there is a need to do some thing or not, if you are a public servant and I ask for something like that, you are obligated to give it as a public servant, just as you feel I am obligated to give you I.D when you ask. You may have the right to say to some one can't operate there vehicle because it is allegedly unsafe but how do you legally and lawfully take some thing away with out it being called theft or armed robbery. what am I a ward of the state?
@RCMPxGRC So murder, theft, assault, woman battery, excessive speeding, stunting....thats all wrong no matter what country, state, or province you visit....but window tint and loud exhaust is only punishedin certain provinces or states. I just had a friend roll through with a Muffled exhaust and got a ticket for loud exhaust, when there was 3 3500 Diesel trucks with 6" pipes out the back, and they didnt get tickets. So please enlighten us why only random people get picked off on dumb tickets??
And if window tint is an equipment violation, explain why the East coast and Manitoba are allowed 35% tint on front roll up windows, and Other states in the USA have laws similar?? Everyone gets pulled over in this provinces and states. Could it be maybe that Alberta is Oil province? More money, which means, more laws made, for more laws to be broken, for more money to be made for the government? It sounds like a scam, and i have nothing against you, or the good officers out there for the record
I also have another question. Theres now a no cellphone permitted to be in use whilst driving a motor vehicle. So why are RCMP/Peace officers allowed to use they're cell phones while driving? If its under a matter of the fact officers have been through driving courses, well, so have i...i run Autocross, which is trained by the same trainers that train RCMP for the roads. So why is the officers driving skills trusted, but not mine? Why cant we run a course on our license that permits trust?
@RCMPxGRC Fair enough answer, I have a couple more questions, how come when your pulled over when I ask the officer for there business card they refuse to give it out, thats just bad business.
How can a peace officer seize, confiscate, commandeer, your car or property in the name of the queen with out being called theft, or armed robbery. This is causing harm and loss at the same time, how is this legally and lawfully done.
Sounds like a good question to ask the Provincial Government. What you're doing is the equivalent to getting angry at the gas station for the price of fuel.
Well for emergency vehicles such as ambulance, fire trucks they are only to be used in emergency situations. LEO's use lights/sirens to signal to the suspect vehicle to pull over to the shoulder of the road to conduct a traffic stop.
@RCMPxGRC So if I am not a suspect, why would I be pulled over. ie my buddy here has not done anything to be considered a suspect and was not informed he was suspected in a crime, there for he should not have been pulled over. I would think in order to be considered a suspect there would have had to have been a report out for some one matching his description that was involved in a crime, or the officer witnessed him breach the peace, ie harm some one or there property.
Well the reason why he pulled you over at a little over the speed limit was to check your tint to, I'm not going to go out of my way to give you a ticket for a little tint. If it's excessive hell I might even order you out of the car. Whenever I have given out tickets for tint it's because he was doing something else stupid and I'll just throw the tint charge in. I'm not going to pull you over for 6 over because there are enough speeders going well over the posted speed limit. For instance I pu
@RCMPxGRC actually it was specifically for the tint because my buddy was traveling 5kms under the posted limit, there was no other reason to pull him over. I often wonder why policy enforcers even bother when the qe2 is as busy as it usually is to be out there issuing tickets, if you wana talk safety I would say you are at a high safety risk stopping some one on that highway, it causes safety hazard to other on the road as well as your self.
@RCMPxGRC If you are an rcmp officer, I would like to ask this question, are your lights on your roof for emergencies puposes only as per the law and if so how do you stop some one lawfully with them if they are not having an emergency in there vehicle. If you like we can have a private discussion via private message's as I have many other questions that you may be able to answer.
I do agree with ORIANA250 where respecting the officers is my job. But NEVER will i give respect to an officer that disresects his own job, takes advantage of power by boredom or being an alpha on the highway/town. And under no circumstance should an officer expect that, if he/she is going to abuse that power. The people have rights in many of the laws. Next time a cop wants to throw his lights on at me, ill wave him by, cause those lights are meant for emergency purposes only!! :)
Window Tint or not, you still cant see what the driver has on they're right hand, or hiding right beside the door...the dark window only gives a tint to the face. On a regular window, theres the sky reflection, the sun reflection, and the officers face reflection, so again window tint or not you still cant see whats going on. Seatbelts is another piss off. Its my choice if i want to wear my seatbelt, why should get a god damn ticket for that? Its my life, not the officers. Another stupid law.
RCMP, Sheriffs, and Peace Officers, are paid by Government tax dollars. So that means, that i pay government officials to pull me over, piss me off, send me to court, over window tint or loud exhaust, or volunteer a payment. WTF is that?? I pay Officers to serve me, and protect me, not irritate me and the rest of the people who work hard jobs to survive.
Window tint on a civilian or commericial vehicle is a useless law enforced to accumulate more dollars from the people. Same thing with the Seat belt ticket, and useless stunting tickets such as loud exhaust, and underglow lighting. For christ sake, if RCMP are gonna pull over for that, then you might as well enforce too shiny of rims, and that paint job reflects the sun too much lol. In reality, the enforcement is getting ridiculous, and out of hand. Its really unfortunate.
The law is put in place for officer safety. When a peace officer pulls you over (especially at night in regards rear passenger windows) he doesn't know what you are going to do, or if there is a person in the back seat hiding, ready to do anything not to go to jail. Laws like these have saved many officers lives.
@RCMPxGRC I will agree with what your saying but officers should use discretion when issuing these tickets, if the guy rolls his windows down because he show consideration for the officers safety then the officer should show some consideration back for that and not issue the ticket. also stopping some one just because they are a little above the posted limit and or because they have tint is not probable cause to pull them over, I do also agree with frick209 about the lights and emergencies.
There are cameras in the patrol vehicles, therefore there is no need for you to record. The officer wear mics that record audio.
Police officers are just doing what they are told to by the government. If you have a problem with this, Form a complaint towards the government, not the police office set out to enforce the laws provided by govt.
@RCMPxGRC Problem is officers are humans to and they also lie or make mistakes, I have been to court and witnessed people ask for cctv footage or patrol car footage and conveniently the camera's were not work on that particular day or so they were told. There is no such thing as to many camera's, if the officer didn't do any thing wrong then he has nothing to worry about. This video is for educational purposes for, I encourage every one to video tape there encounters with any government official
@RCMPxGRC Not saying all officers are bad, I have met good ones and bad ones, but that is like every thing, officers are given acts and statutes to enforce on public roadways and they have discretion that they often don't use, this particular statute has more to do with making money than safety and if it allegedly does have some thing to do with safety, I know many people who would wave the right of Nannie gov protection and accept the fact that it might endanger there lives.
@RCMPxGRC I have all the admiration in the world for a peace officer, I love them for the job they do because god know's I would not want to do it, but when they take that hat off and put on the hat of policy enforcer, I have no respect for that.
God bless peace officers who never delay right or justice.
Am I the only one who thinks that cop was really nice? Theres one main reason why front tinted windows are illegal. Driver & passenger front windwos that are tinted makes it harder to see head movements of the driver. Its more of a saftey issue more than anything.
for example when ever I come up to a intersection I like to make eye contact with the cars that are waiting to go into the intersection. Or atleast see that their head is looking in my direction.
elkpointscanner 1 day ago
RCMP = Racist organization focused on revenue generating.
Police are the Anti-Christ of the NWO, stand up today or they will be more powerful tomorrow.
Kingb123abc 3 days ago
RCMP is a racist biased revenue generating business.
- To protect the government and to serve civilians with Fines , orders, and impound vehicles.
- RCMP IRSU is an integrated road safety unit officer who is guilty of stunting on camera at 5pm at a busy intersection, no lights no sirens on the wrong side of the road facing sideways crossing a solid yellow and targeting innocent drivers as an excuse to turn her sirens on to get out of stunting .
She was off duty at 5pm
On her way back to the
Kingb123abc 3 days ago
RCMP:"oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink"
Shukria123 3 days ago
Why did the officer want to know "where are you off too? I thought that was strange.
ploverspam 3 days ago
All comments can be directed to Brett@Rcmp.ca thx.
SuperBrett1984 6 days ago
pig, pig...oink
Shukria123 1 week ago
why do cops bother with small stuff like this? why cant they be out arresting child molesters or murderers...sorry but i lost all love for rcmp after they told me the guy who molested my 4 year old daughter will never get in truble for it just because he said he didnt do it, while there is proof against him..
crabbmann100 1 week ago
OINK, OINK, OINK, OINK, OINK, OINK, OINK, OINK, OINK, OINK, OINK, OINK, OINK, OINK
Shukria123 2 weeks ago
full pigage
Shukria123 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink, oink...pig
Shukria123 3 weeks ago
I am not sure I am understanding your question. You can e-mail me at Brett@AlbertaRcmp.ca
SuperBrett1984 3 weeks ago
@SuperBrett1984 we appreciate public discussion over private. when I say I under stand the principle of some thing here is what I mean. ie I put gas in my car turn the key and it starts. the mechanics of it are how it works, ie I put gas in turn the key which supplies power to every thing, the starter engages, turns the engine over, fuel is injected at the right time, spark happens at the right time along with countless other parts and the car runs.
I hope the analogy helps.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
@SuperBrett1984 The Alberta government should make a new law... Stating vehicles can have 30% maximum on front windows, look at the states they are allowed tint we can't we retarded like honestly. I tinted my windows for looks not the opposite. Everyone just gonna get a doctors prescription permit them to have tint for sensitivity to the sunlight <
Greddi3p 6 days ago
If your vehicle is not meeting the requirements such as proper operating procedures, window tint, falls into that division of the highway and traffic safety act. Section 2.135 cc will give you the rundown. A Commercial vehicle enforcement has the same rights to pull you over and obtain your vehicle because it is unsafe to drive. Just like a semi being pulled over for a random check. It's for yours the public's and mine to keep a safe environment. We have many rights to seize property against yo
SuperBrett1984 3 weeks ago
@SuperBrett1984 could you please elaborate, what or who give you the authority over some 1 else to take there stuff against there will, by what mechanism is this done. Because it sure appears like theft to me. Or are we all considered children of the state and government is the parent and the stuff we think we own, is in fact owned by the government, which would mean the government owns us which is involuntary servitude. I am simply trying to understand the mechanics behind it.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
@SuperBrett1984 dont get me wrong I agree that we should all maintain our vehicles so that they are safe on the road, I under stand the principle, but I am trying to under stand the mechanics of it. how do you make some one bend to anothers will if they dont agree. after all we are talking about rules here not crimes.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "Right to unhindered travel throughout the country" except you must follow the established laws that are in place to make travel safe for everyone. If you dont, find other means. Nobody is restricting your ability travel except for yourself. The government doesn't have to give you a licence.
jorgslice 3 weeks ago
@jorgslice that ok because you dont need one to travel in your private conveyance, its just more convenient, to not have to go through all the crap of defending your rights at the side of the road or in court.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
Hahaha wow. You do realize that you cannot video tape or photograph anyone without a media release consent statement. This is even more applicable to Law Enforcement officers. They have every right to tell you to turn your junk off or you'll be charged with obstructing a police officer. Also, everyone knows tints are illegal, are you that retarded?
jorgslice 3 weeks ago
@jorgslice actually it legal to record any thing you like as long as one party is aware they are being recorded. so no they cant just tell you to turn off your camera, and exactly how is recording some thing obstructing justice. any thing a cop can do we can do because we are all equal under the law.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
@ everyone, we now have a stricter policy of tinted windows in Alberta. First time offense is to meet one week after at a local police detachment to prove that they have taken responsibility to remove the tint. A warning is issued at the time, and if the offender fails to comply. We will find, tow, and suspend your license for two weeks. We have I make it fair for everyone as I don't make the laws, I am simply enforcing them. I understand your frustration . But like everyone in the world. We al
SuperBrett1984 3 weeks ago
@SuperBrett1984 I under stand that you can take the license, and the plate because they belong to the province, but I have a question that has been bothering me for some time, may be you can answer it. How do you legally and lawfully take some one else's property against there will.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
@ everyone . It is very dangerous having tinted windows when you are approaching a vehicle . You don't have the slightest idea if there is a gun pointed at you. Myself as an officer think you should be allowed tint so you can still see the driver. But not black . Just my opinion. Sgt. B. Caparelli . RCMP Red Deer Alberta. That was me in this video
SuperBrett1984 3 weeks ago
@SuperBrett1984 I appreciate your comment and your point of view, but there has to be some middle ground on this issue, I respect the fact that you worry about your safety, I would be willing to meet half way on this issue, if some one has tinted glass on there car and they roll both windows down at the time of the stop, then that respect for your safety should be recognized and not warrant a ticket. how ever simply pulling some one over cause they have tint makes no sense.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 Why do you need your windows tinted? It's against the law and causes trouble for you, so why do it? I feel no need to tint my front windows and I don't really understand the mentality behind it since it makes it more difficult to see out of at night.
wavejumpinseadoo 3 weeks ago
@wavejumpinseadoo personally I dont have tint, but some people do and I under stand why, some people tint for the simple fact that it looks good, it shields out side light during the day making your visibility out the windshield better as it reduces glare off your dash, also prevents people looking in your car to see what stuff or stereo you have, its a theft deter ant, ever heard the term, out of sight out of mind.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
@oriana250 - are you some kind of religious nut cake? You sound like it! Ridiculous laws are what is going to pull this country apart. Go Anonymous!
chance1476 3 weeks ago
I just got pulled over for tint like an hour ago. When he says raise your window I don't think you have to. Get a warrant you facking bacon eater. I can't stand these brainwashed assholes. 109 bucks. Tax dollars hard at work. Go arrest someone for a real crime you hypocritical assholes! I love when they say turn the camera off. Shut up you facking brain washed idiot! This law needs to be changed! We are just a bunch of sheep being told what to left right and centre!
chance1476 3 weeks ago
I pay taxes for the road, its my road. But everyone is just a slave so they will never stand up and do anything. Actually i fully support more police state, and cops should be beating people. The sooner people get angry the sooner this cancer will be exterminated.
bmays005 4 weeks ago
@bmays005 your right, but if a police state comes in it could get very ugly if the people stand up too late.
ORIANA250 4 weeks ago
Let's see... The cop was courteous, fairly well spoken, and while he did make a request to turn off the camera, he didn't continue to pressure the idea (anyone can ask you to turn something off, cop or not). Front window tint IS an offence in Alberta (under provisions of the TSA), and under both the TSA, and the Provincial Offences Procedures Act, repeated offences can be dealt with by means other than the standard violation tickets, including arrest or vehicle seizure. What's your complaint?
sdsmith29 1 month ago
@sdsmith29 my complaint is, the officer is not upholding his sworn oath to uphold the laws that the queen swore to uphold, instead he is upholding contract rules that may or may not apply to the one who was pulled over in the name of the province. further more why is he wasting tax payer money enforcing some thing that does not meet the criteria of a peace officer, I dont see any crime in this video, no one was injured, no property was damaged.
ORIANA250 1 month ago
@ORIANA250 Actually, every Cdn police officer is sworn to uphold the laws in the Queen's realm. This includes laws made within the sovereign nations of the realm. THIS includes statutes deemed, by the Federal gov't, to fall under Provincial jurisdiction. Further, a Peace Officer can enforce the TSA. S.1(ff) of the TSA describes a peace officer, including RCMP. Cops don't get to pick WHY laws come into place. If you have a complaint there, complain to your MLA. They just enforce what's there.
sdsmith29 1 month ago
@sdsmith29 actually thats dead wrong, the queen swore an oath to uphold the laws of god written in the king james bible. the supreme law is pretty specific in saying that no one is to add or take away from that book that supreme law, what are acts an statutes, there added laws. if its inconsistent with the bible its not law. how ever that does not stop the governing body to rule the people via contracts which is whats being enforced. hence policy enforcer.
ORIANA250 4 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 Clearly you wish to be, or are, a "Freeman," and think that rules don't apply to you. However, common sense must prevail. If you accept the PRIVILEDGE of driving, you accept the rules therewith. You sign and agree to that when you sign the back of your DL. The police certainly are contracted out to enforce these rules. If you don't want to agree, don't sign a DL or drive.
sdsmith29 4 weeks ago
@sdsmith29 dosnt matter if you have one or not, haveing a dl does not prove you are acting through it at the time of the complaint. its like haveing a costco employee card and being asked to produce it when your off duty as a customer in costco as if employee rules apply to you when your off duty.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 Except that, under the TSA, you agree to produce it when asked by a peace officer (Around S. 160's, IIRC). You agree to this, when operating a motor vehicle. Outside of that, under the Criminal Code (federal law; S. 495 CC specifically) you can be asked to identify yourself when party to some kind of investigation, be it a witness, suspect, accused or victim. Common & Case law both support asking for ID in these circumstances, and then it's not a "provincial" contract matter, either.
sdsmith29 3 weeks ago
@sdsmith29 So, your point of "police are bad for enforcing provincial stuff" goes out the window if you try to argue that. And when you're driving (i.e. not a right, but a priviledge), you have to follow the laws surrounding that (in AB, it's the TSA), which you agree to when you sign your Driver's License. This includes, as I said, producing it when asked by a PO when stopped. This also includes vehicle regulations, such as mudflaps, seatbelts, proper safety features, and tint.
sdsmith29 3 weeks ago
@sdsmith29 I'll argue the "privilege" on page 6 of the criminal code of canada it says,
highway , means a road to which the public has the right to access, and includes bridges over which tunnels through which a road passes:
does that say me accessing the highway is a privileged or does that say its a right.
and like I said before just because your licensed to do business for the government on the highway does not mean your doing that when you get pulled over.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 You are certainly correct: the public DOES have access to a road and such. However, that does not mean you get to DRIVE on it. Driving is a PRIVILEDGE in Canada (as in most countries), which requires you to agree to certain rules in order to keep you, and everyone, safe. This includes speed limits, keeping your vehicle in good condition, obeying rules of the roads, and other such limitations. If you don't want to follow them, don't drive. As for your last comment... english please?
sdsmith29 3 weeks ago
@sdsmith29 think about what you just said. does that even make fu@#ing sense, if you can't "drive" on the road, clearly you dont have the right of access to it. even the canadian charter of rights & freedoms says you have the right 2 travel. the only real reason I have a dl is because I was told if I dont have 1 there going to beat the crap out of me, kid nap me detain me against my will & steal from me, so is it really a lawful contract having a dl when its under threat and duress.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 You clearly don't have a clue. You can use public roadways without driving vehicles requiring a License. Bicycles, skateboards, rollerblades or just walking all constitute USE of a roadway. And that also covers your Right to travel. Driving remains a PRIVILEDGE, and you must obey certain rules to do so. You may as well argue that driving 200 km/h everywhere is okay, because the only place it specifically claims it is not is in the TSA, the same document you refuse to agree with.
sdsmith29 3 weeks ago
@sdsmith29 it doesnt matter what your conveyance is traveling is traveling, if you want to call "driving" a privilege fine, I will call it me going over there in my private conveyance. I know blacks law and bouvier's law dictionary define driving as a commercial act for the purpose of making money, how ever thats not what I am doing when I am going some where, there for I am not acting through that "privilege" and I have the right to use the road cause I pay for it through tax.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 Your tax dollars goes to supporting the Airlines and the Navy, too. Does that mean you can just hop in a plane and operate it as you wish? Likewise, you couldn't just drive a logging truck or school bus without proper class of license, either. You don't just get to "do what you want" because you pay taxes. You, like every Cdn citizen, have to follow and abide by certain rules and laws. I'm not debating this with you, it's a fact, and you've got nothing but baseless opinions otherwise.
sdsmith29 3 weeks ago
@sdsmith29 and you say I am making baseless claims, most people don't own a navy ship or an air plane, and if they did they would probly have taken the training to know how to operate it, so they dont end up killing them selves. I am not saying dont go take training to learn how to operate some thing, I am saying you dont need a piece of paper to tell you that you can do it. and you know as well as I do most traffic tickets have more to do with making money than "safety".
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 Whether you feel traffic tickets, or even court-imposed fines for Criminal offences are just 'money-grabs', the fact remains that they are punishments for valid things. And, yes, sometimes you DO need a piece of paper to say what you can and cannot do. If you work at a job which has mandatory ID, you need it then. You need your bank card to withdraw from the bank. You need a passport to fly to certain countries.
There are rules to these things. Learn them rather than hate them.
sdsmith29 3 weeks ago
@sdsmith29 Likewise, provincial offences are meant, almost exclusively, to keep us safe, as Brett is saying above. Not having 2 working headlights impairs your visibility at night, and can confuse oncoming drivers. Not wearing a seatbelt (or forcing psgrs under 16 to) is an obvious issue. Not having working brakes is another. Driving in a safe fashion (lane, signals, speed, etc.) is about safety, too. I don't know the details behind EVERY law, but they are there for more than just to annoy.
sdsmith29 3 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 Lastly, the only reason you have a DL is because you're going to be kidnapped otherwise? Get a class 8 AB Gov't ID if that's your argument. You can't drive with that, and you still have ID (for getting other things like passports). If you don't want to drive, you don't have to drive. If you don't want to have a DL, you don't need to have one.
Your arguments are clearly baseless, and you have no rationale behind what you say. I doubt there is any point to continuing this discourse.
sdsmith29 3 weeks ago
@sdsmith29 I operate my car, and if I dont have a dl and get stopped I will be beaten up, detained, have property and money stolen from me, how is that basless to say that what your defending is backed with threats and violence. I am willing to be fully liable for my actions if I cause any one harm or damage. do you proof I have an obligation to have government issued id, thats another good point, I would probly be beaten up if I could not produce something I didnt have.
ORIANA250 3 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 I'm not even going to try debating this. You're making COMPLETELY baseless claims that cops are going to "beat you & steal from you" because you don't have a DL? There isn't anything approaching logic/law/fact or sense in that. And as much as you're "willing" to be fully liable, what if you crash and paralyze someone? The costs could be in the millions. This is why we have to have Insurance (another rule from the TSA). You'd never be able to afford it, and the VICTIMS would lose out!
sdsmith29 3 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 Further, nothing about the TSA is "inconsistent" with the bible. The bible doesn't say squirrels exist, for example, either. But they do. So you cannot claim that the bible forsees every possibility and denoted it; there are many things not described in it. Laws of the land, however, are meant to be followed. Read Romans 13:1-7. It is abundantly clear that man needs to obey them.
Lastly, look up the RCMP oaths, and they say much the same.
sdsmith29 4 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 I'll paraphrase a little, for ya: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities", "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.", "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants"
sdsmith29 4 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 Lastly, along the bible path you chose to argue: In a famous passage about taxes, Jesus said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Mark 12:13-17; the same passage appears, slightly modified, in Matthew 22:15-22 and Luke 20:20-26).
This is interpreted by most people to mean that in secular matters follow the law of the land, but for spiritual matters follow the law of God.
sdsmith29 4 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 Additionally, just because something isn't a "crime" under the Criminal Code doesn't mean it's any less of a police matter. If you get a speeding ticket, you could claim "no-one got hurt", but speeding kills thousands of people every year. Likewise with drunk driving; the time you get caught, you didn't hurt anyone/break anything, but that doesn't change the fact that the police try to stop it. I don't claim to know the details behind WHY window tint is a violation, but it still is.
sdsmith29 1 month ago
@ORIANA250 ...you're just cranky you got caught, and it's not policy, it's enforcing the law...suck it up whiner, you got nailed for violating the rules....don't like being a slave, move out of the country loser.
bisonturbo 4 weeks ago
@bisonturbo first of all this is not me in the video, second do you even know what a law is.
ORIANA250 4 weeks ago
@ORIANA250 ..regardless if it's you or not, your comment below is retarded...and yes, i know what a law is.....and how they are enforced, you obviously do not....you sound like a typical wanna be lawyer, read a few items on the internet and think you know it all...you don't like the fact that the LAW was enforced, suck it up princess and move on.
bisonturbo 4 weeks ago
Hell...I would love to see what would happen if he hated cams...
OreosboyMovieMaker 1 month ago
the police make people stop recording them because they don't want to be on camera. an average person can also tell you to stop recording them on video if they do not want to be in it.
OfficialJMars 1 month ago
@OfficialJMars what is the reason they don't want to be on camera, what do they have to hide. and it works both ways, if I asked an officer to turn off his dash cam they should do it then right, what do think the odds are of them honoring your request. or better yet I dont want to be on camera via cctv so they should turn off there cameras cause I dont want to be in there video stream.
ORIANA250 1 month ago
@ORIANA250 they use their videos for evidence and safety.
OfficialJMars 1 month ago
@OfficialJMars only when it suits them, but I can make the same argument, I use my video camera for evidence and safety. I recently had a ticket and requested disclosure because the officer extorted me at the side of the road. I wanted the proof of the extortion cause it was caught on his dash cam and the extortion took place at the side of his cruiser. you know what I got, I got a video with no audio, how convenient that his cruiser had no mics, lol.
ORIANA250 1 month ago
@ORIANA250 you have a great point but a police officer is in much higher danger than what you are. he pulls over many people a day and never knows what to expect. what would an officer do you that is overly bad? lol. he's just doing his job, can't get mad at a guy making an honest living. btw, your car sounds like it has an amazing exhaust system. haha
OfficialJMars 1 month ago
@OfficialJMars I disagree, I'm not the 1 with the gun, and if I choose not to comply with his demands I am in danger of getting shot. I dont think its an honest living either if there out collecting money from people who really did nothing wrong (no one was harmed, no damaged property) honest would be looking for criminals not taxing the
average joe because his windows are dark in the name of so called safety. this is not me in the video and its not my car, just an acquaintance.
ORIANA250 1 month ago
@ORIANA250 an officer is not allowed to draw his gun unless someone is suspected to be armed and dangerous and is not allowed to fire unless fired upon. driver tinted windows are illegal so that if a serious crime is committed, the officers can see the operator of a vehicle and make an id on the driver. if there were no police officers, our country would be like a war zone. it sounds to me as if you believe that nobody can do any wrong besides a police officer.
OfficialJMars 1 month ago
@ORIANA250 and if you don't want to be in danger, comply to his demands. it's pretty simple, if you co-operate, there are no problems. easy right?
OfficialJMars 1 month ago
@OfficialJMars lol think about what you just said. "do what ever the guy with the gun says and nobody gets hurt", how is that any different from a criminal, thats extortion and involuntary servitude on a whole different level. We live in slavery and are told its freedom its mental conditioning. You can do what ever you want as long as you do it how ever they say. its all voluntary we are told, do what we say or go to jail, lol. Is that freedom.
ORIANA250 1 month ago
@ORIANA250 im done arguing with you. you're completely stubborn. haha. i'd love to see you go to a country without a police force and see how quick you would come crying back.
OfficialJMars 1 month ago
Under division 3, section 166 (1) a) of the Alberta Traffic Safety Act
A peace officer for the purpose of administering or enforcing an Act or Bylaw may signal the driver of a vehicle to stop and request information from the driver or any passenger in the vehicle.
Cudas30 1 month ago
@Cudas30 and what is the definition of driver and passenger in legalese.
ORIANA250 1 month ago
I love how polite Canadians are.
NrthrnDncr1 1 month ago
The 'Burning' man is returning to the front of a Canadian Court house soon. Compliments of the RCMP. And their low standards of conduct.
readyourmind92 1 month ago
Wow this officer was really polite and friendly, how the hell is it criminal to ENFORCE the LAW! The law is the law and if you had window tints where they shouldn't be then you are breaking it, he even told you where in the law it says section. 65.1A under of section 77.1; guess what! I bet if you look under there you'll find out what he was saying was TRUE!
RazorCell7 1 month ago
@RazorCell7 lets set aside that rule book for a minute and ask some simple questions first. Where does the rcmp get there authority from.
ORIANA250 1 month ago
@ORIANA250 You realize these are youtube comments right? Get to your point
RazorCell7 1 month ago
@RazorCell7 As far as I know the rcmp ultimatly get there authority from the queen, if they get there authority from the her and swore to uphold the laws the queen swore to up hold. I would say this causes a problem for them or any 1 who claims to uphold the laws the queen swore to uphold. Because the law she swore to uphold is the word of god, the king james bible, I dont recall seeing thou shalt have no tint. but it does say dont add to this book and dont take away from it.
ORIANA250 1 month ago
Put down that bag of Cheezies son, slowly :)
pspboy7 2 months ago
Comment removed
PawelG9ine 2 months ago
The law is the law. Get used to it.
glutinousmaximus 2 months ago
Driving a 3000gt? If you need a good parts car I have one for sale, I am located in southern Alberta. Mess me if interested
SuperBrett1984 2 months ago
@Oriana250... your right actually. Spoken like a true gentleman. Sorry to waste your time with my immature commentary. I do make an effort to drive civilised and I purchased larger trucks and low horsepower cars to keep me out of trouble and from speeding. Currently 9 demerits. But paying low insurance... 125 a month for a 3/4 ton diesel and small car and motorcycle.
GeorgeT0C2P0 2 months ago
You just got ass raped by a fucking pig piece of shit. Its just a track fee though keep speeding and driving recklessly. I do it all the time.
GeorgeT0C2P0 2 months ago
@GeorgeT0C2P0 I dont have a problem with the police, I have a problem with there not knowing the law or knowing where they get there authority from. the guy in the video getting the ticket was neither speeding or driving recklessly. he got pulled over simply because he had a light film of tint on his windows. I was traveling with him in a separate car and watched the cop pass me to pull him over. There is no need for name calling and I don't recommend your driving habits.
ORIANA250 2 months ago
You are not above the law dipshit. You don't have a leg to stand on. You know you were wrong so pay it and quite your whining. Just think of it as revenue from a user/loser tax. Back you go to law school Perry Mason!!!
excursionxlt 3 months ago
@excursionxlt nobody is above the law, my point is "this is not a law", how can it be a law when it does not meet the requirements to be a law, where is the corpus delicti in this ticket. not only that but is this officer following his oath of office, is he upholding the laws that the queen swore to uphold, I think not.
ORIANA250 3 months ago
@ORIANA250 It is not a criminal offence there guy. So corpus delicti need not apply. You do not even need mens rea all you need actus reus....The tint is a Provincial law. The Province has decided that in driving with tint is dangerous and illegal. So they in act this law...The roads belong to the Prov as does your licence and reg...Which means the RCMP,City Police, Sheriffs are appointed to uphold that law. So that is what gives them the right? Anymore lessons needed?
kebede23 2 months ago
@kebede23 so no corpus delicti is needed because its not a crime, ok I can go with that, so the only thing left for this to fall under is contract. If the police do not require an injured party damaged property and its not a crime, then the only category left it can fall under is contract law. I dont believe my friend signed a contract to obey any such rules so what is being enforced. for the record the public own the highways thats you and me. the province is our public servants.
ORIANA250 2 months ago
@kebede23 also I wonder if you know where the police get there authority from, I know where they get it from. and I know the limits of there authority.
ORIANA250 2 months ago
@ORIANA250 It's too bad you don't know the limits of the word "there". Your friend has tint where he shouldn't, It's a by-law. Surprise! those are also enforceable. Did he sign a contract that specifically covers tint? Probably not. Did he sign on a line when he got his license? Yes. How about when he plated/registered his car? Yes. Those are agreements that he signed. If he wants to drive gov't roads, he obeys gov't rule. Simple.
glowerpower 2 months ago
@glowerpower sure he may be licenced to act as a gov agent, but was he acting as a gov agent at the time of the complaint or was it just assumed that he was. and they are public roads owned by the public and the public has the right to access public roads because they own them.
ORIANA250 2 months ago
@ORIANA250 Don't get me wrong, my new car is bright white and would look much nicer with black-out tint all the way around. I had the factory tint the ones they legally could and leave the ones they couldn't. Why? Not because I signed a window tint contract when I got it, but because I made myself aware of the gov't rules pertaining to tint, so that I don't get pulled over and fined every time a cop has nothing better to do. Pretty good plan, eh?
glowerpower 2 months ago
@glowerpower I think this question has been asked and you would still get a tint ticket. the reason is clearly not specific, first its a danger to you, then its a danger to the officer, then its because they cant see in to see if your on your phone. my point is not that I have no contract to follow one rule, my point is I have no contract to follow any highway traffic act rule, so how is it being enforced legally and lawfully.
ORIANA250 2 months ago
STOP ARGUING AND PAY THE FINE YOU KNOW ITS AGAINST THE LAW.
GOUGOUNETTE 3 months ago
@GOUGOUNETTE if a law was broken, who is the injured party and where is the damage, if either of these 2 things don't exist, its not a law. I am not arguing any thing just simply asking questions. here is a good question, why is the highway traffic act not labeled the highway traffic laws, why is the word act used. if they are laws than label them as such.
ORIANA250 3 months ago
@ORIANA250
Cheer... :-)
GOUGOUNETTE 3 months ago
@ORIANA250 Have your windows tinted too much proves to be a risk to police officers. If they pull over a car that has windows tinted and can't see clearly into it they could walk up without knowing someone has a weapon and is waiting to injure and or kill them. There doesn't need to be an injury or any damage for it to be a law, laws are put in place to maintain order and prevent choas.
TheDarkKnight181 3 months ago
@TheDarkKnight181 wrong, laws require corpus delicti 2 be a law. if they dont have that then its a contract. as I have said b4 if one rolls his windows down out of respect of the officers safety then that should be like wise respected. I have a question what was the reason for this person getting pulled over in the first place, was there a breech of the peace or was it simply for a tint ticket, if it was for a tint ticket and you wana use the safety argument, the officer put him self at risk.
ORIANA250 3 months ago
@ORIANA250 Tinted windows is risky to anybody, not just police, say you are walking someone where and a car with tinted windows is beside you on the road, you don't think much of it because you assume it is just another person diriving when behind the windows someone with a knife is waiting for the moment you look away to jump out and get you, the fact is laws are put in place to prevent an act in which there is a risk to the public
TheDarkKnight181 3 months ago
Front passenger & driver side windows are only allowed to have tint IF it was made that way by the manufacturer it is NOT how ever allowed to have tint if it is peel on or glazed tinting.
spikesKidz 3 months ago
@spikesKidz hahahahaha, that's a good one, how about I tell you that you cant where sunglasses because I says so, I mean because I don't like the fact that you could be looking at my wife's cleavage or because I cant judge if you are a safe person because I can not see your eyes to read your body language, so here is your 115 dollar ticket because wearing sunglasses makes you a potential pervert. REALLY I mean come on where do you stop with this Gestapo crap.
ORIANA250 3 months ago
@ORIANA250 I don't make the laws the government does and the reasoning behind the not wanting tint int eh driver/passenger side windows OR the windshield is so if someone in the car has a gun and aiming at someone outside the car they can at least see in through the non tinted window , and have a little bit of a chance to get out of the way. It's all for the safety of others.
spikesKidz 3 months ago
@spikesKidz I respect your reasoning for safety, would you show compassion to some one who respects your safety and rolled both windows down for you so that you can see in, and then let them go or would you write the ticket, and if so where is the corpus delicti in your ticket. Also some one else on here said this argument would be used, his response was if its about safety, what do you do when you pull over a lifted up truck and you cant even see over the door handle, how do u use that agument
ORIANA250 3 months ago
@ORIANA250 Well let's cut out the lawyer talk here haha the BODY OF CRIME as you said in Latin is that the tint was put on manually to the windows which violates one of the many sections in the Highway Traffic Act .. If I was the police officer in this situation then yes I would give you the ticket but I would also give you the option of getting it removed before a certain amount of days and then showing me it was removed then I would get rid of the ticket.
spikesKidz 3 months ago
@spikesKidz hahaha, did putting tint on his own car cause a damage injury or loss. Or are you simply claiming that you are enforcing a contract that the owner may have with the province where he agreed to follow all the said acts and statutes, and if so where's the contract. and why is always assumed to be lawyer talk to know the law and know your rights I take offense to that, lol.
ORIANA250 3 months ago
@ORIANA250 Nothing says that either of the two occupants in the car were not rude and being resistant to the officer before the video taping started! From what I've learned from officers that I've talked to before is that if your polite and respectful then your more likely to get a break but if you are rude and disrespectful then you will get the ticket !
spikesKidz 3 months ago
@spikesKidz I have always been polite in a traffic stop situation, I have never gotten a warning, never, in my experience there is no such thing.
ORIANA250 3 months ago
@ORIANA250 @ORIANA250 To your situation about the trucks.. Most of the time safety wise the driver would be told to open his door so that everything is seen on the floor and in his hands rather then just getting on the truck and peering your head in through the window or if someone was really cautious then they could get back up and have one person on the passenger side and another at the drivers side but it's also a law that the truck cannot go over a certain height unless it is a trans truck
spikesKidz 3 months ago
desjardins27 .... the reason they can't find the person who broke your window is that they have to waste their time dealing with idiots who break the traffic laws. Just think how much more work they could do if all traffic laws were obeyed !
CDM976 3 months ago
@CDM976 thats a cop out! 90% of the traffic statutes are about making money, they really have nothing to do with safety. its about making money plain and simple. who in this video was the injured party, and don't give me that crap about window tint being a safety hazard. think about all the work a real police man could do if he wasn't forced to fill a revenue quota, every month. We want police to focus on crime where there is an injured party not victimless noncontract enforcment.
ORIANA250 3 months ago
@ORIANA250 Quotas are only in the states RCMP are a federal organization ANY and ALL money that is paid from tickets goes towards the city or town you were given the charge in. If you read the ticket you will see it will say what city/town you were charged in. The states have police for each state so the money that they generate from tickets goes into the town that they police not saying the US police use or have quotas but that is where the money from tickets go.
spikesKidz 3 months ago
@spikesKidz thank you for clarifying that police for the most part are revenue collectors, aka policy enforcers.
I would like to see the accounting on said claim about money going back into the community. and if thats true you have not looked far enough, community's borrow money from private banks at interest and thats the problem, so you may be right partly, but I am right in saying it goes to line some bankers pocket through lent money to the community.
ORIANA250 3 months ago
@ORIANA250 I think were getting off topic here though if you want to know about where money from tickets go ask an officer or better yet ask someone from a courthouse! All I know is that I posted on here to at least show that the officer issued a ticket for an actual law being broken, and that it is all because it's part of the job! It's tinted windows I mean it's not a big deal to have non tinted windows for the safety of others, is it that big of a deal to have reg windows? instead of tint
spikesKidz 3 months ago
@spikesKidz are you claiming acts and statutes are law. and if so why doses it say on the first page of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms that all acts and statutes are given the force of law, think about that for a minute, it does not say they are law. sounds more like a contract 2 me, contracts don't have any force until the contract is signed and consent is given. I trust people at the court house as far as I can throw them unless they are willing to give it to me on paper, signed.
ORIANA250 3 months ago
@ORIANA250 I read the CAN charter and never read that in there must have missed it but think about what u said. The Law is made up of ACTS highway traffic ACT/motor vehicle inspection ACT/roads ACT I can go on but these ACTS make up the Canadian Law lol they call them ACTS because they are different sections of the law. WHAT IS A STATUTE? The word statute typically refers to a law. So just tell your friend to pay the fine, and I'm glad I could give this lesson in law ^_^
spikesKidz 3 months ago
@spikesKidz thank you for your lesson in law, but I have a few questions, what does the first line of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms say? and why does it say every thing enacted by it shall be given the force of law, dosnt say it is law it says given the force of, sounds like a contract to me. further more what does section 32 of the charter say about who these acts and statutes apply to. then there is section 52 thats a good one.
ORIANA250 3 months ago
@ORIANA250 could you please also reference where, where you seen the law is made up of acts and statutes, I never said that.
ORIANA250 3 months ago
guys with tinted front windows are douchebags!!!!!!
onethumbguy 4 months ago
You have too much free time to be uploading videos like this. Really? Window tint? Get your life together.
mike137259 4 months ago
And for your cell phone usage complaint. It is not just the police that are exempt from using cell phones. It is all emergency response persons. Cell phones are used because sometimes information is needed quickly and a cell phone may be the quick way of getting it. I can tell you that police forces are attempting to put blue tooth into their vehicles but like everything else, it comes down to budgets. I know it's lame to say, but you need to remember. Driving is a privilege not a write. One of
onbcunknown 5 months ago
@onbcunknown driving or performing a function of government may be a privilege, but traveling is a god given right and the guy in this video does not appear to be doing any government business, so the ticket is frivolous unless the officer can prove the "driver" was acting in capacity of a government agent.
ORIANA250 5 months ago
@ORIANA250 True, you have a right to travel. But when you hop into a vehicle and travel on roads that were put in place by the government, then you have to follow their rules. You dont like the rules, its also your right to fight the ticket. You lose your case, then dont pay the fine, also your right. You just may lose your licence because having a DL is a privillege. Read the fine print when you get or reniew your licence. There is to much complaining in the world today.
onbcunknown 5 months ago
@onbcunknown thats fine, you don't need there drivers license to travel on the public roads that we own in your private car, because you are not performing a function of government. read the canadian charter of rights and freedoms, the first lines says the charter recognizes the supremacy of god and the rule of law. acts and statutes are not law or should I say not gods law. now read section 32 and 52 of the charter. it apply's to gov and its supreme over all acts.
ORIANA250 5 months ago
Buddy you got to understand that there are lots of different sections to the RCMP. You complain about your window, well that would be a general duty member that deal with that. Unfortunately there is only so much that can be done with that unfortunate and hard to prove incident. Instead of blaming the police, why not blame the boob you wrecked your car. There is also a traffic section who usually would be the one to pull you over. They have these sections basically to keep the roads safe and to
onbcunknown 5 months ago
Police do not create laws, they apply and reinforce them!
desjardins27 6 months ago
@desjardins27 I agree but what is being enforced here is not a law its an act, they just want you to believe its a law but its not. why do you think they call it the highway traffic ACT, why wouldn't they call it the highway traffic LAWS. so my question is why are they enforcing contracts for a private corperation, why don't they go enforce some laws, like finding the guy that broke my back window, the guy who did vandalism and theft, OH YA there's no MONEY in that.
ORIANA250 6 months ago
@RCMPxGRC: that whole thing about officer safety is a load of fucking crap, take your head outta your ass and do your fucking job. Go seek out the drug dealers and the drunk drivers! I have a jacked up 3500 diesel, most cops that pull me over can't see over the door handle, I could have a weapon of some sort or a cab full of ninjas for all you'd know. Tinted windows have saved my truck from being broken into since the glass don't shatter very well when struck, and ya i understand that's unsafe
cocamustang 6 months ago
I HOPE TO PULL OVER GUYS LIKE YOU ONE DAY! I LOVE THE R.C.M.P
mrdcfan1996 6 months ago
bullshit
ncmike2007 6 months ago
Well there is really no need to give you a card during traffic stops all the person needs is a badge number. And the reason they are allowed to remove/seize your vehicle after your second violation on tint is because your vehicle would be classified as "unsafe to be on roadways" because of the equipment violation.
RCMPxGRC 6 months ago
@RCMPxGRC I am not concerned with whether there is a need to do some thing or not, if you are a public servant and I ask for something like that, you are obligated to give it as a public servant, just as you feel I am obligated to give you I.D when you ask. You may have the right to say to some one can't operate there vehicle because it is allegedly unsafe but how do you legally and lawfully take some thing away with out it being called theft or armed robbery. what am I a ward of the state?
ORIANA250 6 months ago
@RCMPxGRC So murder, theft, assault, woman battery, excessive speeding, stunting....thats all wrong no matter what country, state, or province you visit....but window tint and loud exhaust is only punishedin certain provinces or states. I just had a friend roll through with a Muffled exhaust and got a ticket for loud exhaust, when there was 3 3500 Diesel trucks with 6" pipes out the back, and they didnt get tickets. So please enlighten us why only random people get picked off on dumb tickets??
frick209 6 months ago
And if window tint is an equipment violation, explain why the East coast and Manitoba are allowed 35% tint on front roll up windows, and Other states in the USA have laws similar?? Everyone gets pulled over in this provinces and states. Could it be maybe that Alberta is Oil province? More money, which means, more laws made, for more laws to be broken, for more money to be made for the government? It sounds like a scam, and i have nothing against you, or the good officers out there for the record
frick209 6 months ago
I also have another question. Theres now a no cellphone permitted to be in use whilst driving a motor vehicle. So why are RCMP/Peace officers allowed to use they're cell phones while driving? If its under a matter of the fact officers have been through driving courses, well, so have i...i run Autocross, which is trained by the same trainers that train RCMP for the roads. So why is the officers driving skills trusted, but not mine? Why cant we run a course on our license that permits trust?
frick209 6 months ago
I never said you were the suspect. The vehicle was suspected of having an equipment violation. Therefore he had the right to pull you over.
RCMPxGRC 6 months ago
@RCMPxGRC Fair enough answer, I have a couple more questions, how come when your pulled over when I ask the officer for there business card they refuse to give it out, thats just bad business.
How can a peace officer seize, confiscate, commandeer, your car or property in the name of the queen with out being called theft, or armed robbery. This is causing harm and loss at the same time, how is this legally and lawfully done.
ORIANA250 6 months ago
@ORIANA250
Sounds like a good question to ask the Provincial Government. What you're doing is the equivalent to getting angry at the gas station for the price of fuel.
TheCalGore5000 5 months ago
Well for emergency vehicles such as ambulance, fire trucks they are only to be used in emergency situations. LEO's use lights/sirens to signal to the suspect vehicle to pull over to the shoulder of the road to conduct a traffic stop.
RCMPxGRC 6 months ago
@RCMPxGRC So if I am not a suspect, why would I be pulled over. ie my buddy here has not done anything to be considered a suspect and was not informed he was suspected in a crime, there for he should not have been pulled over. I would think in order to be considered a suspect there would have had to have been a report out for some one matching his description that was involved in a crime, or the officer witnessed him breach the peace, ie harm some one or there property.
ORIANA250 6 months ago
Well the reason why he pulled you over at a little over the speed limit was to check your tint to, I'm not going to go out of my way to give you a ticket for a little tint. If it's excessive hell I might even order you out of the car. Whenever I have given out tickets for tint it's because he was doing something else stupid and I'll just throw the tint charge in. I'm not going to pull you over for 6 over because there are enough speeders going well over the posted speed limit. For instance I pu
RCMPxGRC 6 months ago
@RCMPxGRC actually it was specifically for the tint because my buddy was traveling 5kms under the posted limit, there was no other reason to pull him over. I often wonder why policy enforcers even bother when the qe2 is as busy as it usually is to be out there issuing tickets, if you wana talk safety I would say you are at a high safety risk stopping some one on that highway, it causes safety hazard to other on the road as well as your self.
ORIANA250 6 months ago
@RCMPxGRC If you are an rcmp officer, I would like to ask this question, are your lights on your roof for emergencies puposes only as per the law and if so how do you stop some one lawfully with them if they are not having an emergency in there vehicle. If you like we can have a private discussion via private message's as I have many other questions that you may be able to answer.
ORIANA250 6 months ago
I do agree with ORIANA250 where respecting the officers is my job. But NEVER will i give respect to an officer that disresects his own job, takes advantage of power by boredom or being an alpha on the highway/town. And under no circumstance should an officer expect that, if he/she is going to abuse that power. The people have rights in many of the laws. Next time a cop wants to throw his lights on at me, ill wave him by, cause those lights are meant for emergency purposes only!! :)
frick209 6 months ago
Window Tint or not, you still cant see what the driver has on they're right hand, or hiding right beside the door...the dark window only gives a tint to the face. On a regular window, theres the sky reflection, the sun reflection, and the officers face reflection, so again window tint or not you still cant see whats going on. Seatbelts is another piss off. Its my choice if i want to wear my seatbelt, why should get a god damn ticket for that? Its my life, not the officers. Another stupid law.
frick209 6 months ago
RCMP, Sheriffs, and Peace Officers, are paid by Government tax dollars. So that means, that i pay government officials to pull me over, piss me off, send me to court, over window tint or loud exhaust, or volunteer a payment. WTF is that?? I pay Officers to serve me, and protect me, not irritate me and the rest of the people who work hard jobs to survive.
frick209 6 months ago
Window tint on a civilian or commericial vehicle is a useless law enforced to accumulate more dollars from the people. Same thing with the Seat belt ticket, and useless stunting tickets such as loud exhaust, and underglow lighting. For christ sake, if RCMP are gonna pull over for that, then you might as well enforce too shiny of rims, and that paint job reflects the sun too much lol. In reality, the enforcement is getting ridiculous, and out of hand. Its really unfortunate.
frick209 6 months ago
The law is put in place for officer safety. When a peace officer pulls you over (especially at night in regards rear passenger windows) he doesn't know what you are going to do, or if there is a person in the back seat hiding, ready to do anything not to go to jail. Laws like these have saved many officers lives.
RCMPxGRC 6 months ago
@RCMPxGRC I will agree with what your saying but officers should use discretion when issuing these tickets, if the guy rolls his windows down because he show consideration for the officers safety then the officer should show some consideration back for that and not issue the ticket. also stopping some one just because they are a little above the posted limit and or because they have tint is not probable cause to pull them over, I do also agree with frick209 about the lights and emergencies.
ORIANA250 6 months ago
There are cameras in the patrol vehicles, therefore there is no need for you to record. The officer wear mics that record audio.
Police officers are just doing what they are told to by the government. If you have a problem with this, Form a complaint towards the government, not the police office set out to enforce the laws provided by govt.
RCMPxGRC 6 months ago
@RCMPxGRC Problem is officers are humans to and they also lie or make mistakes, I have been to court and witnessed people ask for cctv footage or patrol car footage and conveniently the camera's were not work on that particular day or so they were told. There is no such thing as to many camera's, if the officer didn't do any thing wrong then he has nothing to worry about. This video is for educational purposes for, I encourage every one to video tape there encounters with any government official
ORIANA250 6 months ago
@RCMPxGRC Not saying all officers are bad, I have met good ones and bad ones, but that is like every thing, officers are given acts and statutes to enforce on public roadways and they have discretion that they often don't use, this particular statute has more to do with making money than safety and if it allegedly does have some thing to do with safety, I know many people who would wave the right of Nannie gov protection and accept the fact that it might endanger there lives.
ORIANA250 6 months ago
@RCMPxGRC I have all the admiration in the world for a peace officer, I love them for the job they do because god know's I would not want to do it, but when they take that hat off and put on the hat of policy enforcer, I have no respect for that.
God bless peace officers who never delay right or justice.
ORIANA250 6 months ago