Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

what i don't get is - bus drivers are not allowed to refuse anyone service whether they have the full fare or not but skytrain gives out fines or tasers

I don't think they're not allowed to refuse service, but they're not required to enforce fares.... most let people on when they have a sob story, but I've seen some drivers refuse to let "undesirables" on without a fare. Of course now that buses are "Fare Paid Zones" technically you can't be on a bus without Proof of Payment (thus everyone *must* get a transfer, even if you are dead drunk heading home and you know damn well you don't *need* a transfer).... I still flash my pass to drivers, even though in theory you shouldn't need to.... The only other change as a result of the bus "Fare Paid Zone" (other than mandating that you take a transfer whether you need it or not) is that those who board with a 'sob story' may find themselves in a fare check later on.... has anyone here seen an on-board bus farecheck?

They've been employing human turn styles at Burrard Station recently. Instead of checking fares at the bottom of the escalators (no ticket means you're in violation), they're checking at the top of the escalators at the start of the "fare paid zone".. That seems more fair, there's no excuse for getting caught there as you can see them and have the chance to buy a ticket.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I do agree that tasers seem extreme for fare evasion, but i can see how some situations can change quite quickly. There will always be a subset of transit users that will be guaranteed to escalate a situation. And i think people still give translink police the short shrift and forget they are dealing with people who are law enforcement officers and able to use force.

In the end I still support translink police to use tasers/— with regular oversight. Once faregates are installed, then we should quickly see less problems like this.

You realized that the link is to a bus driver spitting on a passenger right?
Spitting at someone (however gross it is) is not justification for use of a taser. Coming at the officer with a knife or attacking them physically would be an appropriate time to use it. I support them carrying — and batons, but not tasers, as they have not been tested and their long term effects are unknown.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by zivan56

Yes, but laws without teeth a useless, right? There have been cases like the airport incident where nobody even lost their job. In any sane system, the police officers should have faced 2nd degree murder charges. There are plenty of other cases, like where they left a drunk guy to die on the street...and got off saying "I'm sorry."

I totally agree here. Law enforcers are supposed to be law abiders of the highest order, and there's no excuse for letting them off lightly for it.

Originally Posted by zivan56

Trespassing is a civil offense (in Canada and most countries in the world). Damage to private property would be criminal

So signs that read "Trespassers will be prosecuted" are meaningless?

I think B&E'ing into your home in the middle of the night would be dealt with more seriously than just as a "civil violation".

Originally Posted by zivan56

Sure they can. They can just get a court order to bar you from taking it.

That's assuming they'll comply.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by zivan56

Not paying a ticket is not an arrestable offense. Hence it is not resisting arrest, rather, abuse of authority on the part of the police. Resisting arrest would be that person who had a warrant out for them running away.

From the article: Another person who had not paid the SkyTrain fare and refused to identify himself was placed under arrest. He then "grabbed onto the platform railing and refused to let go."

Maybe you can reconcile those statements for me. I'm not advocating a general beatdown by police, but make a few examples of people and maybe we'll have better overall compliance. My frustration stems from an overall disregard for rules and law by criminals in Vancouver/BC. The courts are partially to blame with their light sentencing for so many offenses.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by zivan56

I agree with that. However, what you are arguing is that we should have a police state, where everybody is guilty before innocent and a high school dropout who took a 2 year course can decide on the spot who is guilty/innocent and how to dole out punishment. You are also saying that there is no distinction between criminal and civil offenses, and that each should be treated the same.
Essentially this is coming back to the phone bill question. It is exactly the same type of crime if you don't pay your phone bill and if you don't pay for a fare for the skytrain. So what gives the police the rights to hurt someone in one case and not the other?

Where the hell do you get off? You sound like somebody who has been caught at something like fare evasion (which most people get away with), and you're bitter because they treated you like the law breaker you were.

As mentioned, fare evasion is not criminal, but failure to show ID is. When somebody sells crack and resists arrest, would you let them walk away?

The phone bill example is the same as the transit fare: Don't pay, your service gets cut, your bill goes to a collection agency. Don't pay your transit fare: a fine that may also end up in collections.

Nobody is tasering people for not paying their fares, only when they break criminal laws.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Nobody is tasering people for not paying their fares, only when they break criminal laws.

Or rather, they are tasered when they start running away from the officers.

I don't see anything wrong with that, and I would be disappointed if our officers didn't do anything and let criminals walk all over the system.

[vanman]

I completely agree with you Zivan. The other day I was on the train and some typical teenager was on as well, minding his own business. Skypigs (of the armed variety) entered the train and there were seemingly no problems for at least 2-3 stops. Then all of a sudden this kid gets dragged off the train and thrown into handcuffs for smelling like marijuana. They started searching him as well but then the train left and I didn't see what else happened. IMO this is complete —.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by zivan56

You realized that the link is to a bus driver spitting on a passenger right?
Spitting at someone (however gross it is) is not justification for use of a taser. Coming at the officer with a knife or attacking them physically would be an appropriate time to use it. I support them carrying — and batons, but not tasers, as they have not been tested and their long term effects are unknown.

^^The bus driver spat on the passenger as the driver alleged that the passenger first refused to pay the fare and spat on the driver.

spitting at another person is considered assault and can be clearly prosecuted as assault.. If someone spits at a law enforcement officer, I would expect at least that person will be arrested, with or without some use of force to subdue the person. Would force be needed for spitting? hopefully not, but people spitting at police officers don't show the best judgement...

Do i think tasers should be used for fare evasion? as i said it seems extreme. But more aggressive gestures, even spitting, IMO will require more intervention from the police.
Your separate question -'are tasers a reliable non-lethal way to subdue people' is a fair one.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by vanman

I completely agree with you Zivan. The other day I was on the train and some typical teenager was on as well, minding his own business. Skypigs (of the armed variety) entered the train and there were seemingly no problems for at least 2-3 stops. Then all of a sudden this kid gets dragged off the train and thrown into handcuffs for smelling like marijuana. They started searching him as well but then the train left and I didn't see what else happened. IMO this is complete —.

Sign of the federal Conservatives regime?

Anyways, I'll just add that the difference between fare evaders and pot smokers is, the pot smoker (as long as the smoking is not done on transit property) is minding his own business, and is supposed to be of no concern to the transit cops. Fare evasion, on the other hand, is trespassing and theft, and is every bit the transit cops' business.

[eduardo88]

Originally Posted by vanman

I completely agree with you Zivan. The other day I was on the train and some typical teenager was on as well, minding his own business. Skypigs (of the armed variety) entered the train and there were seemingly no problems for at least 2-3 stops. Then all of a sudden this kid gets dragged off the train and thrown into handcuffs for smelling like marijuana. They started searching him as well but then the train left and I didn't see what else happened. IMO this is complete —.

How is that complete —? Marijuana is a controlled substance and there was reasonable cause to search him....

[twoNeurons]

Is Marijuana officially legalized now?

[SpongeG]

no its been decriminalized

big difference from legalization

you can still be charged for smoking or having pot here in Vancouver and Canada...

though thats likely not to happen

though stats seem to show more people since this "decriminalization" have been busted than prior to the change

[eduardo88]

Originally Posted by tintinium

Is Marijuana officially legalized now?

No it has never been legalized, despite various attempts by the federal Liberal government in the 90s.

Cannabis is a schedule II drug in Canada for amounts larger than 3kg. Amounts smaller than 3kg are classified as Schedule VII, and smaller than 30g as Schedule VIII.

So, no it is not legal.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

So signs that read "Trespassers will be prosecuted" are meaningless?

I think B&E'ing into your home in the middle of the night would be dealt with more seriously than just as a "civil violation".

No, that means they will be prosecuted. However, you can't prosecute them criminally for simply being in a place.

B&E is not trespassing. It is totally different. That's like saying killing someone and talking to them are the same thing.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

From the article: Another person who had not paid the SkyTrain fare and refused to identify himself was placed under arrest. He then "grabbed onto the platform railing and refused to let go."

Maybe you can reconcile those statements for me. I'm not advocating a general beatdown by police, but make a few examples of people and maybe we'll have better overall compliance. My frustration stems from an overall disregard for rules and law by criminals in Vancouver/BC. The courts are partially to blame with their light sentencing for so many offenses.

Well he was placed "under arrest." However, there is nothing to support arresting someone for such a thing (a law). So that is a completely gray area.
Sure people should pay fines and whatnot, but their lives should not be put at risk at the cost of a stinking 1 zone fare. My main concern is the reaction of the police, who have a broad authority and little oversight except by the police. Essentially, the police police themselves.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Where the hell do you get off? You sound like somebody who has been caught at something like fare evasion (which most people get away with), and you're bitter because they treated you like the law breaker you were.

As mentioned, fare evasion is not criminal, but failure to show ID is. When somebody sells crack and resists arrest, would you let them walk away?

The phone bill example is the same as the transit fare: Don't pay, your service gets cut, your bill goes to a collection agency. Don't pay your transit fare: a fine that may also end up in collections.

Nobody is tasering people for not paying their fares, only when they break criminal laws.

Nope, I have never had a single ticket for anything...thanks for asking though.
NO, FAILURE TO SHOW ID IS NOT. Not identifying yourself is. THERE IS NO MANDATORY ID IN CANADA

No, more like not having a ticket and the police will kill you if they want. They are tasering people for not having tickets; they are just using technicalities to allow the police to commit criminal behavior (imo).

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by zivan56

No, that means they will be prosecuted. However, you can't prosecute them criminally for simply being in a place.

So what are they getting prosecuted for?

Originally Posted by zivan56

B&E is not trespassing. It is totally different. That's like saying killing someone and talking to them are the same thing.

So they have to break some locks or other structures to the house to gain entry. Add a vandalism charge to that.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

Or rather, they are tasered when they start running away from the officers.

I don't see anything wrong with that, and I would be disappointed if our officers didn't do anything and let criminals walk all over the system.

I see you fail to see the seriousness and side effects of a taser. How can you run from the police when you haven't done anything? You are under no obligation to listen to them if you haven't done anything that is an arrestable offense. Again, it's a gray area.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by zivan56

Nope, I have never had a single ticket for anything...thanks for asking though.
NO, FAILURE TO SHOW ID IS NOT. Not identifying yourself is. THERE IS NO MANDATORY ID IN CANADA

If you don't produce ID when asked, they have every cause to take you in for thorough examination and to verify your identity without letting you get away. If you refuse or resist, you're asking for more aggressive measures.

[eduardo88]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

If you don't produce ID when asked, they have every cause to take you in for thorough examination and to verify your identity without letting you get away. If you refuse or resist, you're asking for more aggressive measures.

exactly, although there is no law requiring you to carry id (it wouldnt be bad if there was, and if there was one unified national id/driving license), it is the law to identify yourself to police officers when asked.