Speeding TrafficTrial in NY.
Billy
Next week, I will go to court for a Speeding Ticket in NY.
I have never been to one before. The prosecutor is the State
Trooper himself. I m assuming he will offer a lesser speed
bargain. But I won't accept that. So, I guess we will go
to trial. Can someone tell me how it goes in a Speeding Trial, other
then the normal Procedure? Does he just say he observed my vehicle
clocked it with his radar. Does he automatic bring with him his certificate,
calibration records, logs, notes,etc and show it to the judge? or do I ask for
it to be shown when I cross examine him ? I made a Request for Discovery already
but got no answer from him, will that be good enough for dismissal?
Da Parrot-chick
"Billy" <qaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:49638245.03041...@posting.google.com...
These are all questions you should be asking an attorney.
Ricardo
wrote:
[snip Billy's Qs]
>These are all questions you should be asking an attorney.
Or obtaining answers for from the NMA LDK.
--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada
e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply
for liability purposes: I *always* obey the law.
David Hillman
Based on my limited experience the NYS traffic courts, and the
extensive experience of friends and family, you are screwed unless you
know the judge personally.
To answer your specific questions;
The procedure is; the officer will testify, the judge will take
his/her word without requiring any evidence. Nothing you say or do will
matter much. You'll be convicted.
Yes. No. Doesn't matter. No.
If you show up with a good lawyer, your odds might improve slightly,
but the fact that the only witness, citing officer, and prosecutor are
all the same person should tell you everything you need to know.
--
David Hillman
hil...@planet-torque.com
Larry
Hillman <hil...@planet-torque.com> wrote:
>Billy wrote:
>> Next week, I will go to court for a Speeding Ticket in NY.
>> I have never been to one before. The prosecutor is the State
>> Trooper himself. I m assuming he will offer a lesser speed
>> bargain. But I won't accept that. So, I guess we will go
>> to trial. Can someone tell me how it goes in a Speeding Trial, other
>> then the normal Procedure? Does he just say he observed my vehicle
>> clocked it with his radar. Does he automatic bring with him his certificate,
>> calibration records, logs, notes,etc and show it to the judge? or do I
ask for
>> it to be shown when I cross examine him ? I made a Request for
Discovery already
>> but got no answer from him, will that be good enough for dismissal?
>
> Based on my limited experience the NYS traffic courts, and the
>extensive experience of friends and family, you are screwed unless you
>know the judge personally.
>
> To answer your specific questions;
>
> The procedure is; the officer will testify, the judge will take
>his/her word without requiring any evidence. Nothing you say or do will
>matter much. You'll be convicted.
The officer's word is testimony, and is therefore evidence. The officer
has no motive to lie. A defendant (in any case) does. So if its a he
said/he said, then yes, more of then than not the defendant loses.
I wonder how the state trooper is the "prosecutor." If he is, he can't be
a witness. And he'd have to be admitted to practice law, or have passed
the bar and pending admission, in order to speak on the record. Perhaps
the original poster should look into this more, as it appears he doesn't
understand how the system operates.
Then again, I note the original poster said he won't accept a plea-bargain
from the prosecutor. HE never said that he wasn't in fact speeding.
> If you show up with a good lawyer, your odds might improve slightly,
>but the fact that the only witness, citing officer, and prosecutor are
>all the same person should tell you everything you need to know.
Again, I find it unlikely they are the same person. And even if they are,
that in and of itself doesn't make a conviction any more or less likely.
Brent P
> The officer's word is testimony, and is therefore evidence. The officer
> has no motive to lie.
Making performance goals. I rutinely encountered people in my career that
lied to create an image for themselves and meet the performance goals
required of them. I don't think police officers would be any different in
this regard.
Larry
I think we all agree enough people speed out there. There's no reason for
a cop to make up allegations that one person was, when we all know that on
any given day, there are legitimate speeders out there.
Brent P
> In article <gjpla.139361$OV.229898@rwcrnsc54>, tetraet...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>In article <none-10040...@192.168.2.4>, Larry wrote:
>>> The officer's word is testimony, and is therefore evidence. The officer
>>> has no motive to lie.
>>Making performance goals. I rutinely encountered people in my career that
>>lied to create an image for themselves and meet the performance goals
>>required of them. I don't think police officers would be any different in
>>this regard.
> I think we all agree enough people speed out there.
When speed limits are set at the performance levels of rusted out 1960s
cars running with one working drum brake what do you expect?
> There's no reason for
> a cop to make up allegations that one person was, when we all know that on
> any given day, there are legitimate speeders out there.
Just add a few mph, get sloppy on picking the right person out of the
crowd. General laziness. I find it amusing how some people think police
officer ranks are somehow not going to have the same kinds of people
that exist in every other profession.
Larry
>
>When speed limits are set at the performance levels of rusted out 1960s
>cars running with one working drum brake what do you expect?
>
Snow me one statistic that speed limits are based on the performance level
of cars, much less than the performance levels of cars with mechanical
problems (not that drum brakes have much to do with fuel efficiency).
Going the speed limit is far from the optimal fuel efficiency.
>> There's no reason for
>> a cop to make up allegations that one person was, when we all know that on
>> any given day, there are legitimate speeders out there.
>
>Just add a few mph, get sloppy on picking the right person out of the
>crowd. General laziness. I find it amusing how some people think police
>officer ranks are somehow not going to have the same kinds of people
>that exist in every other profession.
They're going to make mistakes, sure. They're even going to be lazy on
occasion. But like most kinds of people in most professions, they're
going to be decent good at what they do and right the majority of the
time.
I'm not saying people shouldn't fight tickets or make sure the police did
things by the book. But there's also something to be said for owning up
to your mistakes and admitting responsibility, and again, the original
poster never said he wasn't speeding.
Brent P
>>
>>When speed limits are set at the performance levels of rusted out 1960s
>>cars running with one working drum brake what do you expect?
> Snow me one statistic that speed limits are based on the performance level
> of cars, much less than the performance levels of cars with mechanical
> problems (not that drum brakes have much to do with fuel efficiency).
Talk about sarcasm impared.
> Going the speed limit is far from the optimal fuel efficiency.
For a mid-70s carburated car.
>>> There's no reason for
>>> a cop to make up allegations that one person was, when we all know that on
>>> any given day, there are legitimate speeders out there.
>>Just add a few mph, get sloppy on picking the right person out of the
>>crowd. General laziness. I find it amusing how some people think police
>>officer ranks are somehow not going to have the same kinds of people
>>that exist in every other profession.
> They're going to make mistakes, sure. They're even going to be lazy on
> occasion. But like most kinds of people in most professions, they're
> going to be decent good at what they do and right the majority of the
> time.
Please..... I find it more like there are some people who never
compromise their ethics and those who do it consistantly. There
isn't any most of the time do the right thing about it. And they
aren't mistakes, but calculated moves to advance in their career and
make their numbers.
> I'm not saying people shouldn't fight tickets or make sure the police did
> things by the book. But there's also something to be said for owning up
> to your mistakes and admitting responsibility, and again, the original
> poster never said he wasn't speeding.
How about the speed limit start to reflect actual travel speeds? And drop
the bullshit. There's no 'mistake' or 'crime' in driving the appropiate
speed for a roadway. It just might be taxed as all. And people feel picked
on when they are singled out for taxation when they haven't done anything
wrong.
Marc
>In article <I3ola.263$S6....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, David
>Hillman <hil...@planet-torque.com> wrote:
>
>>Billy wrote:
>>> Next week, I will go to court for a Speeding Ticket in NY.
>>> I have never been to one before. The prosecutor is the State
>>> Trooper himself. I m assuming he will offer a lesser speed
>>> bargain. But I won't accept that. So, I guess we will go
>>> to trial. Can someone tell me how it goes in a Speeding Trial, other
>>> then the normal Procedure? Does he just say he observed my vehicle
>>> clocked it with his radar. Does he automatic bring with him his certificate,
>>> calibration records, logs, notes,etc and show it to the judge? or do I
>ask for
>>> it to be shown when I cross examine him ? I made a Request for
>Discovery already
>>> but got no answer from him, will that be good enough for dismissal?
>>
>> Based on my limited experience the NYS traffic courts, and the
>>extensive experience of friends and family, you are screwed unless you
>>know the judge personally.
>>
>> To answer your specific questions;
>>
>> The procedure is; the officer will testify, the judge will take
>>his/her word without requiring any evidence. Nothing you say or do will
>>matter much. You'll be convicted.
>
>The officer's word is testimony, and is therefore evidence.
No evidence other than the unsubstantiated words of a single person.
>The officer
>has no motive to lie.
Sure he does. He has written a ticket. He will say what is necessary to
obtain a conviction.
>A defendant (in any case) does.
Yes. Of course, that does not mean that they are lying. But we know that
all cops presume everyone is lying to them all the time, so we know it
isn't a stretch...
>So if its a he
>said/he said, then yes, more of then than not the defendant loses.
Right. The prosecutor must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. A
single person's disputed statements with no evidence presented that there
was even a crime, let alone that the defendant was the person that
committed the crime, is generally sufficient.
Guilty until proven innocent. That's the American Way (tm).
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
john wardle
"Brent P" <tetraet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tQqla.406605$3D1.221229@sccrnsc01...
Then again, maybe it's the profession you have had contact with or the
people you associate with.....
I work with good, honest, professionals.
Brandon Sommerville
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>Then again, maybe it's the profession you have had contact with or the
>people you associate with.....
>
>I work with good, honest, professionals.
So when Nate was approached from behind at high speed, then sped up to
yield the lane and got a ticket for it it wasn't dishonest? Then when
he was at court and spoke with a few other people that had the exact
same thing happen to them it was the result of a good, honest
professional's work?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, but set
fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Brandon Sommerville
>The officer's word is testimony, and is therefore evidence.
It's one person's word.
>The officer has no motive to lie.
Sure he does. How many people like to be proven wrong?
>A defendant (in any case) does. So if its a he
>said/he said, then yes, more of then than not the defendant loses.
And of course, all of us civilians are liars. Here's a thought for
you: If all civilians are liars, what does that make the cops who
were civilians once? Born again?
Billy
are you going to just accept it when a cop pulls
you over for speeding and you are not sure if you
were speeding or if he clocked another car? If he can show me
it was indeed me that violated a traffic law, I will be
glad to take responsibility. That's why I ask for
discovery.
I m not saying the Trooper has a reason to lie, most
likely he doesn't. But that's not what I m questioning
here. I m questioning weather his equipment is legit, he
used it properly and his method picked the right car.
Brent P
>> Please..... I find it more like there are some people who never
>> compromise their ethics and those who do it consistantly. There
>> isn't any most of the time do the right thing about it. And they
>> aren't mistakes, but calculated moves to advance in their career and
>> make their numbers.
> Then again, maybe it's the profession you have had contact with or the
> people you associate with.....
> I work with good, honest, professionals.
You mean like the various officers in the chicago area that have been
arrested this year so far for various crimes?
john wardle
"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:cb345a99202d49d8...@news.teranews.com...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 06:52:13 GMT, "john wardle"
> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Then again, maybe it's the profession you have had contact with or the
> >people you associate with.....
> >
> >I work with good, honest, professionals.
>
> So when Nate was approached from behind at high speed, then sped up to
> yield the lane and got a ticket for it it wasn't dishonest? Then when
> he was at court and spoke with a few other people that had the exact
> same thing happen to them it was the result of a good, honest
> professional's work?
Something doesn't sound right with that one...."sped up to yield"
I'm not familiar with the exact case you are refering to but:
811.145 Failure to yield to emergency vehicle or ambulance; penalty. (1) A
person commits the offense of failure to yield to an emergency vehicle or
ambulance if an ambulance or emergency vehicle that is using a visual or
audible signal in a manner described under ORS 820.300 and 820.320
approaches the vehicle the person is operating and the person does not do
all of the following:
(a) Yield the right of way to the ambulance or emergency vehicle.
(b) Immediately drive to a position as near as possible and parallel to the
right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection.
(c) Stop and remain in such position until the emergency vehicle or
ambulance has passed.
(2) A person is not in violation of this section if the person is acting as
otherwise directed by a police officer.
(3) This section does not relieve the driver of an emergency vehicle or
ambulance from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all
persons using the highway, nor does this section protect the driver of any
such vehicle from the consequence of an arbitrary exercise of the right of
way granted under this section.
(4) The offense described in this section, failure to yield to an emergency
vehicle or ambulance, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §582; 1985
c.16 §289; 1995 c.383 §46]
OR.....
811.285 Failure of merging driver to yield right of way; penalty. (1) A
person commits the offense of failure of a merging driver to yield the right
of way if the person is operating a vehicle that is entering a freeway or
other arterial highway where an acceleration or merging lane is provided for
the operator's use and the operator does not look out for and give right of
way to vehicles on the freeway or other arterial highway.
(2) The offense described in this section, failure of a merging driver to
yield the right of way, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §613;
1995 c.383 §55]
OR.....
811.425 Failure of slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle; penalty.
(1) A person commits the offense of failure of a slower driver to yield to
overtaking vehicle if the person is driving a vehicle and the person fails
to move the person's vehicle off the main traveled portion of the highway
into an area sufficient for safe turnout when:
(a) The driver of the overtaken vehicle is proceeding at a speed less than a
designated speed under ORS 811.105;
(b) The driver of the overtaking vehicle is proceeding at a speed in
conformity with ORS 811.105;
(c) The highway is a two directional, two-lane highway; and
(d) There is no clear lane for passing available to the driver of the
overtaking vehicle.
(2) This section does not apply to the driver of a vehicle in a funeral
procession.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure of a slower driver to
yield to overtaking vehicle, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338
§640; 1991 c.482 §16; 1995 c.383 §68; 2001 c.104 §307]
Brandon Sommerville
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:cb345a99202d49d8...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 06:52:13 GMT, "john wardle"
>> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Then again, maybe it's the profession you have had contact with or the
>> >people you associate with.....
>> >
>> >I work with good, honest, professionals.
>>
>> So when Nate was approached from behind at high speed, then sped up to
>> yield the lane and got a ticket for it it wasn't dishonest? Then when
>> he was at court and spoke with a few other people that had the exact
>> same thing happen to them it was the result of a good, honest
>> professional's work?
>
>
>Something doesn't sound right with that one...."sped up to yield"
He was passing a line of vehicles in the left lane. A car approached
him rapidly from behind. He accelerated to complete his passing in a
more rapid manner in order to yield the lane. You know, courteous
driving.
One speeding ticket later...
He was speeding, but he sped up to yield to the already speeding cop.
What's the lesson here? Don't speed up unless lights are flashing
behind you. Screw courtesy.
john wardle
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:41:05 GMT, "john wardle"
> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:cb345a99202d49d8...@news.teranews.com...
> >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 06:52:13 GMT, "john wardle"
> >> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Then again, maybe it's the profession you have had contact with or the
> >> >people you associate with.....
> >> >
> >> >I work with good, honest, professionals.
> >>
> >> So when Nate was approached from behind at high speed, then sped up to
> >> yield the lane and got a ticket for it it wasn't dishonest? Then when
> >> he was at court and spoke with a few other people that had the exact
> >> same thing happen to them it was the result of a good, honest
> >> professional's work?
> >
> >
> >Something doesn't sound right with that one...."sped up to yield"
>
> He was passing a line of vehicles in the left lane. A car approached
> him rapidly from behind. He accelerated to complete his passing in a
> more rapid manner in order to yield the lane. You know, courteous
> driving.
>
> One speeding ticket later...
>
> He was speeding, but he sped up to yield to the already speeding cop.
> What's the lesson here? Don't speed up unless lights are flashing
> behind you. Screw courtesy.
Golly Gee, all these speed and passing and other driving laws are there for
no other reason than to inconvenience some.....
811.410 Unsafe passing on left; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of
unsafe passing on the left if the person violates any of the following
requirements concerning the overtaking and passing of vehicles:
(a) The driver of a vehicle that is overtaking any other vehicle proceeding
in the same direction shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe
distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until
safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.
(b) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted under ORS
811.415, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in
favor of an overtaking vehicle and shall not increase the speed of the
overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.
(c) The driver of a vehicle shall not drive to the left side of the center
of the roadway in overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same
direction unless the left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming
traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing
to be completed without interfering with the operation of a vehicle
approaching from the opposite direction or a vehicle overtaken.
(d) An overtaking vehicle shall return to an authorized lane of traffic as
soon as practicable.
(2) This section does not authorize driving on the left side of the center
of the road when prohibited under the following:
(a) Limitations on driving on the left of the center of a roadway under ORS
811.305.
(b) Passing in a no passing zone under ORS 811.420.
(c) ORS 811.295, 811.300 and 811.310 to 811.325 that require driving on the
right.
(3) The offense described in this section, unsafe passing on the left, is a
Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §637; 1987 c.158 §168a]
john wardle
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:41:05 GMT, "john wardle"
> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:cb345a99202d49d8...@news.teranews.com...
> >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 06:52:13 GMT, "john wardle"
> >> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Then again, maybe it's the profession you have had contact with or the
> >> >people you associate with.....
> >> >
> >> >I work with good, honest, professionals.
> >>
> >> So when Nate was approached from behind at high speed, then sped up to
> >> yield the lane and got a ticket for it it wasn't dishonest? Then when
> >> he was at court and spoke with a few other people that had the exact
> >> same thing happen to them it was the result of a good, honest
> >> professional's work?
> >
> >
> >Something doesn't sound right with that one...."sped up to yield"
>
> He was passing a line of vehicles in the left lane. A car approached
> him rapidly from behind. He accelerated to complete his passing in a
> more rapid manner in order to yield the lane. You know, courteous
> driving.
>
> One speeding ticket later...
>
> He was speeding, but he sped up to yield to the already speeding cop.
> What's the lesson here? Don't speed up unless lights are flashing
> behind you. Screw courtesy.
And let's not forget....He was speeding.
Brent P
>
> Something doesn't sound right with that one...."sped up to yield"
>
> I'm not familiar with the exact case you are refering to but:
Let's see.... you are driving along normally when a police crusier
comes flying up behind you. there is traffic to your right, a jersey
barrier to your left.
What do you do:
A) speed up and move right into a gap up ahead to let the officer
by.
B) Drive the speed limit or below blocking the officer from getting
by.
Let's go further and say the officer doesn't have his lights on. As
readers of r.a.d. we've been told countless times that any time an
officer breaks any aspect of the vehicle code he's on a call, life and
death and all that stuff..... Now what?
Let the officer by and it could be a ticket for speeding, don't let
the officer by and it could be a ticket for not yielding to an emergency
vehicle. Lovely how this sort of thing works isn't it?
C.R. Krieger
>
> Right. The prosecutor must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not in most states outside Texas. *Probably* not in NY, either.
Traffic has been 'decriminalized', therefore the burden of proof is
*preponderance* or *more likely than not*, rather than 'beyond
reasonable doubt'.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there, litigated that)
David Hillman
> The officer's word is testimony, and is therefore evidence.
Then so is the defendant's testimony. Why is that evidence
disregarded?
> The officer has no motive to lie.
Even if that were true, he can still be mistaken.
We've heard many times from the LEOs who post on this issue that an
officer who winds up writing a lot of bad tickets will attract negative
attention from his supervisor. How is that /not/ a motive to lie in
court?
> A defendant (in any case) does. So if its a he said/he said, then yes,
> more of then than not the defendant loses.
So both the eye witnesses have a motive to lie. Maybe we should
require some actual evidence? Nah.
> I wonder how the state trooper is the "prosecutor." If he is, he can't be
> a witness. And he'd have to be admitted to practice law, or have passed
> the bar and pending admission, in order to speak on the record. Perhaps
> the original poster should look into this more, as it appears he doesn't
> understand how the system operates.
It's a kangaroo traffic court, not a real court. Judge Judy's court
is more similar to a real court. I've seen and heard of this practice.
I've also seen a defendant convicted when the officer didn't even show
up, and there was no evidence or testimony to support the ticket.
Traffic courts ( especially in NY ) are not real courts, and none of
the normal rules apply, except that the judge is in charge.
--
David Hillman
hil...@planet-torque.com
Brandon Sommerville
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
None of these apply to passing in the left lane of four lane divided
highway.
Brandon Sommerville
>> He was passing a line of vehicles in the left lane. A car approached
>> him rapidly from behind. He accelerated to complete his passing in a
>> more rapid manner in order to yield the lane. You know, courteous
>> driving.
>>
>> One speeding ticket later...
>>
>> He was speeding, but he sped up to yield to the already speeding cop.
>> What's the lesson here? Don't speed up unless lights are flashing
>> behind you. Screw courtesy.
>
>And let's not forget....He was speeding.
So I shouldn't accelerate to get out of your way if you're approaching
me at high speed without your lights on?
If I don't I'm obstructing you or failing to yield to an emergency
vehicle or some other such crap, if I do I might very well get a
ticket for speeding.
What should I do?
David Hillman
> They're going to make mistakes, sure. They're even going to be lazy on
> occasion. But like most kinds of people in most professions, they're
> going to be decent good at what they do and right the majority of the
> time.
>
> I'm not saying people shouldn't fight tickets or make sure the police did
> things by the book. But there's also something to be said for owning up
> to your mistakes and admitting responsibility, and again, the original
> poster never said he wasn't speeding.
So why can't traffic officers "own up to their mistakes and admit
responsibility" when they make their inevitable errors? Why do we need
a kangaroo court to protect them from ever having to defend their
position?
--
David Hillman
hil...@planet-torque.com
john wardle
With maybe the exception of speeding in the first place, and failing to
yield....
john wardle
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:12:23 GMT, "john wardle"
> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:5e8677df51786f44...@news.teranews.com...
>
> >> He was passing a line of vehicles in the left lane. A car approached
> >> him rapidly from behind. He accelerated to complete his passing in a
> >> more rapid manner in order to yield the lane. You know, courteous
> >> driving.
> >>
> >> One speeding ticket later...
> >>
> >> He was speeding, but he sped up to yield to the already speeding cop.
> >> What's the lesson here? Don't speed up unless lights are flashing
> >> behind you. Screw courtesy.
> >
> >And let's not forget....He was speeding.
>
> So I shouldn't accelerate to get out of your way if you're approaching
> me at high speed without your lights on?
>
> If I don't I'm obstructing you or failing to yield to an emergency
> vehicle or some other such crap, if I do I might very well get a
> ticket for speeding.
>
> What should I do?
You seem to be implying that your friend wasn't speeding in the first place.
*IF* that's the case, I'd say it's a BS cite. But my common sense pants tell
me that isn't the case here.
john wardle
> In article <lmBla.23828$cO3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
john wardle wrote:
>
> >
> > Something doesn't sound right with that one...."sped up to yield"
> >
> > I'm not familiar with the exact case you are refering to but:
>
> Let's see.... you are driving along normally when a police crusier
> comes flying up behind you. there is traffic to your right, a jersey
> barrier to your left.
>
> What do you do:
>
> A) speed up and move right into a gap up ahead to let the officer
> by.
>
> B) Drive the speed limit or below blocking the officer from getting
> by.
C) Signal your intent to pull to the right as soon as it is safe to do so.
>
> Let's go further and say the officer doesn't have his lights on. As
> readers of r.a.d. we've been told countless times that any time an
> officer breaks any aspect of the vehicle code he's on a call, life and
> death and all that stuff..... Now what?
C) Signal your intent to pull to the right as soon as it is safe to do so.
>
> Let the officer by and it could be a ticket for speeding, don't let
> the officer by and it could be a ticket for not yielding to an emergency
> vehicle. Lovely how this sort of thing works isn't it?
>
>
I have reason to doubt that you would be cited *after* signalling your
intent....
john wardle
"David Hillman" <hil...@planet-torque.com> wrote in message
news:qpCla.2631$S6....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Larry wrote:
> > The officer's word is testimony, and is therefore evidence.
>
> Then so is the defendant's testimony. Why is that evidence
> disregarded?
Credability of the witness?
Brent P
>
> "Brent P" <tetraet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:QUBla.147729$OV.233974@rwcrnsc54...
>> In article <lmBla.23828$cO3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> john wardle wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Something doesn't sound right with that one...."sped up to yield"
>> >
>> > I'm not familiar with the exact case you are refering to but:
>>
>> Let's see.... you are driving along normally when a police crusier
>> comes flying up behind you. there is traffic to your right, a jersey
>> barrier to your left.
>>
>> What do you do:
>>
>> A) speed up and move right into a gap up ahead to let the officer
>> by.
>>
>> B) Drive the speed limit or below blocking the officer from getting
>> by.
>
> C) Signal your intent to pull to the right as soon as it is safe to do so.
In chicago, without accelerating, that would be aproximately, never.
>> Let's go further and say the officer doesn't have his lights on. As
>> readers of r.a.d. we've been told countless times that any time an
>> officer breaks any aspect of the vehicle code he's on a call, life and
>> death and all that stuff..... Now what?
> C) Signal your intent to pull to the right as soon as it is safe to do so.
In chicago, without accelerating, that would be aproximately, never.
>> Let the officer by and it could be a ticket for speeding, don't let
>> the officer by and it could be a ticket for not yielding to an emergency
>> vehicle. Lovely how this sort of thing works isn't it?
> I have reason to doubt that you would be cited *after* signalling your
> intent....
Well after 5 minutes have passed and there hasn't been a safe chance
to move right at 55mph into a 75mph stream of traffic......
john wardle
If that marked unit activated his emergency lights in the left lane of that
highway, you mean that drivers would still pass him at 20 mph over the speed
limit? Again, I have reason to doubt it.
Try to justify poor driving someplace else, Slick.
Brandon Sommerville
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:1fd1aaa593f331f7...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:11:35 GMT, "john wardle"
>> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> >news:5e8677df51786f44...@news.teranews.com...
>> >> He was speeding, but he sped up to yield to the already speeding cop.
>> >> What's the lesson here? Don't speed up unless lights are flashing
>> >> behind you. Screw courtesy.
>> >
>> >Golly Gee, all these speed and passing and other driving laws are there for
>> >no other reason than to inconvenience some.....
>>
>> None of these apply to passing in the left lane of four lane divided
>> highway.
>
>With maybe the exception of speeding in the first place, and failing to
>yield....
>
He *did* yield, and sped up so that he could yield more quickly as a
courtesy to the officer! When he got to court he spoke with a couple
of other people who had done the exact same thing.
Brandon Sommerville
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
Yes he was over the limit, but he was busted for the speed at which he
accelerated to in order to get out of the way.
IIRC the case was dismissed because that officer no longer worked
traffic enforcement for some strange reason.
Regardless, what should I do in that situation even if I'm not
speeding? Should I speed up to get to a spot where I can safely get
out of the way or should I just turn my blinker on and hope someone
opens up a spot?
john wardle
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:00:19 GMT, "john wardle"
> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:1fd1aaa593f331f7...@news.teranews.com...
> >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:11:35 GMT, "john wardle"
> >> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >> >news:5e8677df51786f44...@news.teranews.com...
>
> >> >> He was speeding, but he sped up to yield to the already speeding
cop.
> >> >> What's the lesson here? Don't speed up unless lights are flashing
> >> >> behind you. Screw courtesy.
> >> >
> >> >Golly Gee, all these speed and passing and other driving laws are
there for
> >> >no other reason than to inconvenience some.....
> >>
> >> None of these apply to passing in the left lane of four lane divided
> >> highway.
> >
> >With maybe the exception of speeding in the first place, and failing to
> >yield....
> >
> He *did* yield, and sped up so that he could yield more quickly as a
> courtesy to the officer! When he got to court he spoke with a couple
> of other people who had done the exact same thing.
And if he had just signaled his intent to move right.......This wouldn't
have happened. Unless of course he was speeding in the first place.....
john wardle
You get cited for the highest speed measured, not the initial speed only.
> IIRC the case was dismissed because that officer no longer worked
> traffic enforcement for some strange reason.
>
> Regardless, what should I do in that situation even if I'm not
> speeding? Should I speed up to get to a spot where I can safely get
> out of the way or should I just turn my blinker on and hope someone
> opens up a spot?
Signal your intent, and then continue when safe to do so. That is what the
law requires.
Funny how most people don't seem to have an issue with this concept.
Brandon Sommerville
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:adc18f260c081f45...@news.teranews.com...
>>
>> Yes he was over the limit, but he was busted for the speed at which he
>> accelerated to in order to get out of the way.
>
>You get cited for the highest speed measured, not the initial speed only.
So it's acceptable to race up to someone without your lights on? Had
this happened, he would have simply pulled over, but since the officer
didn't have his lights on, it would seem to be understood that he just
wanted to get by.
>> IIRC the case was dismissed because that officer no longer worked
>> traffic enforcement for some strange reason.
>>
>> Regardless, what should I do in that situation even if I'm not
>> speeding? Should I speed up to get to a spot where I can safely get
>> out of the way or should I just turn my blinker on and hope someone
>> opens up a spot?
>
>Signal your intent, and then continue when safe to do so. That is what the
>law requires.
>
>Funny how most people don't seem to have an issue with this concept.
Because most cops won't try bullshit like that to get you to go
faster.
john wardle
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:30:58 GMT, "john wardle"
> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:adc18f260c081f45...@news.teranews.com...
> >>
> >> Yes he was over the limit, but he was busted for the speed at which he
> >> accelerated to in order to get out of the way.
> >
> >You get cited for the highest speed measured, not the initial speed only.
>
> So it's acceptable to race up to someone without your lights on? Had
> this happened, he would have simply pulled over, but since the officer
> didn't have his lights on, it would seem to be understood that he just
> wanted to get by.
>
> >> IIRC the case was dismissed because that officer no longer worked
> >> traffic enforcement for some strange reason.
> >>
> >> Regardless, what should I do in that situation even if I'm not
> >> speeding? Should I speed up to get to a spot where I can safely get
> >> out of the way or should I just turn my blinker on and hope someone
> >> opens up a spot?
> >
> >Signal your intent, and then continue when safe to do so. That is what
the
> >law requires.
> >
> >Funny how most people don't seem to have an issue with this concept.
>
> Because most cops won't try bullshit like that to get you to go
> faster.
Don't get pissy with me over what your friend did.
It is standard practice here to follow the vehicle without lights until you
have the kickback on the plate. You don't want to stop until you know what
you are dealing with. Since you stated that your friend was speeding to
begin with, the officer probably didn't see the plate until he had "raced"
up to your friends car. At that point, he runs the tags, finds out who he is
probably dealing with, and then activates his lights for the stop.
If your friend hadn't been speeding in the first place, and this had
happened, all he would have had to do is signal his intent to pull right and
wait for a safe spot to do so. Simple. At least for most.....
Brandon Sommerville
Yet you don't see anything suspicious when this is the officer's MO,
do you? Of course not. The fact that his duties were changed would
seem to indicate that his superiors didn't agree with your analysis.
David Hillman
> Credability of the witness?
Is there a significant difference, other than the presumption that
officers never lie and citizens always do?
One would be lying to save some money, the other to save his job.
How many people get convicted of real crimes based solely on officer
testimony? What percentage of those are young and black?
--
David Hillman
hil...@planet-torque.com
john wardle
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:54:35 GMT, "john wardle"
> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Don't get pissy with me over what your friend did.
> >
> >It is standard practice here to follow the vehicle without lights until
you
> >have the kickback on the plate. You don't want to stop until you know
what
> >you are dealing with. Since you stated that your friend was speeding to
> >begin with, the officer probably didn't see the plate until he had
"raced"
> >up to your friends car. At that point, he runs the tags, finds out who he
is
> >probably dealing with, and then activates his lights for the stop.
> >
> >If your friend hadn't been speeding in the first place, and this had
> >happened, all he would have had to do is signal his intent to pull right
and
> >wait for a safe spot to do so. Simple. At least for most.....
>
> Yet you don't see anything suspicious when this is the officer's MO,
> do you? Of course not. The fact that his duties were changed would
> seem to indicate that his superiors didn't agree with your analysis.
Or, as is more than likely the case, his rotation on traffic patrol is over.
I move to Investigations in a month. And the only complaints over my cites
is from a small percentage of those I gave them to.
Brent P
>> Well after 5 minutes have passed and there hasn't been a safe chance
>> to move right at 55mph into a 75mph stream of traffic......
> If that marked unit activated his emergency lights in the left lane of that
> highway, you mean that drivers would still pass him at 20 mph over the speed
> limit? Again, I have reason to doubt it.
Well first I stated no lights, but anyway it's not that it matters.
If he had his lights on people would know he's not going to pull them
over for speeding and keep driving normally. One driver *might* ease
up to let the cop pass on the right, but nobody is going to ease up
to let the regular guy in 20mph below the flow speed.
> Try to justify poor driving someplace else, Slick.
Come to chicago some time. See what speed limits set 20mph or more
below actual travel speeds do to traffic.
john wardle
> john wardle wrote:
> > Credability of the witness?
>
> Is there a significant difference, other than the presumption that
> officers never lie and citizens always do?
Officers prove themselves to be credible in court consistantly. whereas Joe
Citizen has a tendancy to lie in traffic court to get out of the ticket.
>
> One would be lying to save some money, the other to save his job.
>
> How many people get convicted of real crimes based solely on officer
> testimony? What percentage of those are young and black?
I don't know.
Who would this be for testimony:
Ofc Smith- I Arrived on scene at 2217hrs and observed the defendant stabbing
the victim with a large, kitchen type knife. I drew my service weapon,
ordered the defendant to drop his weapon, and when he did, my partner Ofc.
Snuffy placed the defendant into custody.
Enough for a conviction? Probably.....
As far as the 'race' issue you are trying to bait me with, well sonny boy, I
don't bite.
Could it be that since more blacks are convicted that maybe, just maybe,
they are commiting more crimes?
<Patiently awaiting the racist slurs coming my way....>
Brent P
> Signal your intent, and then continue when safe to do so. That is what the
> law requires.
>
> Funny how most people don't seem to have an issue with this concept.
Funny how your words do not match the behavior of officers I've encountered.
They want people to get out of the way *NOW* not 5 minutes from now when
a gap opens, but now. Those who don't get over can expect the officer to
squeeze by any way he can. I've seen some interesting shoulder passing
etc.
Matthew Russotto
john wardle <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
>"David Hillman" <hil...@planet-torque.com> wrote in message
>news:XWEla.2646$S6....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> john wardle wrote:
>> > Credability of the witness?
>>
>> Is there a significant difference, other than the presumption that
>> officers never lie and citizens always do?
>
>Officers prove themselves to be credible in court consistantly. whereas Joe
>Citizen has a tendancy to lie in traffic court to get out of the ticket.
>
>>
>> One would be lying to save some money, the other to save his job.
>>
>> How many people get convicted of real crimes based solely on officer
>> testimony? What percentage of those are young and black?
>
>I don't know.
>
>Who would this be for testimony:
>
>Ofc Smith- I Arrived on scene at 2217hrs and observed the defendant stabbing
>the victim with a large, kitchen type knife. I drew my service weapon,
>ordered the defendant to drop his weapon, and when he did, my partner Ofc.
>Snuffy placed the defendant into custody.
>
>
>Enough for a conviction? Probably.....
Not without the body (or the live victim) and the knife.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
john wardle
> In article <FCDla.55742$ja4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
john wardle wrote:
>
> >> Well after 5 minutes have passed and there hasn't been a safe chance
> >> to move right at 55mph into a 75mph stream of traffic......
>
>
> > If that marked unit activated his emergency lights in the left lane of
that
> > highway, you mean that drivers would still pass him at 20 mph over the
speed
> > limit? Again, I have reason to doubt it.
>
> Well first I stated no lights, but anyway it's not that it matters.
> If he had his lights on people would know he's not going to pull them
> over for speeding and keep driving normally. One driver *might* ease
> up to let the cop pass on the right, but nobody is going to ease up
> to let the regular guy in 20mph below the flow speed.
I was going to say something about your statement above being dubious at
best, instead I'll just outright say you are lying to try to prove your
point.
I don't buy it, and neither do the majority I'm sure.
>
> > Try to justify poor driving someplace else, Slick.
>
> Come to chicago some time. See what speed limits set 20mph or more
> below actual travel speeds do to traffic.
Us country bumpkins may not drive as fast as y'all, but we can at least read
the speed 'limit' signs.
>
>
>
john wardle
"Matthew Russotto" <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:fPOdnXlqAeS...@speakeasy.net...
> In article <tqFla.24042$cO3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> john wardle <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >"David Hillman" <hil...@planet-torque.com> wrote in message
> >news:XWEla.2646$S6....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> john wardle wrote:
> >> > Credability of the witness?
> >>
> >> Is there a significant difference, other than the presumption that
> >> officers never lie and citizens always do?
> >
> >Officers prove themselves to be credible in court consistantly. whereas
Joe
> >Citizen has a tendancy to lie in traffic court to get out of the ticket.
> >
> >>
> >> One would be lying to save some money, the other to save his job.
> >>
> >> How many people get convicted of real crimes based solely on officer
> >> testimony? What percentage of those are young and black?
> >
> >I don't know.
> >
> >Who would this be for testimony:
> >
> >Ofc Smith- I Arrived on scene at 2217hrs and observed the defendant
stabbing
> >the victim with a large, kitchen type knife. I drew my service weapon,
> >ordered the defendant to drop his weapon, and when he did, my partner
Ofc.
> >Snuffy placed the defendant into custody.
> >
> >
> >Enough for a conviction? Probably.....
>
> Not without the body (or the live victim) and the knife.
With respect to the hypothetical officers testimony, I think so. Physical
evidence is another matter entirely.
john wardle
And how many of those who apparently impeded the officer were cited? I'd bet
none.
Passing on the shoulder in response to a call is authorized in emergency
situations as long as it doesn't unduely cause a greater hazard to the
public than waiting for a clear lane would. Common sense. The thing most
laws are based on. And something that appears to be sorely lacking in R.A.D.
circles.
Daniel J. Stern
> Officers prove themselves to be credible in court consistantly. whereas Joe
> Citizen has a tendancy to lie in traffic court to get out of the ticket.
Zat so?
I had a *fascinating* experience a number of years ago in Michigan. A
police officer pulled me up and wrote me a ticket for two things I didn't
do. I went to court with _proof_ I hadn't done them. Not just a convincing
argument, mind you -- I had concrete, irrefutable _proof_ that I had not
done what the officer ticketed me for.
The officer got to speak first. He stated, in the careful language of a
seasoned traffic officer, that he had observed me at close range not once
but twice smoking my rear tires and fishtailing as I left two sequential
traffic lights. He described how when he approached my car, he saw the
flecks of melted tire rubber fanned up on the rear quarter panels of the
car. And he said he asked me why, I told him I was out for a little fun,
to see what my car could do.
So, what was this amazing proof I presented?
The judge the factory service manual for my 1991 Dodge, which contained a
very detailed description of the *FRONT*-wheel-drive architecture of all
1991 Dodge passenger cars. So that knocked out the officer's "smoking the
rear tires" testimony, his "fishtailing" testimony, and his "flecks of
melted tire rubber" testimony.
The factory technical service bulletin describing a squeak caused by a
ring gasket between the exhaust manifold and the headpipe, and calling for
a new ring gasket and metallic anti-seize compound and new spring bolts to
be installed as a fix.
Receipts dated the day of the ticket for a new ring gasket, metallic
anti-seize compound and spring bolts for the exhaust manifold-to-headpipe
joint, with all part number matching those called for in the TSB.
The old ring gasket and bolts.
The remainder of the tube of anti-seize compound showing its ingredients
as graphite flakes suspended in grease.
A photograph of a blob of this anti-seize compound being squeezed out of
the same tube onto a steel plate held in a vise.
A photograph of a propane torche heating up this steel plate, with the
resultant smoke and runniness from the anti-seize compound.
A photograph of the exhaust headpipe of my car, showing trails of runny
antiseize compound.
The judge looked carefully at my evidence, fixed the officer with a *very*
disapproving glower, told me I was free to go, and ordered the officer to
"remember what you observe more clearly next time."
Now, is this an example of the "consistent" credibility you attribute to
officers in traffic court?
Is it an example of Joe Citizen lying to get out of a ticket?
DS
David Hillman
> Officers prove themselves to be credible in court consistantly. whereas Joe
> Citizen has a tendancy to lie in traffic court to get out of the ticket.
Traffic officers don't prove themselves credible in court
consistantly. They are /assumed/ to be credible, but the only check is
if they wind up losing a lot of cases. Of course, we know that doesn't
happen, because they are assumed to be credible.
> Who would this be for testimony:
>
> Ofc Smith- I Arrived on scene at 2217hrs and observed the defendant stabbing
> the victim with a large, kitchen type knife. I drew my service weapon,
> ordered the defendant to drop his weapon, and when he did, my partner Ofc.
> Snuffy placed the defendant into custody.
>
> Enough for a conviction? Probably.....
Without a body, victim, knife, or even bloody clothes? Good luck.
( That wasn't OJ, was it? )
> As far as the 'race' issue you are trying to bait me with, well sonny boy, I
> don't bite.
>
> Could it be that since more blacks are convicted that maybe, just maybe,
> they are commiting more crimes?
I wasn't trying to bait you. It just does seem to be true that your
odds in court are better if you aren't young, male, and black. In
traffic court, we're all young, male, and black.
--
David Hillman
hil...@planet-torque.com
Brent P
>
> "Brent P" <tetraet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6mFla.417461$L1.119310@sccrnsc02...
>> In article <FCDla.55742$ja4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> john wardle wrote:
>>
>> >> Well after 5 minutes have passed and there hasn't been a safe chance
>> >> to move right at 55mph into a 75mph stream of traffic......
>>
>>
>> > If that marked unit activated his emergency lights in the left lane of
> that
>> > highway, you mean that drivers would still pass him at 20 mph over the
> speed
>> > limit? Again, I have reason to doubt it.
>>
>> Well first I stated no lights, but anyway it's not that it matters.
>> If he had his lights on people would know he's not going to pull them
>> over for speeding and keep driving normally. One driver *might* ease
>> up to let the cop pass on the right, but nobody is going to ease up
>> to let the regular guy in 20mph below the flow speed.
> I was going to say something about your statement above being dubious at
> best, instead I'll just outright say you are lying to try to prove your
> point.
>
> I don't buy it, and neither do the majority I'm sure.
Come to chicago sometime, you'll see it's all true. Last time
I encountered a officer on the interstate he was responding to a call,
(lights on) traffic was flowing at about 65mph in 50mph zone. No one
slowed down. No one moved over to let the poor sap in the left hand lane
get out of the way. The officer got on the debris covered left shoulder that
was too small for his car while the stuck driver, moved to the extreme
right side of the lane. The officer then put the pedal to the metal
kicking up a cloud of rocks, road salt, and various other bits of debris
into his wake. Thankfully I had seen them in my mirrors and moved an
additional lane to the right so I was 2 lanes away.
john wardle
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.030411...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
Good for you.
But you try to hold all officers accountable for the actions of one?
Brent P
>
> "Brent P" <tetraet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > Signal your intent, and then continue when safe to do so. That is what the
>> > law requires.
>> > Funny how most people don't seem to have an issue with this concept.
>> Funny how your words do not match the behavior of officers I've encountered.
>> They want people to get out of the way *NOW* not 5 minutes from now when
>> a gap opens, but now. Those who don't get over can expect the officer to
>> squeeze by any way he can. I've seen some interesting shoulder passing
>> etc.
> And how many of those who apparently impeded the officer were cited? I'd bet
> none.
So another just trust the cop not cite. How lovely. Thing is the poor
driver doesn't know if it is really a call or if the officer is playing
games to make his performance objectives. He has to play guessing games.
> Passing on the shoulder in response to a call is authorized in emergency
> situations as long as it doesn't unduely cause a greater hazard to the
> public than waiting for a clear lane would.
Didn't say it wasn't.
> Common sense. The thing most
> laws are based on. And something that appears to be sorely lacking in R.A.D.
> circles.
*laugh* You know Iraq is looking for a new information minister, the last
one stopped showing up for work. I think you'd be perfect for the job,
you've got the denial of reality thing down cold.
Nathan Nagel
john wardle wrote:
>
> "Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> news:ca5e4a7dfa2d29b8...@news.teranews.com...
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:12:23 GMT, "john wardle"
> > <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> > >news:5e8677df51786f44...@news.teranews.com...
> >
> > >> He was passing a line of vehicles in the left lane. A car approached
> > >> him rapidly from behind. He accelerated to complete his passing in a
> > >> more rapid manner in order to yield the lane. You know, courteous
> > >> driving.
> > >>
> > >> One speeding ticket later...
> > >>
> > >> He was speeding, but he sped up to yield to the already speeding cop.
> > >> What's the lesson here? Don't speed up unless lights are flashing
> > >> behind you. Screw courtesy.
> > >
> > >And let's not forget....He was speeding.
> >
> > So I shouldn't accelerate to get out of your way if you're approaching
> > me at high speed without your lights on?
> >
> > If I don't I'm obstructing you or failing to yield to an emergency
> > vehicle or some other such crap, if I do I might very well get a
> > ticket for speeding.
> >
> > What should I do?
>
> You seem to be implying that your friend wasn't speeding in the first place.
> *IF* that's the case, I'd say it's a BS cite. But my common sense pants tell
> me that isn't the case here.
Ah, I see someone was taking notes here :)
The actual circumstances of the ticket were that I was in the left lane
of a 6 line highway in very heavy traffic. Just as it was starting to
break up the unmarked car approached from behind at what I estimate to
be a >20 MPH closing speed. I moved over as soon as possible and
received a citation for "73 in a 55." I estimated my own max speed to
be closer to 65-70 MPH, the actual speed limit was 65 MPH in that area.
(it changed to 55 in between the point at which the officer turned his
lights on and the point at which I stopped on the shoulder.)
nate
Nathan Nagel
john wardle wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6mFla.417461$L1.119310@sccrnsc02...
> > In article <FCDla.55742$ja4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> john wardle wrote:
> >
> > >> Well after 5 minutes have passed and there hasn't been a safe chance
> > >> to move right at 55mph into a 75mph stream of traffic......
> >
> >
> > > If that marked unit activated his emergency lights in the left lane of
> that
> > > highway, you mean that drivers would still pass him at 20 mph over the
> speed
> > > limit? Again, I have reason to doubt it.
> >
> > Well first I stated no lights, but anyway it's not that it matters.
> > If he had his lights on people would know he's not going to pull them
> > over for speeding and keep driving normally. One driver *might* ease
> > up to let the cop pass on the right, but nobody is going to ease up
> > to let the regular guy in 20mph below the flow speed.
>
> I was going to say something about your statement above being dubious at
> best, instead I'll just outright say you are lying to try to prove your
> point.
Having driven in Chicago rather recently, I can corroborate Brent's
statement. I think the speed limit on Lakeshore is 35 (or is it 45?)
north of downtown, and traffic in the left lane flows at maybe 65ish. I
don't consider this particularly unsafe, either - the road, and the
vehicles that travel on it (including the city buses) seem to have no
problem handling that speed.
>
> I don't buy it, and neither do the majority I'm sure.
>
Think what you like...
> >
> > > Try to justify poor driving someplace else, Slick.
> >
> > Come to chicago some time. See what speed limits set 20mph or more
> > below actual travel speeds do to traffic.
>
> Us country bumpkins may not drive as fast as y'all, but we can at least read
> the speed 'limit' signs.
LOL! Having grown up in rural PA, I can state that speed limit signs
there are pretty universally ignored as well. 35 MPH on a deserted
2-lane with no driveways or cross streets? Why?
nate
Daniel J. Stern
3> Officers prove themselves to be credible in court consistantly.
3> Joe Citizen has a tendancy to lie in traffic court to get out of the
3> ticket.
2> police officer pulled me up and wrote me a ticket for two things I
2> didn't do. I went to court with _proof_ I hadn't done them.
2> The judge ordered the officer to "remember what you observe more
2> clearly next time."
> But you try to hold all officers accountable for the actions of one?
Only to the degree you hold all citizens accountable for the lies of some.
DS
john wardle
"Nathan Nagel" <njn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E973FFE...@earthlink.net...
> >
> > You seem to be implying that your friend wasn't speeding in the first
place.
> > *IF* that's the case, I'd say it's a BS cite. But my common sense pants
tell
> > me that isn't the case here.
>
> Ah, I see someone was taking notes here :)
>
> The actual circumstances of the ticket were that I was in the left lane
> of a 6 line highway in very heavy traffic. Just as it was starting to
> break up the unmarked car approached from behind at what I estimate to
> be a >20 MPH closing speed. I moved over as soon as possible and
> received a citation for "73 in a 55." I estimated my own max speed to
> be closer to 65-70 MPH, the actual speed limit was 65 MPH in that area.
> (it changed to 55 in between the point at which the officer turned his
> lights on and the point at which I stopped on the shoulder.)
>
> nate
You estimated your max speed, but you do not know it. As Brent is so fond of
stating, the speeds on those roads are an average 75mph, could it be
possible, just possible you are wrong about your speed/location?
As many have stated here before, you "good" drivers are watching out the
windows for idiots doing the (under) posted speed limits and can "feel" the
car (read: speed)
john wardle
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.030411...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
I only hold them acountable for lying when they provide me with false
information, and that's a crime. Each person gets the same treatment
(professional) at the start of each contact.
Nathan Nagel
ISTM that most of the people who post to RAD regularly (with a few
exceptions like Carl and Judy) care about driving and therefore tend to
drive in a safe, courteous manner. Therefore would it not stand to
reason that the vast majority of interactions between RAD posters and
LEO's working traffic would generally be the result of a LEO issuing a
citation for reasonable, safe behavior? *Reasonable* cops don't pull
over people driving in a reasonable manner. Therefore, we don't get to
meet the good, honest ones.
There have been exceptions, at least in my case. I can think of one
instance where an officer cut me an extraordinary amount of slack after
he spotted me doing some rather egregious speed (I'd like to point out
that this was on a deserted 8-lane highway at 2AM so I was "endangering"
nobody but myself. The cop was coming down an onramp - in a position
that I couldn't see him until I'd already passed - as I passed him.)
However, those interactions don't often get reported here, because the
reasonable cops don't raise our ire like the unreasonable ones do. I'd
venture to say that the cop that pulled me over that night was honestly
concerned that either a) I was intoxicated and might stack up my car on
down the road or b) I might have been trying to get somewhere important
in a hurry, either to a hospital or away from a pursuer - i.e. he was
concerned about my safety. The cop that cited me the time that already
was mentioned in this thread I have no choice to assume just wanted to
write a ticket for something.
nate
Nathan Nagel
john wardle wrote:
>
> "Nathan Nagel" <njn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3E973FFE...@earthlink.net...
>
> > >
> > > You seem to be implying that your friend wasn't speeding in the first
> place.
> > > *IF* that's the case, I'd say it's a BS cite. But my common sense pants
> tell
> > > me that isn't the case here.
> >
> > Ah, I see someone was taking notes here :)
> >
> > The actual circumstances of the ticket were that I was in the left lane
> > of a 6 line highway in very heavy traffic. Just as it was starting to
> > break up the unmarked car approached from behind at what I estimate to
> > be a >20 MPH closing speed. I moved over as soon as possible and
> > received a citation for "73 in a 55." I estimated my own max speed to
> > be closer to 65-70 MPH, the actual speed limit was 65 MPH in that area.
> > (it changed to 55 in between the point at which the officer turned his
> > lights on and the point at which I stopped on the shoulder.)
> >
> > nate
>
> You estimated your max speed, but you do not know it. As Brent is so fond of
> stating, the speeds on those roads are an average 75mph, could it be
> possible, just possible you are wrong about your speed/location?
>
I'm 100% certain about the location. As for the speed, you may be
right, but even so, assuming I really was going the 73 MPH the officer
said (I doubt it, as there was heavy traffic in front of me, and he
claimed to have "paced" me which is a lie, unless he can accurately pace
a car from a long way away, as the first time I spotted him in my
mirrors he was already closing on me at a high rate of speed) there's a
big difference between 73 in a 65 and 73 in a 55.
> As many have stated here before, you "good" drivers are watching out the
> windows for idiots doing the (under) posted speed limits and can "feel" the
> car (read: speed)
I'd far rather drive on a road with people who watch other traffic as
opposed to their speedometers.
nate
Daniel J. Stern
5> Officers prove themselves to be credible in court consistantly.
5> Joe Citizen has a tendancy to lie in traffic court to get out of the
5> ticket.
4> The judge ordered the officer to "remember what you observe more
4> clearly next time."
3> But you try to hold all officers accountable for the actions of one?
2> Only to the degree you hold all citizens accountable for the lies of
2> some.
> I only hold them acountable for lying when they provide me with false
> information, and that's a crime. Each person gets the same treatment
> (professional) at the start of each contact.
That's jolly good, sir, but irrelevant and nonresponsive. Your statement
was that police officers tell the truth in court, while citizens lie. I
provided you with a counterexample in which a police officer told several
*large* lies in court, while a citizen had evidence to prove he was
telling the truth, such that there was no subjectivity required on the
judge's part as to who had a better story.
DS
Brent P
> Having driven in Chicago rather recently, I can corroborate Brent's
> statement. I think the speed limit on Lakeshore is 35 (or is it 45?)
You were here for the autoshow so you got the
save-da-plants-from-road-salt speed limit which is 35 or 40mph. The
regular summer speed limit is 45mph.
> north of downtown, and traffic in the left lane flows at maybe 65ish.
Yep. And with all the chaos of a severely underposted road. That's
what actually scares me about LSD, the bad lane changes, the random
placement of slow moving vehicles through the lanes, etc. This would
be bothersome at any speed.
Brent P
> You estimated your max speed, but you do not know it. As Brent is so fond of
> stating, the speeds on those roads are an average 75mph, could it be
> possible, just possible you are wrong about your speed/location?
You aren't paying attention, that's pretty clear from your mixing
of circumstances. Nate's experience presented happened in another part
of the USA.
David Hillman
> I only hold them acountable for lying when they provide me with false
> information, and that's a crime. Each person gets the same treatment
> (professional) at the start of each contact.
So you pull over a person, and tell them they were doing 70mph. They
say, "Officer, I was driving the 65mph limit."
What do you do?
--
David Hillman
hil...@planet-torque.com
David Hillman
> Yep. And with all the chaos of a severely underposted road. That's
> what actually scares me about LSD, the bad lane changes, the random
> placement of slow moving vehicles through the lanes, etc. This would
> be bothersome at any speed.
And ironically, you hardly ever seen crashes on LSD. With rough
pavement, no shoulder in most places, exits right and left, actual
curves, and frequent intersections, you have to pay attention to what
you're doing.
"Driving on LSD is safe" [g]
--
David Hillman
hil...@planet-torque.com
David Hillman
> You estimated your max speed, but you do not know it. As Brent is so fond of
> stating, the speeds on those roads are an average 75mph, could it be
> possible, just possible you are wrong about your speed/location?
Maybe he is wrong. Can you explain why the officer was driving
~85-90 in very heavy traffic? He wasn't responding to anything, as he
apparently had time to visit with Nate. Is it anymore legal for him to
drive that fast for the hell of it, than Nate?
It is very reasonable to assume that the officer needed to get by,
and respond to an emergency. If that happened to me, and I needed to
get out of the way, I'm not going to be at all concerned with the speed
limit. That doesn't mean I'm going to be reckless, but I'm going to put
a higher priority on clearing a path for the officer than watching my
speedometer.
--
David Hillman
hil...@planet-torque.com
David Hillman
> And how many of those who apparently impeded the officer were cited? I'd bet
> none.
And I'd bet all. Neither of us knows, so your WAG is no better than
mine.
> Passing on the shoulder in response to a call is authorized in emergency
> situations as long as it doesn't unduely cause a greater hazard to the
> public than waiting for a clear lane would. Common sense. The thing most
> laws are based on. And something that appears to be sorely lacking in R.A.D.
> circles.
If you were driving in the left lane, passing a line of cars, and an
officer closed quickly behind you with no lights, what would you do?
Let's say you're already driving at the speed limit, since there's
virtually nowhere that the left lane runs below the limit.
You have no legal option, other than to continue to block the
officer's path. Accelerate to clear the lane? Speeding. Move right
where there's no gap? Unsafe lane change.
Potentially, you could pull off to the left, but that'd be very
hazardous given that that is where the officer is likely to try and pass
you. It wouldn't be legal around here anyway, as those are mostly "no
stopping" areas, if there even is a shoulder.
Would what you do?
--
David Hillman
hil...@planet-torque.com
Brandon Sommerville
And you get a ticket for your courtesy! The officer wasn't going
somewhere, he was just seeing if he could edge you into a higher
speed.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, but set
fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Marc
>I work with good, honest, professionals.
Then you must not be a cop.
Come to think of it, every profession I've ever heard of has some bad,
dishonest, unprofessional people. However, when people break the law to
cover up the transgressions (as has been done with cops for various crimes,
or the priests molesting), people take a much more negative view.
If cops actually helped police their own ranks, it would help the public
profession that they will lie cheat and steal to protect their "brothers in
blue." As long as that perception is there (supported by the constant
stream of convicted police), cops will be under suspicion.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>> Yep. And with all the chaos of a severely underposted road. That's
>> what actually scares me about LSD, the bad lane changes, the random
>> placement of slow moving vehicles through the lanes, etc. This would
>> be bothersome at any speed.
> And ironically, you hardly ever seen crashes on LSD. With rough
> pavement, no shoulder in most places, exits right and left, actual
> curves, and frequent intersections, you have to pay attention to what
> you're doing.
True. You forgot the narrow lanes though....
But once south of McCormick place LSD becomes a limited access highway
with decent ramps only on the right no stop lights, etc but the speed
limit remains at the 45mph mark.
Claude
>I wonder how the state trooper is the "prosecutor." If he is, he can't be
>a witness. And he'd have to be admitted to practice law, or have passed
>the bar and pending admission, in order to speak on the record. Perhaps
>the original poster should look into this more, as it appears he doesn't
>understand how the system operates.
>
I disagree.
When I go to NYC Criminal Court for a trial on a criminal summons, the
defense attorney will ask me if I would agree to a reduced charge.
Since there is no assistant district atty assigned to summons cases, I
am acting as prosecutor and make the decision about the plea. While I
may not legally be a prosecutor, I would say I am playing the same
role.
Arif Khokar
> Us country bumpkins may not drive as fast as y'all, but we can at least read
> the speed 'limit' signs.
The "country bumpkins" here in WV go about 75 to 80 mph on the
interstates. The posted speed limit is 70 mph. The speeds are no
different from Chicago. The only difference is that instead of being 20
to 25 mph over the limit, they're only 5 to 10 mph over the limit.
Marc
>"David Hillman" <hil...@planet-torque.com> wrote in message news:XWEla.2646$S6....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> How many people get convicted of real crimes based solely on officer
>> testimony? What percentage of those are young and black?
>
>I don't know.
>
>Who would this be for testimony:
>
>Ofc Smith- I Arrived on scene at 2217hrs and observed the defendant stabbing
>the victim with a large, kitchen type knife. I drew my service weapon,
>ordered the defendant to drop his weapon, and when he did, my partner Ofc.
>Snuffy placed the defendant into custody.
>
>
>Enough for a conviction? Probably.....
I'd like to see it.
Remember, there is *only* the testimony of the *one* cop.
Defense:
"Where is the murder weapon?"
Cop:
"We don't have it here."
"Where is the body?"
"We lost it before it got to the coroners office and no one else ever saw
it."
"Where is the blood on the clothes?"
"We don't know where the clothes are."
"Where is your partner to testify to what he saw?"
"He couldn't make it today."
This could go on and on. Other than the statements of the one cop, there
is no evidence that a crime was even committed, no body, no knife, no
blood, no witnesses. Even if the supposed crime did occur, there is
absolutely nothing (save the testimony of the one cop that can't even prove
there was a crime) that ties the defendant to the crime scene.
No court would convict on that.
>Could it be that since more blacks are convicted that maybe, just maybe,
>they are commiting more crimes?
The numbers estimated by the gvt is that blacks and whites commit first
offenses at the same rate. The suspicion by the liberals is that the
recidivism in blacks is higher because, for the same crime, they are
arrested more often, charged more often, found guilty more often, and
sentenced for longer than whites with the same records and crimes.
The last estimate I saw was that two people, one white and one black, with
the same criminal history commit the same non-violent drug offenses, the
black person will spend 9 times the time in jail as the white. No, I don't
have a cite. Try the DOJ web site.
Marc
>> In article <lmBla.23828$cO3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>john wardle wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Something doesn't sound right with that one...."sped up to yield"
>> >
>> > I'm not familiar with the exact case you are refering to but:
>>
>> Let's see.... you are driving along normally when a police crusier
>> comes flying up behind you. there is traffic to your right, a jersey
>> barrier to your left.
>>
>> What do you do:
>>
>> A) speed up and move right into a gap up ahead to let the officer
>> by.
>>
>> B) Drive the speed limit or below blocking the officer from getting
>> by.
>
>C) Signal your intent to pull to the right as soon as it is safe to do so.
Do you signal and travel the speed limit, pulling in when a space becomes
available, or do you signal and speed up to more quickly find a space to
let him pass?
Brandon Sommerville
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>Officers prove themselves to be credible in court consistantly. whereas Joe
>Citizen has a tendancy to lie in traffic court to get out of the ticket.
This comment is a little disturbing. Let's look at each side's
advantages and disadvantages in court.
Cop:
Advantages:
Training in how to speak in court to get a conviction.
Likely years of experience in court getting convictions.
The judge is likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The system wants to convict to get the money.
Disadvantages:
?
Civilian:
Advantages:
?
Disadvantages:
Has probably never been in court before.
Knows that a conviction is going to cost not only the value of the
ticket but also the insurance hit afterwards so is nervous.
Knows that the cop is likely to get the benefit of the doubt.
Not that the system is rigged or anything...
Do you mean to tell me that if you pulled me over for doing 60 in a 55
you couldn't get a conviction for 80 in a 55 if you really wanted to?
David Hillman
> But once south of McCormick place LSD becomes a limited access highway
> with decent ramps only on the right no stop lights, etc but the speed
> limit remains at the 45mph mark.
Only for a few miles, there are intersections again at Hyde Park
(63rd street), and an "indecent" right-exit ramp at 57th IIRC. That is
the most "interstate-like" part of LSD, though, between Roosevelt and
about 47th.
--
David Hillman
hil...@planet-torque.com
dizzy
>They're going to make mistakes, sure. They're even going to be lazy on
>occasion. But like most kinds of people in most professions, they're
>going to be decent good at what they do and right the majority of the
>time.
Wow! Your life experience must be different than mine...
Garth Almgren
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>But once south of McCormick place LSD becomes a limited access highway
>>with decent ramps only on the right no stop lights, etc but the speed
>>limit remains at the 45mph mark.
>
>
> Only for a few miles, there are intersections again at Hyde Park
> (63rd street), and an "indecent" right-exit ramp at 57th IIRC.
57th is the museum exit right?
The one I remember thinking was stupidly dangerous (when I was 10, no
less) was the 53rd street exit. I remember 53rd as an exit where they
basically cut a hole in the curb of a cul-de-sac, leaving no room on LSD
to slow for an almost 90 degree right hand exit onto street with
apartments on the left, a park on the right, and kids everywhere. It may
be better than I remember, but my family and I used to live on S.
Blackstone at 55th, and I know my dad avoided that exit like the plague.
--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
--------| And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
========| - Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)
john wardle
> john wardle wrote:
> > I only hold them acountable for lying when they provide me with false
> > information, and that's a crime. Each person gets the same treatment
> > (professional) at the start of each contact.
>
> So you pull over a person, and tell them they were doing 70mph. They
> say, "Officer, I was driving the 65mph limit."
>
> What do you do?
You assume I would stop for 70 in a posted 65. I don't.
john wardle
> john wardle wrote:
> > And how many of those who apparently impeded the officer were cited? I'd
bet
> > none.
>
> And I'd bet all. Neither of us knows, so your WAG is no better than
> mine.
>
> > Passing on the shoulder in response to a call is authorized in emergency
> > situations as long as it doesn't unduely cause a greater hazard to the
> > public than waiting for a clear lane would. Common sense. The thing most
> > laws are based on. And something that appears to be sorely lacking in
R.A.D.
> > circles.
>
> If you were driving in the left lane, passing a line of cars, and an
> officer closed quickly behind you with no lights, what would you do?
As stated before, Signal intent and continue when safe.
>
> Let's say you're already driving at the speed limit,
Always
since there's
> virtually nowhere that the left lane runs below the limit.
>
> You have no legal option, other than to continue to block the
> officer's path. Accelerate to clear the lane? Speeding. Move right
> where there's no gap? Unsafe lane change.
Or... Signal intent and continue when safe.
>
> Potentially, you could pull off to the left, but that'd be very
> hazardous given that that is where the officer is likely to try and pass
> you. It wouldn't be legal around here anyway, as those are mostly "no
> stopping" areas, if there even is a shoulder.
>
> Would what you do?
Signal intent and continue when safe.
The law allows me that.I'd be covered.
john wardle
"Marc" <whin...@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:71ue9v0h8mc2ii070...@4ax.com...
Signal intent and continue when safe. At the speed limit. That is what the
law states.
john wardle
"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:1f0f249b5d41c8ad...@news.teranews.com...
If I wanted to, sure. But here's the thing, I have a history of good
decisions, enough that the people I protect have deemed me worthy enough of
thier trust to stop idots for them. The public placed thier trust in me and
I don't abuse that. I know many won't believe it, but the vast majority of
officers are the same way.
Brent P
> Signal intent and continue when safe. At the speed limit. That is what the
> law states.
Now get out into the real world. I know from experience cops don't like
to be blocked when they want to get by.
Marc
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message news:1f0f249b5d41c8ad...@news.teranews.com...
>> Do you mean to tell me that if you pulled me over for doing 60 in a 55
>> you couldn't get a conviction for 80 in a 55 if you really wanted to?
>
>If I wanted to, sure. But here's the thing, I have a history of good
>decisions, enough that the people I protect have deemed me worthy enough of
>thier trust to stop idots for them. The public placed thier trust in me and
>I don't abuse that. I know many won't believe it, but the vast majority of
>officers are the same way.
>
And you just don't seem to get it. It's not that you do, it's that you
can. *If* a cop does, there is nothing that can be done to stop them. I
agree that most cops are good cops. I don't care about them. Just like
all professions, there are bad ones. I worry about the bad ones. What can
I do if I'm given a bogus ticket by a bad one?
Absolutely nothing. I'm screwed. The system presumes me guilty until
proven innocent, and if I claim the cop is lying, everyone presumes he is
telling the truth and I'm the liar. All the cops seem to think that is a
perfectly good system. All the people that have been screwed by cops that
didn't work in a honest and forthright manner know the truth, but are
dismissed as whiners for having questioned the authority of a cop (and we
know that all cops tell the truth all the time about everything, never mind
the numbers of cops currently in jail for all the murders, rapes, assaults,
and other violent crimes they have committed while employed as cops).
But then, since I'm bringing up the reality of humans being fallible, I
must just be some nut that wants to get away with breaking the law, after
all, who else would want equatable justice?
Brandon Sommerville
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
> Signal intent and continue when safe.
>
>The law allows me that.I'd be covered.
Even though you could get out of the way more quickly by accelerating?
You'd only do what the law allowed you to do?
Brandon Sommerville
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>If I wanted to, sure.
And herein lies the problem. You *could* lie through your teeth and
the judge would likely believe you over a civilian, unless that
civilian had concrete proof that his actions were impossible. Much
like the testimony given by Dan's accusing officer.
>But here's the thing, I have a history of good
>decisions, enough that the people I protect have deemed me worthy enough of
>thier trust to stop idots for them. The public placed thier trust in me and
>I don't abuse that. I know many won't believe it, but the vast majority of
>officers are the same way.
And for the minority that aren't? Or the good ones that have a bad
day?
How do we protect ourselves from them?
Ricardo
wrote:
>Now get out into the real world. I know from experience cops don't like
>to be blocked when they want to get by.
They're just as human as the rest of us. Fact is, *nobody* likes
being blocked when they want to get by.
--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada
e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply
for liability purposes: I *always* obey the law.
Ricardo
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>You assume I would stop for 70 in a posted 65. I don't.
You'd get writer's cramp if you did [ticket for 70mph]. :)
I generally assume that cops allow a 10% overspeed tolerance (this
is usually, though not always, the case), but if I saw you, you'd
betcherass I'd be carrying only 65 imperially sized lemons if the
posted speed were 65mph. (I don't take chances.) With no cop, I
still obey the limit ;) but will be perfectly content carrying 80,
90 or more imperial lemons.
Ricardo
<gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>But here's the thing, I have a history of good
>>decisions, enough that the people I protect have deemed me worthy enough of
>>thier trust to stop idots for them. The public placed thier trust in me and
>>I don't abuse that. I know many won't believe it, but the vast majority of
>>officers are the same way.
>
>And for the minority that aren't? Or the good ones that have a bad
>day?
>
>How do we protect ourselves from them?
Sad to say, we might all hafta resort to filming all our driving
time.
Matthew Russotto
john wardle <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Matthew Russotto" <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:fPOdnXlqAeS...@speakeasy.net...
>> In article <tqFla.24042$cO3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> john wardle <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >"David Hillman" <hil...@planet-torque.com> wrote in message
>> >> john wardle wrote:
>> >> > Credability of the witness?
>> >>
>> >> Is there a significant difference, other than the presumption that
>> >> officers never lie and citizens always do?
>> >
>> >Officers prove themselves to be credible in court consistantly. whereas
>Joe
>> >Citizen has a tendancy to lie in traffic court to get out of the ticket.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How many people get convicted of real crimes based solely on officer
>> >> testimony? What percentage of those are young and black?
>> >
>> >I don't know.
>> >
>> >Who would this be for testimony:
>> >
>> >Ofc Smith- I Arrived on scene at 2217hrs and observed the defendant
>stabbing
>> >the victim with a large, kitchen type knife. I drew my service weapon,
>> >ordered the defendant to drop his weapon, and when he did, my partner
>Ofc.
>> >Snuffy placed the defendant into custody.
>> >
>> >
>> >Enough for a conviction? Probably.....
>>
>
>With respect to the hypothetical officers testimony, I think so. Physical
>evidence is another matter entirely.
The point is that the testimony is not going to be sufficient for a
conviction without the physical evidence of a crime having been
committed.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
john wardle
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 16:06:12 GMT, "john wardle"
> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Signal intent and continue when safe.
> >
> >The law allows me that.I'd be covered.
>
> Even though you could get out of the way more quickly by accelerating?
> You'd only do what the law allowed you to do?
Yep.
john wardle
And you don't like driving at what you consider under posted speed limits,
but that is what the law allows for.
john wardle
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 16:10:10 GMT, "john wardle"
> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
> >If I wanted to, sure.
>
> And herein lies the problem. You *could* lie through your teeth and
> the judge would likely believe you over a civilian, unless that
> civilian had concrete proof that his actions were impossible. Much
> like the testimony given by Dan's accusing officer.
>
> >But here's the thing, I have a history of good
> >decisions, enough that the people I protect have deemed me worthy enough
of
> >thier trust to stop idots for them. The public placed thier trust in me
and
> >I don't abuse that. I know many won't believe it, but the vast majority
of
> >officers are the same way.
>
> And for the minority that aren't? Or the good ones that have a bad
> day?
>
> How do we protect ourselves from them?
I suppose the same way you protect yourself from a persn who normallyt
drives at the speed limit, but is speeding because he had a bad day. Take
care of yourself, do the right thing, and the bad day guy will take care of
himself.
john wardle
"Ricardo" <sovietja...@spamfreezone.yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3e9a9f9c.37167833@news...
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 16:03:29 GMT, "john wardle"
> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
> >You assume I would stop for 70 in a posted 65. I don't.
>
> You'd get writer's cramp if you did [ticket for 70mph]. :)
>
> I generally assume that cops allow a 10% overspeed tolerance (this
> is usually, though not always, the case), but if I saw you, you'd
> betcherass I'd be carrying only 65 imperially sized lemons if the
> posted speed were 65mph. (I don't take chances.) With no cop, I
> still obey the limit ;) but will be perfectly content carrying 80,
> 90 or more imperial lemons.
Well, good luck to you then. I can be pretty sneaky when looking for the
roadrunner....; )
Brandon Sommerville
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:91eb8e749a88eb1e...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 16:06:12 GMT, "john wardle"
>> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Signal intent and continue when safe.
>> >
>> >The law allows me that.I'd be covered.
>>
>> Even though you could get out of the way more quickly by accelerating?
>> You'd only do what the law allowed you to do?
>
>Yep.
Wow, I'm impressed. I've never met anyone who was so completely
willing to cede their decision making to the state.
Brandon Sommerville
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:61d53e879c52cd49...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 16:10:10 GMT, "john wardle"
>> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >If I wanted to, sure.
>>
>> And herein lies the problem. You *could* lie through your teeth and
>> the judge would likely believe you over a civilian, unless that
>> civilian had concrete proof that his actions were impossible. Much
>> like the testimony given by Dan's accusing officer.
>>
>> >But here's the thing, I have a history of good
>> >decisions, enough that the people I protect have deemed me worthy enough of
>> >thier trust to stop idots for them. The public placed thier trust in me and
>> >I don't abuse that. I know many won't believe it, but the vast majority of
>> >officers are the same way.
>>
>> And for the minority that aren't? Or the good ones that have a bad
>> day?
>>
>> How do we protect ourselves from them?
>
>I suppose the same way you protect yourself from a persn who normallyt
>drives at the speed limit, but is speeding because he had a bad day.
'Round here that equates to about 1% of the population so I'm not too
worried about that. Besides, I'm usually going faster than them
anyway. :)
>Take
>care of yourself, do the right thing, and the bad day guy will take care of
>himself.
Once again, trust the State? When it's an agent of the State who is
doing wrong?
john wardle
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:10:52 GMT, "john wardle"
> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:91eb8e749a88eb1e...@news.teranews.com...
> >> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 16:06:12 GMT, "john wardle"
> >> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Signal intent and continue when safe.
> >> >
> >> >The law allows me that.I'd be covered.
> >>
> >> Even though you could get out of the way more quickly by accelerating?
> >> You'd only do what the law allowed you to do?
> >
> >Yep.
>
> Wow, I'm impressed. I've never met anyone who was so completely
> willing to cede their decision making to the state.
Nice to meet you....
I don't think of it as ceding(sp?) my decision making to the state, more of
following the laws that I and other citizens have had passed based on common
agreement for behavior on state owned roadways.
I have better things to do with my time than to spend it trying to find ways
to beat a ticket.
Like pruning trees......Ahh, I love spring.
Brandon Sommerville
<ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:191bfb4e57a682e4...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:10:52 GMT, "john wardle"
>> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> >news:91eb8e749a88eb1e...@news.teranews.com...
>> >> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 16:06:12 GMT, "john wardle"
>> >> <ward...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Signal intent and continue when safe.
>> >> >
>> >> >The law allows me that.I'd be covered.
>> >>
>> >> Even though you could get out of the way more quickly by accelerating?
>> >> You'd only do what the law allowed you to do?
>> >
>> >Yep.
>>
>> Wow, I'm impressed. I've never met anyone who was so completely
>> willing to cede their decision making to the state.
>
>Nice to meet you....
>
>I don't think of it as ceding(sp?) my decision making to the state, more of
>following the laws that I and other citizens have had passed based on common
>agreement for behavior on state owned roadways.
How you think of it doesn't change what it is. Often the law doesn't
reflect what happens on the roads. If, for example, by speeding up
you save the cop the minute it might take you to get over, or get the
ambulance past you, wouldn't it be worth it to speed? I sure as hell
would.
Around here, the "common agreement for behaviour on state owned
roadways" is that you exceed the speed limit. 99% of people have
agreed with this convention. The fact that the lawmakers haven't
agreed to it doesn't change what the common behaviour is.
>I have better things to do with my time than to spend it trying to find ways
>to beat a ticket.
>
>Like pruning trees......Ahh, I love spring.
Hmm, I spend my time doing the same sort of thing, yet I retain the
freedom to make my own decisions based on the situation around me, not
an idyllic scenario that exists only in a lawbook. Remarkable, isn't
it?
Brent P
> I don't think of it as ceding(sp?) my decision making to the state, more of
> following the laws that I and other citizens have had passed based on common
> agreement for behavior on state owned roadways.
"common agreement" can be measured by the speeds people actually drive.
Pity it's not actually done.
Brent P
Neither does anyone else, including cops by my experience. (they also
don't bother with things like red lights and signaling as well rather
frequently)
If I got in front of an IL state trooper and did 55mph or lower that
cop would have the push bar of his crusier 3 inches from my rear bumper.
I know it, I've had it happen. They don't like being blocked, they don't
like driving the incredibly stupid IL speed limits any more than anyone
else.