Ontario cop playing the plea-bargaining game in advance.

bring your gun to court and SHOOT THE PIG, PROBLEM SOLVED.


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, owner wrote:
>
>> While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the
>> vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn. The cop charged this person with
>> "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130), and not "Following Too Closely"
>> (HTA section 158(1)). The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits,
>> while the Following charge costs 4 demerits.
>
>> The cop advised this person to go to the prosecutor, tell him/her the
>> Careless charge was for "Following Too Closely". That sounds incredibly
>> like advising plea-bargaining by the cop. It seems to me that the cop
>> used the higher charge, with it's higher penalties ($200 to $1,000 fine,
>> etc) to pretty much assure a plea-bargain on the lower charge, and
>> therefore to assure a conviction.
>
> Y'think?
>
>> A naive question to be sure, but is this common practice in Ontario?
>
> It's common practice everywhere. Another variant:
>
> Driver: "Aw, shoot! A cop wants me to pull over!"
>
> Cop: "I clocked you going 80 in a 50 zone. I'm writing you up for 65 in a
> 50 zone."
>
> Driver: "Judge, this is my first offence, can we convert this to a
> non-moving violation if I take traffic school and promise never to do it
> again?"
>
> Judge: "No. The cop already gave you a break on your speed."
>
>> surely careless driving, a 6-demerit offence, should be used for
>> something more than a fender-bender? The only damage to the other
>> vehicle was, literally, the rubber mat on top of the bumber (mini-van)
>> showing a small crack. The paint didn't even chip.
>
> Look at it from the law's perspective. Driving carelessly (or while
> distracted) can result in a wide range of damage and injury, or even
> death. In your friend's case, the damage was minor. That's lucky for all
> parties involved. But it could've been much worse, and the cause would've
> been the same: your friend's failure to pay attention to the driving task.
>
> Remember, Breaking and Entering is B&E, even if the perpetrator doesn't
> damage or steal anything.
>
> In that light, the charge makes sense and sort of proves itself: If s/he'd
> been paying attention to the driving task, s/he wouldn't have been
> following too closely and wouldn't have hit the car in front.
>
>> We will contest this, because it seems to be way too severe for what
>> happened.
>
> By all means, but be prepared for some of the responses above.
>
>> How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the
>> charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice
>> automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge?
>
> That's a toughie.
>
>
> DS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Feel free to write to me via email.
>>

owner wrote: <snipped for irrelevancy>

When you ass-end somebody in the US... it's your fault. If their
anti-lock brakes malfunction and lock all wheels and you ass-end
them... it's your fault. There's no excuse for hitting someone from
behind barring extraordinary circumstances. Period.
-----

- gpsman

That is, unless you live in Montana where you can kill and maim by
vehicle with impunity as long as you claim you're just stupid and
weren't paying attention http://tinyurl.com/55egh

owner wrote: <snipped for irrelevancy>

When you ass-end somebody in the US... it's your fault. If their
anti-lock brakes malfunction and lock all wheels and you ass-end
them... it's your fault. There's no excuse for hitting someone from
behind barring extraordinary circumstances. Period.
-----

- gpsman

That is, unless you live in Montana where you can kill and maim by
vehicle with impunity as long as you claim you're just stupid and
weren't paying attention http://tinyurl.com/55egh

In article >,
says...
>While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the
>vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn.
>The cop charged this person with "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130),
>and not "Following Too Closely" (HTA section 158(1)).
>The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits, while the Following
>charge costs 4 demerits.
>Apparently the officer has this kind of discretion, to lay the charge
>with the greater penalty? But doesn't it require a greater burden of
>proof?
>The cop advised this person to go to the prosecutor, tell him/her the
>Careless charge was for "Following Too Closely". That sounds incredibly
>like advising plea-bargaining by the cop. It seems to me that the cop
>used the higher charge, with it's higher penalties ($200 to $1,000 fine,
>etc) to pretty much assure a plea-bargain on the lower charge, and
>therefore to assure a conviction.
>A naive question to be sure, but is this common practice in Ontario? How
>hard is it to prove Careless in this instance? I know that's an
>objective question, but surely careless driving, a 6-demerit offence,
>should be used for something more than a fender-bender? The only damage
>to the other vehicle was, literally, the rubber mat on top of the bumber
>(mini-van) showing a small crack. The paint didn't even chip.
>We will contest this, because it seems to be way too severe for what
>happened. But we're not sure how to approach it. I have fought a
>speeding ticket before, and had a good idea what to ask for insofar as
>disclosure by the prosecutor, but I am not clear at all what to ask for
>here besides witness statements and a copy of the ticket (both sides).
>
>How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the
>charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice
>automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge?

Just because the damage to the other vehicle was minimal does not mean
your friend was not guilty of careless driving. Read the laws carefully.
You will then see what the cop has to prove to get a conviction. Then plan
your defense accordingly. If the cop can't prove the more serious conviction,
you might get off completely.
-------------
Alex

In article >,
says...
>While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the
>vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn.
>The cop charged this person with "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130),
>and not "Following Too Closely" (HTA section 158(1)).
>The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits, while the Following
>charge costs 4 demerits.
>Apparently the officer has this kind of discretion, to lay the charge
>with the greater penalty? But doesn't it require a greater burden of
>proof?
>The cop advised this person to go to the prosecutor, tell him/her the
>Careless charge was for "Following Too Closely". That sounds incredibly
>like advising plea-bargaining by the cop. It seems to me that the cop
>used the higher charge, with it's higher penalties ($200 to $1,000 fine,
>etc) to pretty much assure a plea-bargain on the lower charge, and
>therefore to assure a conviction.
>A naive question to be sure, but is this common practice in Ontario? How
>hard is it to prove Careless in this instance? I know that's an
>objective question, but surely careless driving, a 6-demerit offence,
>should be used for something more than a fender-bender? The only damage
>to the other vehicle was, literally, the rubber mat on top of the bumber
>(mini-van) showing a small crack. The paint didn't even chip.
>We will contest this, because it seems to be way too severe for what
>happened. But we're not sure how to approach it. I have fought a
>speeding ticket before, and had a good idea what to ask for insofar as
>disclosure by the prosecutor, but I am not clear at all what to ask for
>here besides witness statements and a copy of the ticket (both sides).
>
>How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the
>charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice
>automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge?

Just because the damage to the other vehicle was minimal does not mean
your friend was not guilty of careless driving. Read the laws carefully.
You will then see what the cop has to prove to get a conviction. Then plan
your defense accordingly. If the cop can't prove the more serious conviction,
you might get off completely.
-------------
Alex

if pigs have time to hand out speeding tickets, then PIGS have time to get
the crime rate to zero.

The only good traffic cop is a DEAD traffic cop.


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, owner wrote:
>
>> While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the
>> vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn. The cop charged this person with
>> "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130), and not "Following Too Closely"
>> (HTA section 158(1)). The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits,
>> while the Following charge costs 4 demerits.
>
>> The cop advised this person to go to the prosecutor, tell him/her the
>> Careless charge was for "Following Too Closely". That sounds incredibly
>> like advising plea-bargaining by the cop. It seems to me that the cop
>> used the higher charge, with it's higher penalties ($200 to $1,000 fine,
>> etc) to pretty much assure a plea-bargain on the lower charge, and
>> therefore to assure a conviction.
>
> Y'think?
>
>> A naive question to be sure, but is this common practice in Ontario?
>
> It's common practice everywhere. Another variant:
>
> Driver: "Aw, shoot! A cop wants me to pull over!"
>
> Cop: "I clocked you going 80 in a 50 zone. I'm writing you up for 65 in a
> 50 zone."
>
> Driver: "Judge, this is my first offence, can we convert this to a
> non-moving violation if I take traffic school and promise never to do it
> again?"
>
> Judge: "No. The cop already gave you a break on your speed."
>
>> surely careless driving, a 6-demerit offence, should be used for
>> something more than a fender-bender? The only damage to the other
>> vehicle was, literally, the rubber mat on top of the bumber (mini-van)
>> showing a small crack. The paint didn't even chip.
>
> Look at it from the law's perspective. Driving carelessly (or while
> distracted) can result in a wide range of damage and injury, or even
> death. In your friend's case, the damage was minor. That's lucky for all
> parties involved. But it could've been much worse, and the cause would've
> been the same: your friend's failure to pay attention to the driving task.
>
> Remember, Breaking and Entering is B&E, even if the perpetrator doesn't
> damage or steal anything.
>
> In that light, the charge makes sense and sort of proves itself: If s/he'd
> been paying attention to the driving task, s/he wouldn't have been
> following too closely and wouldn't have hit the car in front.
>
>> We will contest this, because it seems to be way too severe for what
>> happened.
>
> By all means, but be prepared for some of the responses above.
>
>> How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the
>> charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice
>> automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge?
>
> That's a toughie.
>
>
> DS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Feel free to write to me via email.
>>