×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Online Forum Speeding Boast Leads To Conviction

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the life-in-the-fast-lane dept.

Canada 457

Meshach writes "In Canada, a nineteen-year-old man has lost his driving license for six months and is facing one year of probation after the police arrested him for dangerous driving as a result of a post on an online message board. The tip apparently came from an uninvolved American who called the Canadian authorities after he saw the post bragging about how fast the man went."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

457 comments

Snitch (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213052)

Motherfucking snitch.

exactly. Today I'm asshamed of fellow Americunts (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213120)

Americunts of US'ia need to just finish their bankruptcy to China Bank of Reconstruction and just liquidate already. They're dragging-down the entire world with their wars, bad food quality, bad water quality, and now the mother-fucking oceans.

OsamaBinLaden_ImStillFreeRU.jpg

Re:Snitch (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213168)

Speeding and then bragging about it is unacceptable. That's willfully risking the lives of other people. It is good that a young driver learns this lesson early, before he kills someone with that attitude. The road is not a race track.

Re:Snitch (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213432)

The road is not a race track.

And the whole world is not your damn jurisdiction for dealing out justice willy nilly, then fucking off and letting everyone else clean up your shit.

BURN!

Re:Snitch (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213444)

OTOH, not speeding but bragging that you did so is typical human nature.

Statements made online are neither the equivalent of testifying in court nor expected to be 100% TRUE. If the only "evidence" the cops had was his online statement, they had no evidence at all.

Re:Snitch (2, Insightful)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213454)

Speeding in a residential area is unacceptable.

Fixed that for you.

And then, it still depends on how much you speed and context. Point in case, there is a school (i.e. 30 km/h for about 50 meters) directly after a normal out-of-city street (i.e. 100 km/h). During the last school holidays, they left the limit signs up. Was it wrong to go through those 50 meters at 50 km/h, which is the normal inner city speed? Especially since they removed the signs during this holiday season and in the ones before?

Re:Snitch (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213568)

Was it wrong to go through those 50 meters at 50 km/h, which is the normal inner city speed? Especially since they removed the signs during this holiday season and in the ones before?

Depends if you can prove in court that the school was no longer open and no classes were in session during this day of the holiday season. Schools sometimes do have extracurricular activities that go on during the 1-2 weeks that they have off, public especially. The past two I worked in the IT department for it was not unusual to see students come and go during the holiday breaks for band practice or any other number of things.

Re:Snitch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213622)

There are some excuses for speeding which I'm going to accept and not give people a hard time or snitch on them, if they don't speed habitually and if they know they did wrong. This guy however had no other reason than for the heck of it and he considers himself a safe driver who "only" races his 500hp car on public roads three to four times in two weeks. He deserved everything he got (his parents took his car away, 6 months license suspension, 1 year probation, driving lessons, $1000 fine) and nobody should be ashamed of turning someone like that in.

Re:Snitch (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213598)

Speeding in excess of what current road conditions say is appropriate and then bragging about it is unacceptable. That's willfully risking the lives of other people. "Speeding" and then bragging about it just gets you in trouble with the law.

FTFY, but no, I do not know which the person did.

Without any evidence? (4, Insightful)

tumutbound (549414) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213054)

What evidence was there, other than the bloggers post, that an offence had occurred? How could the police charge him without it?

Re:Without any evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213056)

The fact that he was 19?

Re:Without any evidence? (5, Informative)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213422)

The CBC story is missing some details. The conviction was only secured against the man because of eye-witness statements that confirmed a 2006 BMW M5S was travelling at a very high rate of speed on the street in question.

His bragging alone would not have secured a conviction. There was also evidence that on the same car forum the man was claiming that he was smoking pot and driving on a different occasion. This however, could not be confirmed and charges were not pursued.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/08/10/facebook-speeding-conviction658.html#ixzz0wIDKdH3a [www.cbc.ca]

Re:Without any evidence? (3, Insightful)

xmundt (415364) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213456)

Greetings and Salutations.
          I pulled up that area in google maps (would have preferred openstreetmap.org, but, the blasted search still is too limited). It is a densely populated area, so I suspect it was hardly an hour's work for a couple of officers to canvass the street and find witnesses to the speeding car. It would be interesting to find out how many times there had been complaints from the area about dangerous driving.
          My bottom line here is that the kid is getting off easy, as there easily could have been a pedestrian stepping out into the road just in time to get smashed by his foolish act. If he wanted to put the pedal to the metal, perhaps he should have picked the Canadian equivalent of an Interstate highway to open it up.

Re:Without any evidence? (2, Informative)

xmundt (415364) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213468)

Oh yea...and another thing....about half way down the road, it appears that there is a public school on the North side of the street...so no WONDER the LEOs were interested in nailing this kid.

Re:Without any evidence? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213624)

Yeah, because the story obviously forgot to include the "think of the children" factor.

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213460)

wtf is 'high rate of speed'? I didn't know high accelerations carried fines.

Re:Without any evidence? (2, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213514)

This short post couldn't be more wrong.

(1) It's English, the language very occasionally spoken on the Internet.

Rate = x per y, where y is likely a time unit.

e.g. miles per hour
e.g. kilometres per second
e.g. dumb assertions made by /. poster per day

High rate = high x per y.

(2) Sufficiently high acceleration in an urban area will certainly attract a fine for your local equivalent of dangerous driving. It may even be in violation of a city noise ordinance [lexisone.com].

Re:Without any evidence? (0, Flamebait)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213066)

You pleaded guilty in public. It came out of your metaphorical mouth. You basically incriminated yourself of your own free will. Do you need any more evidence?

Re:Without any evidence? (3, Insightful)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213092)

So, if I said I just caused world peace, does that mean I win myself the Nobel Peace Prize?

Re:Without any evidence? (4, Funny)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213096)

(Then again, that's what Obama did)

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

tpgp (48001) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213188)

(Then again, that's what Obama did)

I don't recall Obama saying he caused world peace.

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213208)

Well, not word for word, and not immediately, but the intent was there.

Re:Without any evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213224)

That's what all American presidents do. And what all American films do. Seems like people form this part of the world are persuaded that if the world still exists it's thanks to them...

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213278)

If there were a bit more intent on behalf of a bit more people (and lobbyists in congress, Wall st. etc...), that would actually happen. So far, just a flashy publicity stunt.

Re:Without any evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213322)

Well, not word for word, and not immediately, but the intent was there.

You're as delusional as the Nobel prize board.

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213110)

No, but you wouldn't even if you told it to the Nobel committees. Tell a cop you were speeding, on the other hand...

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213136)

Bit of a strawman isn't it? If I go tell a police officer "I just killed someone", or he overhears you admit that (and you can't prove otherwise) - aren't you admitting to guilt? The door doesn't swing both ways.

Re:Without any evidence? (4, Insightful)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213160)

Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person? Or say instead, I told a policeman that you just stabbed me in the face. Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that actually happened before he arrests you?

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213256)

I don't know how the law works in America or Canada, but where I come from, if you admit guilty and claim guilty in court, they don't bother looking at evidence and just slap the punishment on you. Might be different in this case. Again, you're not claiming that SOMEONE ELSE did it, you're claiming that YOU did it.

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213450)

dont they at least have to be sure a crime has been commited at all?

I for instance, can claim i just stole all the gold stored in fort Knox, and hid it in my basement, i can consistently claim i did that. It would however, be rather odd if they convict me off that crime, when a simple visual inspection of either Fort Knox, or my basement (dont have one actually), easily disproves my claim.

If however, all the gold in Fort Knox was missing, and somehow ended up in my basement, then i would agree my confession is enough to reasonably convict me.

Re:Without any evidence? (4, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213294)

Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person?

You are not the first to have made that mistake. All that has to be proven is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any shadow of a doubt. While hard proof of a dead person (such as identifiable remains) would obviously give you "beyond any shadow of a doubt", it's quite possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt without such proof, as Hans Reiser's trial demonstrated.

IOW, the police only need good reason to believe that there's a dead person.

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213264)

It's a question of magnitude, though.

Someone openly admits to speeding - worst that's likely to happen is they get a fine and (depending on where it takes place) some sort of penalty on their license. Few people openly admit to speeding unless they've actually done so.

Someone openly admits to murder - worst that's likely to happen (again depending on where) is the death penalty - or at the very least life in prison. And - even though it sounds totally absurd to most of us - apparently the occasional lunatic does confess to a murder they couldn't possibly have committed.

Re:Without any evidence? (2, Informative)

Elldallan (901501) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213300)

Maybe you can construe it as that but in a court of law as long as you don't formally plead guilty there simply is no way that admitting guilt in an online forum rises beyond the level of resonable doubt.

According to the article the accused pleaded guilty which is why he was convicted, not because he confessed his crime in a public forum(although that is why he was sued it is not why he was convicted), had he pleaded not guilty it is extremely unlikely that he would have been found guilty by the court solely based on him admitting to the crime in a forum without any corroborating evidence whatsoever.

Re:Without any evidence? (5, Informative)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213304)

You wouldn't automatically be charged, but you'd probably be arrested or at the very least invited to the police station for questioning. The police would probably examine your claim, compare it with missing persons reports, and decide whether you're telling the truth or just being a nuisance (in which case, you might get a warning or be charged with wasting police time).

(and you can't prove otherwise)

The article has a link to the actual forum post, which is worth a read if you're under the impression that the only proof the police had was a confession. In fact, the driver mentions the location and date of his crime, plus the fact that there were witnesses. There's more than enough information there for the police to conduct an investigation.

In the end, the guy pleaded guilty not just on the internet but in a court of law.

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

Narcogen (666692) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213254)

So, if I said I just caused world peace, does that mean I win myself the Nobel Peace Prize?

No, because your claim is much less plausible than his.

In your case, the implausibility of your claim, and the relative ease with which evidence to refute it may be gathered, gives quick rise to reasonable doubt. Any credible news media claim of conflict anywhere in the world negates your Nobel chances immediately.

In his case, the claim is quite plausible. His car is capable of that speed. Many people speed, every day. There is little incentive to lie about such a feat, and no easy way to positively verify it without eye witnesses. TFA is short on details, but I can easily imagine a scenario where a forum boast generates, at the very least, probable cause, which leads to a warrant to search the home and the car, where a diagnostic tool or perhaps even an onboard navigation system provides independent confirmation of the original claim.

It may even have been simpler than that. He may have arrogantly believed that his forum post was not enough to earn sanction, and perhaps even repeated the claim to police, believing that unless they had personally witnessed the event, anything he said, online or offline, was not sufficient. I seem to recall engaging in conflicts with motorists who were under the impression that traffic police could not take action against any driver for infractions they did not personally witness. This seems not to be the case.

Re:Without any evidence? (1, Interesting)

buck-yar (164658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213330)

1. Little Incentive, huh? How many times have you seen "I've gone xxx mph on my ___"? I see regular posts on other forums where people post the top speed they've gone. I'd suspect every single post is an outright lie. That's what ricers and bogans do, make up stories about how fast they've gone.

2. Onboard tool. I'm not aware of any VCM that logs. I regularly modify my VCM with Hptuners editor and it takes a laptop with software to log the engine data. About the only data the VCM keeps is fuel trim cell values to feed to the long-term fuel trim variable (and spark knock retarding values).

3. In the US, you have the right to face your accuser. Who is his accuser, someone that viewed an internet post? That's hearsay in this country and is inadmissible in court.

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

berzerke (319205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213502)

...That's hearsay in this country and is inadmissible in court...

Not exactly true. Hearsay is admissible under the right conditions. One example I know of (maybe the only one, maybe not; IANAL) is the police. In America one of the rights they read you says something like, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Anything you say to the police after your rights are read (and maybe even before; again IANAL) is admissible by the prosecution even though it is hearsay. Of further note, it is only admissible by the prosecution, not the defense.

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213368)

That's why it's better to claim to have saved peace. Preventing further conflict than what occurred. Why, if it weren't for me, it would've been much worse. Can I pick up my prize now?

Re:Without any evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213362)

So, if I said I just caused world peace, does that mean I win myself the Nobel Peace Prize?

Listen you Insightful Troll, the answer too your question is No:

Firstly, Nobel Peace prizes are given for political reasons, and not necessarily for solving a peace problem.

Secondly, you cannot nominate yourself for a peace prize. Somebody of note (usually a distinguished scholar needs to nominate you, and then other scholars need to vote on the notability of your achievements). Use some Google skills are maybe just some common sense before saying something stupid.

Thirdly, if you had bothered to read the forums where he posted (instead of Trolling on Slashdot) you would have realized that this asshat had gone out of his way to prove that he is cool by speeding down a residential street with a fast and expensive sports car. He even provided pictures and the street name of his (relatively) small suburban suburb (not far from where I live BTW). And, according to the forum, this wasn't the first time he bragged about his crimes. Anybody on Slashdot should know it would be trivial for the police to get matching IP records to verify the physical address of the poster.

And seeing how incredibly stupid and immature this asshat's posts were, I doubt it would have been difficult for the police to obtain a full confession.

You, Psaakyrn, LOSE!

In this case the police did the right thing. Unusual to hear good news about an authority that likes to flex its powers (often in very bad ways), but protecting children from dangerous drivers is a lot more useful and practical than protecting them from sex, video games, music [wired.com] or the Internet. Kudos to the police (for this one, at least).

Re:Without any evidence? (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213154)

The problem is there's no way to prove the physical connection between who typed that comment and posted the pictures and the person potentially breaking the law.

What if he had a falling out with his brother and his brother used the computer to try and frame him for example?

This is quite different to someone admitting in front of witnesses they have committed a crime, because there the witnesses have witnessed the perpetrator in question admitting the crime directly.

This is the fundamental problem with computer crimes, people are arrested and convicted on much lower standards of evidence than have come to be expected in real life. Say a computer is used for a crime online, and the police trace the IP back to the house, and they can somehow prove the IP has always been attached to that computer and only that computer and they search that computer and find evidence of the crime, then can they prove the owner of the computer committed it? Say they check for finger prints and DNA evidence on the keyboard even, can they prove someone didn't just plug in another keyboard for the purpose of carrying out the crime?

It's the fundamental disconnect between the system used to commit the crime and the person who used that system to commit it that is the problem, and short of someone making a mistake and incriminating themselves physically in real life or someone physically witnessing the crime being committed I'm not sure it's ever possible to conclusively prove people responsible for digital crimes, at best you can get a decent amount of evidence, but many cases of non-digital crimes upto and including the most serious have fallen flat on such low standards of evidence even where the person is guilty.

I'm not familiar with this case, but I hope he was convicted on the basis that he also admitted guilt in real life, in person, and not purely on an internet posting as that'd be a bad precedent, a green light for smart criminals to frame people for anything from this sort of crime through to child porn crimes to hacking crimes.

A crime being linked to an IP seems fair enough justification to investigate the system or systems behind that IP and their owners, but not enough in itself to fairly secure a conviction.

Read the article (2, Informative)

ctid (449118) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213232)

He pleaded guilty to this.

Re:Read the article (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213262)

At least that means there's no precedent being set where the conviction is based only on the comment then which is good and really how things should be. As I say, the comments are fair enough reason to investigate, and if he then admitted guilt then it seems a reasonable conviction as it's the admittance of guilt that effectively got him convicted in the end so I don't think there's really any news here.

Re:Read the article (1)

sosume (680416) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213340)

How will the police be able to prove that he actually drove that fast? First, he may have been bragging about his speed. Second, it may be possible that he didn't write that forum post at all. And third, while he's an idiot for confessing, in my country a confession without factual evidence of an actual crime or offense cannot be prosecuted.

Re:Read the article (1)

Lloyd_Bryant (73136) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213604)

How will the police be able to prove that he actually drove that fast? First, he may have been bragging about his speed. Second, it may be possible that he didn't write that forum post at all. And third, while he's an idiot for confessing, in my country a confession without factual evidence of an actual crime or offense cannot be prosecuted.

1. He wasn't charged with speeding. He was charged with "careless driving", for which they don't need to prove you were speeding.

2. He admitted in his post as to the when and where, and mentioned that there was a person writing something down as he passed, probably a license plate number, but "he was too fast for them".

Given this, the police probably went to that neighborhood and asked around (if no complaint had already been filed, that is). That would give them evidence that a crime was committed. If they got a partial license plate number, a description of the car, and a description of the driver from witnesses, then they probably had enough to charge and likely convict him.

He was *not* convicted based on his forum post. He was *identified* as a result of the forum post, which later lead to police arresting him. He then pled guilty to the charge.

Re:Without any evidence? (2, Insightful)

Narcogen (666692) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213292)

The problem is there's no way to prove the physical connection between who typed that comment and posted the pictures and the person potentially breaking the law.

What if he had a falling out with his brother and his brother used the computer to try and frame him for example?

This is quite different to someone admitting in front of witnesses they have committed a crime, because there the witnesses have witnessed the perpetrator in question admitting the crime directly.

This is the fundamental problem with computer crimes, people are arrested and convicted on much lower standards of evidence than have come to be expected in real life. Say a computer is used for a crime online, and the police trace the IP back to the house, and they can somehow prove the IP has always been attached to that computer and only that computer and they search that computer and find evidence of the crime, then can they prove the owner of the computer committed it? Say they check for finger prints and DNA evidence on the keyboard even, can they prove someone didn't just plug in another keyboard for the purpose of carrying out the crime?

It's the fundamental disconnect between the system used to commit the crime and the person who used that system to commit it that is the problem, and short of someone making a mistake and incriminating themselves physically in real life or someone physically witnessing the crime being committed I'm not sure it's ever possible to conclusively prove people responsible for digital crimes, at best you can get a decent amount of evidence, but many cases of non-digital crimes upto and including the most serious have fallen flat on such low standards of evidence even where the person is guilty.

I'm not familiar with this case, but I hope he was convicted on the basis that he also admitted guilt in real life, in person, and not purely on an internet posting as that'd be a bad precedent, a green light for smart criminals to frame people for anything from this sort of crime through to child porn crimes to hacking crimes.

A crime being linked to an IP seems fair enough justification to investigate the system or systems behind that IP and their owners, but not enough in itself to fairly secure a conviction.

Such claims are repeated often and aren't quite as meritorious as people think, especially when the standard of proof is merely "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Let's say you trace an IP to a given household during the period in question. On the basis of the forum post and the IP identification, you get a warrant and search the computer. You gain access to logfiles, cookies, browser history. Even if the computer is shared, you'll gain some information that would corroborate the forum post.

You may well allege, at this point, that the IP, the logfiles, the forum post, and all of this other, admittedly circumstantial evidence, points only to the computer. But that's not entirely true. You may gain access to other online identities this person uses.

The site itself may show you the poster's history, corroborating other elements of the story-- that correlate between the individual in question and the online identity which made the claim. If the content of other posts by the same online identity, also made from the same IP address, from the same computer at the same address, are consistent with other details of the individual's life, then that also generates a relatively high level of confidence in the accuracy of the post. Perhaps the poster's own history contains other, similar claims.

At that point, the question does not become whether or not all this circumstantial evidence proves unequivocally that the suspect was the one who actually made that post, and thus committed the infraction in question, but whether that is more or less plausible than believing that this single post, among all others made by that identity on one or more sites, which are consistent with being made by the suspect, was made fraudulently by someone else with access to the computer. That may be doubt, but in non-felony cases it probably doesn't rise to the level of reasonable doubt.

Of course, all the more reason for protecting access to one's online identities, using strong account passwords, good security procedures, and enforcing logins on shared computers so that this sort of thing can't happen anyway. I sometimes get the feeling that some people earnestly want to preserve the Internet as a space where anything may be done and said by anyone and nothing is of any consequence, and back up that assertion with a dearth of good security practices-- because since if no one protects their identities, no online identity can ever be held accountable for anything, or be positively identified with any actual person.

IANAL.

Re:Without any evidence? (2, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213186)

I shot JFK.

Do you believe me? If so, you're extremely gullible. If not - the standards of proof in a court are meant to be higher than personal opinion.

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213442)

Uhhhh - what is your date of birth? Check out my nick for my year of birth. You had better be - oh - at least ten years older than I am. To really be plausible, you better be 15 years older than me. I was sitting in a 3rd grade classroom when JFK was shot - hardly old enough to be stalking political targets.

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213620)

Okay, let's assume I was born 1939, and it's plausible that I was in the vicinity at the time. I still don't think there's enough evidence for a conviction.

The fact that I can make the claim of having shot him despite having been born in 1976 and never having been to Dallas shos that as far as evidence goes, a forum post is has too much reasonable doubt. It's evidence and useful for building a case, but not nearly enough on its own.

Re:Without any evidence? (2, Insightful)

tumutbound (549414) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213194)

This is not the same as admitting guilt. It's making a statement that has no supporting evidence. The article referred to made no mention of videos or pictures of the alleged infringement. When questioned by police, the person in question could just say ' I really didn't drive that fast, I just said that to compensate for having a tiny dick". It's not against the law to lie in a blog.

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

sosume (680416) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213308)

Can the police prove that the 19 year old was actually the one who wrote the post? Did they have cameras installed facing his keyboard?

Re:Without any evidence? (5, Informative)

odies (1869886) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213068)

What evidence was there, other than the bloggers post, that an offence had occurred?
How could the police charge him without it?

He admitted it himself. Admitting your crimes on the internet are no different than admitting them in real life. There also were pictures and videos of his crime.

Same laws apply to Internet as real life. It would be pretty stupid to go tell police that. Well, they can read the internet too.

Re:Without any evidence? (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213156)

I think the pictures and videos are the important elements, because they constitute actual evidence. Otherwise, there are fairly stringent tests for what makes something a legitimate confession that's admissible in court. People do sometimes brag about things they didn't actually do, especially in pseudo-anonymous environments, and that isn't a crime. It may be stupid, and it may cause you a lot of hassle as you try to convince police / a judge that you were just making empty boasts, but courts do still have to try to sort that out: if they determine the confession was indeed not a genuine confession, it isn't sufficient for conviction.

For things of this sort, I don't think police would normally pursue it even IRL unless there were more evidence (like the photos/video in this case). If someone in a high-school hallway tells their friend that they were going 90 last night, that's pretty weak evidence, since it's quite likely to just be bravado.

Re:Without any evidence? (2, Informative)

macemoneta (154740) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213220)

As far as I understand, pictures and video are not evidence unless someone testifies to their veracity. Under questioning, all he has to do is say he photoshopped the "evidence" for his own amusement at the reaction they would provoke in the forum. I suspect what happened instead is that he verified that the media were real to the police, and that's why he was charged. That's speculation though, as the article doesn't have enough information to determine the basis for the charge.

Re:Without any evidence? (1, Insightful)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213258)

This should be modded up. I was going to say something similar. Someone could be bragging and be using doctored video indeed. But, more importantly, is there a timestamp to the video? Like, maybe someone did it years ago. What prevents from someone being charged multiple times for the same crime if there lacks a timestamp? Aside from one's aging body.

Re:Without any evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213324)

Well, he can either loose his license for a couple of months, or he can get jailed for lying in court...
But I also think he confessed. I wouldnt be dumb enough to post that and videos to a forum, but if I had to face the fire for it, I'd just confess.

Re:Without any evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213630)

So then the prosecution would have to bring in an expert who would testify that the video has not been doctored. Or the judge would order the kid to produce the original, undoctored video.

Or, in this case, it seems like the kid knew he was caught and confessed.

Re:Without any evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213282)

Well, put up a fake post - and make some damages against them stick.

And when or if they charge you, hit up the other side for damages and court costs (that could be a nice little earner) after you have told them its not true.
You dont believe everything in the papers, and you sure dont believe the internet.

Photoshop the Mayors numberplate over another like car, and you can create a lot of confusion.

Re:Without any evidence? (2, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213302)

I think the pictures and videos are the important elements, because they constitute actual evidence. Otherwise, there are fairly stringent tests for what makes something a legitimate confession that's admissible in court. People do sometimes brag about things they didn't actually do, especially in pseudo-anonymous environments, and that isn't a crime. It may be stupid, and it may cause you a lot of hassle as you try to convince police / a judge that you were just making empty boasts, but courts do still have to try to sort that out: if they determine the confession was indeed not a genuine confession, it isn't sufficient for conviction.

Which is not to say it won't fuck your life up royally.

Interviewer: "So, can you explain what you've been doing for the last 9 months?"
Interviewee: "I was remanded in custody because I wanted to look big and clever and so bragged about a serious crime which I didn't commit"
Interviewer: "Okay, so we've established that you're a prat. Have you got any questions you'd like to ask me?"

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

sosume (680416) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213354)

> I think the pictures and videos are the important elements, because they constitute actual evidence.

How are they sure the evidence isn't tampered with? Did the camera correctly register the vehicle's speed? Have the pictures been edited?

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213366)

If someone in a high-school hallway tells their friend that they were going 90 last night, that's pretty weak evidence, since it's quite likely to just be bravado.

And if overheard by the teacher it would likely land you in the principles office. And if you then admitted it again to the principle by pleading guilty you'll likely get ... [won't go into if your school can punish you for something outside of school but the point was made].

I'm willing to bet that any dumbshit lawyer could have fought this off, this guy just said "guilty".

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213174)

The Netherlands is not the only country where the legal system will never convict someone based solely on his own statement.

A fair system of justice should never rely on (such) a single point of failure.

Re:Without any evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213238)

What pictures, what video, what evidence? I read the first 5 pages of the original forum and he never offered any actual evidence of his boast. Granted, I didn't read all 28 pages but if he hasn't offered this mythical video evidence after people accused him of driving his daddy's car, he probably hasn't got any. I am of course willing to be proved wrong.

I can post all over the internet that I'm Angelina Jolie's lover but it doesn't make it true.

All he did was brag and as a result, all he needed to say was:
"I was just trying to make myself look good/big/clever/cool. I didn't actually do that, that would be stupid!"

Re:Without any evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213088)

He wasn't convicted of speeding, as they had no evidence or proof of speed, only his claims which any court could and should find as BS to try to convict on.

He was convicted of careless driving, which can be done based on witness accounts, etc.

There were witnesses who didn't get the whole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213102)

license plate written down

Re:Without any evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213388)

What evidence was there, other than the bloggers post, that an offence had occurred? How could the police charge him without it?

From TFA:

A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving after boasting online that he drove 100 kilometres an hour over the speed limit on a residential street.

He plead guilty, got it? Probably confessed to police before speaking to his lawyer.

Re:Without any evidence? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213396)

"A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving"

I'm not sure about newspeak. Is there a tripleplusstupid? Speeding on a residential street is stupid. Bragging online was stupid. PLEADING GUILTY was the tripleplus part of it. Had I been stupid enough to pull the first two stupidities, I certainly wouldn't have admitted to a judge that it were so.

"Your Honor, I wasn't going half as fast as I claimed - I was just bragging for all those dilrods on the forum! Hell, man, I'm AFRAID to go fast!"

Definitely tripleplus.

Adrian Lamo strikes again! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213062)

:)

A BMW? (2, Funny)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213072)

Doesn't he know he should be driving an Audi now [thespoof.com]?

Re:A BMW? (3, Informative)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213230)

I'm not sure why that's posted on a spoof site, in my experience it's quite fucking true! BMWs seem pretty common and run of the mill in the UK now and I don't really encounter many that are driven badly above the norm for most cars, One series seem common as muck and I even saw one with one of those learner signs on the top of it the other day which made me chuckle.

Most Audi drivers on the other hand, there's generally two types, there's the middle England Daily Mail reading wife who drives one because her husband bought her it and she thinks it makes her cool but actually scares the living shit out of her to drive so she sticks to 30mph on safe 60mph roads, and then there's the dickhead, who drives 60mph on safe 30mph roads, overtaking on blind corners down country lanes because he thinks the national speed limit sign means "Drive as fast as you fucking can at a minimum of 60mph down every part of this road", when in reality it means something along the lines of "Drive whatever speed is safe for the section of the road you are on, upto 60mph on safe open straight parts with good visibility".

But then it's also no suprise that on the 25 mile commute each way a day I do, that the cars I see in bushes are also nearly always Audis, driven by both types of driver- the dickhead who lost control, and the middle England Daily Mail reading wife who did a 90 degree turn off the side of the road into a ditch because a tractor was coming the other way on the other side of the road towards her at 10mph and that made her panic.

Still, it could be worse, at least they're not the annoying Nissan Micra and Fiat 500 drivers that seem to exist solely to slow the flow of traffic down to something like 5mph on every stretch of road possible whilst still managing to drift across the other side of the road because turning the wheel to navigate a 2 mile long 10 degree turn is just too much for them!

Re:A BMW? (2, Informative)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213408)

On my 45 mile commute each way, the only cars I ever see in the bushes have red and blue lights bolted to the top, and everyone slows down by 10-20 mph when approaching one whether speeding or not. They're a real menace.

Re:A BMW? (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213518)

He was referring to the UK, for starters they commonly drive on the other side of the road.

Re:A BMW? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213506)

you're just jealous that you can't afford neither.

Re:A BMW? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213596)

As one driving a Micra 1.2L, I guess it's just that they're driven by people who don't know how to deal with a somewhat underpowered car. In highest gear, it's a real underachiever. Solution: downshift. Keep it above 3000 rpm and it's somewhat OK. Two, energy management. Learn how fast you can safely go in corners, some people slow down a lot when it's unnecessary. Poor acceleration is less of a problem when you can consistently keep your speed high.

Of course, a lot of drivers are just fools who get scared if the engine makes a bit of noise or the car is leaning into the corners a bit. Or worse, have a small diesel engine or automatic transmission that won't let you benefit from high rpm. Then you end up with something so sluggish it's a hazard on the road, yes. Especially on highway onramps (planning is everything in that case. Floor it as soon as you're on the onramp if you don't want to have to merge into traffic at a dangerously high speed difference. Brakes are fine, so you can always slow down if you need to, accelerating late might not work out so well).

Cue 'speeding' jokes - here's #1 (5, Funny)

captain_dope_pants (842414) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213076)

Heisenberg got pulled over for speeding. The cop says "Do you know how fast you were going?" And Heisenberg sayd "No, but I know exactly where I am."

Re:Cue 'speeding' jokes - here's #1 (4, Interesting)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213274)

In this season's last episode of Top Gear there was a review of iirc a Ferrari where the same screen was used for the satnav and the digital speedometer, so one can have either one or the other, but not at the same time. The perfect car for Heisenberg. :)

#2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213286)

A speedfreak is out walking one fine evening. He finds a poor person on the street and helps him up. The poor person says, "Son, I'm a genie. And since you helped me I'll give you three wishes."

The speedfreak says, "I want a big bag of meth!", the genie says."Okay." POOF, the bag appears! They prepare some thick long white lines and share it between the two of them.

The next morning the genie asks "What's the second wish?", "I want two big bags of meth", says the speedfreak. "Okay," says the genie. POOF! And they prepare it and snort it between the two of them.

The next morning the genie asks "And the third wish?" "I want four big bags of meth!" POOOF!! So, they prepare lots of big lines and share it between the two of them.

Much later the genie gets up and says, "Okay, it's time for me to go." The genie takes a couple of steps, pauses, turns around and says, "Okay, just one more wish."

Oh what? Wrong sort of speed.

Quantum memory may topple Heisenberg's uncertainty (1)

andersh (229403) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213578)

A quantum memory may be all scientists need to beat the limit of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, according to a paper published in Nature Physics.

According to a group of researchers, maximally entangling a particle with a quantum memory and measuring one of the particle's variables, like its position, should snap the quantum memory in a corresponding state, which could then be measured.

This would allow them to do something long thought verboten by the laws of physics: figure out the state of certain pairs of variables at the exact same time with an unprecedented amount of certainty.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/08/quantum-memory-may-topple-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle.ars [arstechnica.com]

I broke the Universial Speed Limit! (4, Funny)

feedayeen (1322473) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213086)

I am here telling you guys that my car was traveling at 299,792,459 m/s along the I80 free way, it only took me 1/10,000th of a second to reach my destination though so nobody else saw.

Re:I broke the Universial Speed Limit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213098)

Please surrender yourself to the closest tele-screen.

Re:I broke the Universial Speed Limit! (4, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213140)

Too bad that in your 1/10,000th of a second, the rest of the world aged 1,000 years, so nobody you knew was around to brag to.

Re:I broke the Universial Speed Limit! (3, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213252)

Except that the speed he stated was 1.0000000033c, and that means he went back in time, at least for some observers.

Re:I broke the Universial Speed Limit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213240)

It's like I tell my ex-wife, I NEVER drive faster than I can see.
Besides, it's all in the reflexes.

What? (1)

Serious Simon (701084) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213148)

He was speeding as a result of a post on an online message board?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213236)

Yes, he speeded. Then he "pleaded guilty", according to the article.

Down here in the states he would've sped, and then pled guilty.

informAtive homoHomo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213158)

tangle of fatal NiGGER aSSOCIATION OpenBSD. How many

Of course, why bother to link to the forum? (5, Informative)

HonestButCurious (1306021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213184)

There you go [5series.net]

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum? (3, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213266)

I'm actually rather impressed at the attitude of the other forum members. Most of them felt it was a bad choice and put pedestrians who might have been in the area at risk, suggesting the racer should go to a local track instead to wind up his wheels.

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum? (2, Insightful)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213284)

He went 90mph in a residential street? And then he's saying that he's a careful and experienced driver with 19? I do not own a drivers license (because I didn't needed one or cared about it) so I'm not going to pretend that I know what I'm talking about, but...can we get a ban for some years on such people?

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213448)

Excerpt:

#1 by bmw550ifreak > The title says it all basically. Anyways, yesterday I was going back home during the day time after the GYM, and when I hit the street next to my house " Appleblosom dr" the zone there is 40 km/h, as soon as I turn into that street, I stopped the car, pressed the (M) button, DSC off, max short shift, and take off 1st gear ( 8000 RPM, switch) and so on... I hit 140 in like 6 or less seconds lol, some old guy was standing on the sidewalk tlaking to another guy, he had a pencil and a paper, he decides to run into my car to stop me, but I was too fast. Do you think he could tka emy liscence number ? lol I think I was too fast, I really doubt that. Though, I gotta admit, I cant stop racing with this car, beleive it or not, I killed a black E63 AMG Last week on Dufferin street. It was almost equal but in the end I had more power.

Basically starts off with a few hundred posts of people telling the guy to stop speeding/being a moron/etc, then things get juicy around the end of page 22

#329 by YRG (somebody made an account and posted this single post): Any witnesses that wish to come forward on Apple Blossom Drive, Vaughan about the dangerous operation of 2006 BMW M5S please contact Sergeant Morash, of York Regional Police, Community Response Unit at
581@yrp.ca

#331 by bmw550ifreak > Maybe it was just a lie about going 140, so I can show off in the forums ( maybe its an option?) maybe I did not even get into an accident or it turned up in a different way. Chill ok? if you want to create problems PM we'll talk. Think about your family, your job etc.. dont put your nose into non of your business, you dont even know me..k?.. thanks.

#333 by bmw550ifreak > Ok I agree, but I dont like the fact that he comes on these forums like a freaking hero and tries to scare me or something. DELETE this thread its getting old,

#340 by bmw550ifreak > lol obviously I am not going to kill his familly, I am not that bad of a person I dont even think about it, I just said to mind his own business and not trying to show off power here on the forums because its annoying how people do it over the internet in person MUCH better. 2nd :twoup: I quit weed 2 1/2 weeks ago

#341 by sdg1871 > Vlad, have you ever given any credence to the possibility that the poster you threatened is indeed a police officer?
She specifically identified [sic] himself by name and by his department.
Threatening a police officer could send you directly to jail for a long long time. My advice: stop posting on this thread immediately because you may be making an already perilous legal situation infinitely worse.
I think that you should get a lawyer immediately as you seem to be heading for big trouble. You may want to Google Sgt. Morash. Look at what I found: http://www.town.rich...ases_06_05_2009 -- notice who the last member of this road safety committee is -- Sgt. Elaine Morash.

#342 by bmw550ifreak > Ok sorry for everything. I will stop posting, I just want to let everybody know that I do not do anything stupid on the roads anymore and I dont speed anymore on any major streets. I took this into my consideration, sgt.Elain morash if you see this please PM me back.

http://www.globaltoronto.com/Vaughan+gets+driving+after+online+post+about+speeding/3381185/story.html

Foreign policy... (-1, Flamebait)

jasonq (244142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213288)

Wow, an American meddling in somebody else's country. Who would have thought it was possible?

Guess what? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33213318)

I just drove 230mph through a school zone, hit 3 children without stopping at the scene of the accident, failed to use my turn signal while driving the wrong way down the road with expired tabs and a burnt out tailight after drinking 13 long island iced teas!

. . . . .

. . . . .

wait for it. . .

Might not be as bad as it sounds (2, Insightful)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213418)

As someone who owns a motorbike with similar performance to that M5 (though it's almost 10 times cheaper!), I have to say there really are times when 100KPH over the speed limit is still safe.

I don't know if these particular circumstances were safe... but he may have been able to accelerate to that speed and drop back down to safe speeds over a very short stretch of road... one where you may have perfect visibility of potential dangers.

Laws based on fixed speed/rules suck. There should be only one offense: driving dangerously under the conditions. Traffic police should be required to prove that it was dangerous every time.

Disclaimer: I was recently fined $300 for something that would have, at the very worst, given me a few bruises if I'd fallen off my bike.

The Track (2, Informative)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#33213586)

From the thread, skelevirus had it right:

How about this rocket scientist, take your baby to the track. Go as fast as u want

Bought a kickass cool car that goes fast fast fast? Go for it - take it to the track and drop the hammer and see what the car is really made of. The public streets, with kids and grandmas and, you know, everyone else in the damn world, is not the track. Getting someone else killed just so you can enjoy an adrenaline rush is disgusting.

I'm glad the cops nailed him - I wish they'd confiscated the car (100kmh above the speed limit is, to say the least, excessive).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...