Speeding Ticket Defense vs. pacing

"Bernard Farquart" > wrote in message
news:9rnFd.12985$F97.3694@trnddc06...
>
> "jaybird" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bernard Farquart" > wrote in message
>> news:l4UEd.11191$ig7.6580@trnddc04...
>>>
>>> "jaybird" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Or you should just quit speeding. )
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ---
>>>> jaybird
>>>
>>>
>>> Jaybird, I an curious. Do you think that speeding is rare?
>>
>> I was mainly poking fun of Alex's nit-picking over a fraction of an inch
>> of tire height. If a person is speeding, they're speeding no matter how
>> many rabbits you can pull out of your hat in front of the judge.
>>
>> In my experience speeding in excess is rare. People going about 5 over
>> the limit is not because that's what people think they can get away with.
>>
>
> Or they feel perfectly safe doing so due to years of experience
>
>
>>>
>>> If you do not, why is that? Is it possible that speed limits are
>>> not properly set, or is it that most (close to all) drivers are
>>> miscreant lawbreakers with no regard for public good?
>>
>> I don't think it's either one. I think it's inherent in human nature to
>> push limits. We see it everyday in everything we do. I've never been
>> opposed to good drivers being allowed to drive at their skill level, but
>> then I'm not the one who makes the laws. Unfortunately we're stuck with
>> a lot of stupid people we have to compete with on the road.
>
> Thank you for a reasonable response, I figured you had it in you.

It's always been there.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Really, I am serious since this is the basis for most of the
>>> interaction between you and the regulars here.
>>> What is your perspective?
>>
>> While I know that it isn't a popular opinion in here, I truly think that
>> speed plays an important factor in vehicle collisions. I also think that
>> people will push limits to the point they think they can get away with
>> it. It is true that speed, in itself with no other factors present, does
>> not kill. However, there are an infinite number of factors involved
>> while driving a vehicle on our roadways.
>>
>
> Speed obviously makes an accident *worse* but the error that causes the
> accident is not going to be the speed, it is a seperate event.
>
> Wouldn't it be cool if we could focus our enforcement toward
> weeding the "stupid people" off the road?

It would be very cool. I'd be all for it.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

Jay,

Apparently, you're an officer yourself? Just curious. There're people
that deliberately speed. Then there're some that inadverdently speed.
And then there're some who do speed (at least when they get the ticket;
see last paragraph for more) When one gets a ticket, he's always at
fault?

I've nothing against law enforcement officers. Frankly, I just wish
they show up when I was tailgated (within inches) on a freeway and take
the idiot behind me away. Or when I was cut off (within inches) by
someone
who doesn't even bother to signal, etc.

Anyhow, there're inevitably bad apples on a big tree. What if someone
accused is really innocent? And it's the "bad" cop that is at fault.
Do
you see such a scenario possible? How do you say the "victim" should
defend himeself??

It seems to me, given all the responses I got here, that the justice
system
almost always sides with the cops. Naturally, it's really easy for a
cop
to "get away"! That's what I see.

Jay,

Apparently, you're an officer yourself? Just curious. There're people
that deliberately speed. Then there're some that inadverdently speed.
And then there're some who do speed (at least when they get the ticket;
see last paragraph for more) When one gets a ticket, he's always at
fault?

I've nothing against law enforcement officers. Frankly, I just wish
they show up when I was tailgated (within inches) on a freeway and take
the idiot behind me away. Or when I was cut off (within inches) by
someone
who doesn't even bother to signal, etc.

Anyhow, there're inevitably bad apples on a big tree. What if someone
accused is really innocent? And it's the "bad" cop that is at fault.
Do
you see such a scenario possible? How do you say the "victim" should
defend himeself??

It seems to me, given all the responses I got here, that the justice
system
almost always sides with the cops. Naturally, it's really easy for a
cop
to "get away"! That's what I see.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jay,
>
> Apparently, you're an officer yourself? Just curious. There're people
> that deliberately speed. Then there're some that inadverdently speed.
> And then there're some who do speed (at least when they get the ticket;
> see last paragraph for more) When one gets a ticket, he's always at
> fault?
>
> I've nothing against law enforcement officers. Frankly, I just wish
> they show up when I was tailgated (within inches) on a freeway and take
> the idiot behind me away. Or when I was cut off (within inches) by
> someone
> who doesn't even bother to signal, etc.
>
> Anyhow, there're inevitably bad apples on a big tree. What if someone
> accused is really innocent? And it's the "bad" cop that is at fault.
> Do
> you see such a scenario possible? How do you say the "victim" should
> defend himeself??
>
> It seems to me, given all the responses I got here, that the justice
> system
> almost always sides with the cops. Naturally, it's really easy for a
> cop
> to "get away"! That's what I see.

I don't see much use in ticketing somebody for a violation that never
happened, but yes it's possible. If a person honestly did not break the law
then they should definitely stand up and fight it. It is possible for that
to happen, but those kids of cops don't last very long. If they're lying on
something like this then they don't have a problem lying in other areas of
their work and they're usually found out quite soon. The judges know which
cops are honest and dishonest too.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jay,
>
> Apparently, you're an officer yourself? Just curious. There're people
> that deliberately speed. Then there're some that inadverdently speed.
> And then there're some who do speed (at least when they get the ticket;
> see last paragraph for more) When one gets a ticket, he's always at
> fault?
>
> I've nothing against law enforcement officers. Frankly, I just wish
> they show up when I was tailgated (within inches) on a freeway and take
> the idiot behind me away. Or when I was cut off (within inches) by
> someone
> who doesn't even bother to signal, etc.
>
> Anyhow, there're inevitably bad apples on a big tree. What if someone
> accused is really innocent? And it's the "bad" cop that is at fault.
> Do
> you see such a scenario possible? How do you say the "victim" should
> defend himeself??
>
> It seems to me, given all the responses I got here, that the justice
> system
> almost always sides with the cops. Naturally, it's really easy for a
> cop
> to "get away"! That's what I see.

I don't see much use in ticketing somebody for a violation that never
happened, but yes it's possible. If a person honestly did not break the law
then they should definitely stand up and fight it. It is possible for that
to happen, but those kids of cops don't last very long. If they're lying on
something like this then they don't have a problem lying in other areas of
their work and they're usually found out quite soon. The judges know which
cops are honest and dishonest too.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

jaybird wrote:
> I don't see much use in ticketing somebody for a violation that never

> happened, but yes it's possible. If a person honestly did not break
the law
> then they should definitely stand up and fight it.

Good that at least your mind is opened enough to allow this as a
possibility.

But what chance does an average person have in winning the fight, given
the
pro-cop attitude of judges? In the case of "your words against mine",
the
cops always come out ahead. After all, they give out a few tickets
each
day, while the average Joe might not get a ticket once every full moon.
This
means they're better prepared to give supporting "verdicts" and
"evidence".

When I was stopped and given a ticket, I didn't even know that I could
request the "county seat" which could be advantageous to me in some
cases.

jaybird wrote:
> I don't see much use in ticketing somebody for a violation that never

> happened, but yes it's possible. If a person honestly did not break
the law
> then they should definitely stand up and fight it.

Good that at least your mind is opened enough to allow this as a
possibility.

But what chance does an average person have in winning the fight, given
the
pro-cop attitude of judges? In the case of "your words against mine",
the
cops always come out ahead. After all, they give out a few tickets
each
day, while the average Joe might not get a ticket once every full moon.
This
means they're better prepared to give supporting "verdicts" and
"evidence".

When I was stopped and given a ticket, I didn't even know that I could
request the "county seat" which could be advantageous to me in some
cases.

And just stumbled on an article about Traffic Court Justice:

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/me...c-ct-9749.html

"....More important, a Presiding Judge in San Jose Municipal Court
admits that traffic court commissioners do not tell defendant
drivers the whole truth about the law in an effort to coerce
guilty pleas."

"....I observed several instances of commissioners in San Jose Traffic
Court doing just that: helping the police officers along with softball
questions rather than probing hard to get at the truth. It is hardly
likely that a judge, in such a situation, can then turn around and be
perfectly fair in making a decision on the case. And in fact, one
California appellate judge, in dissent in the Daggett case, wrote
that this situation leads to "the inescapable conclusion that the
court is, or at least appears to be, both the prosecutor and the court,
rather than being impartial."

And just stumbled on an article about Traffic Court Justice:

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/me...c-ct-9749.html

"....More important, a Presiding Judge in San Jose Municipal Court
admits that traffic court commissioners do not tell defendant
drivers the whole truth about the law in an effort to coerce
guilty pleas."

"....I observed several instances of commissioners in San Jose Traffic
Court doing just that: helping the police officers along with softball
questions rather than probing hard to get at the truth. It is hardly
likely that a judge, in such a situation, can then turn around and be
perfectly fair in making a decision on the case. And in fact, one
California appellate judge, in dissent in the Daggett case, wrote
that this situation leads to "the inescapable conclusion that the
court is, or at least appears to be, both the prosecutor and the court,
rather than being impartial."