Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Citizen Bob on 26 Feb 2007 13:23 On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:47:46 -0500, Steve Furbish <sfurbish(a)hotpop.com> wrote: >my uniformed and your plain clothes brethren You are a cop? You sure fooled me. You must be the only Good Cop on these forums. Or so I would like to believe. Start running off the Bad Cops. Get your union behind you. Most importantly, get the citizens in your area behind you. Put up a Rogue's Gallery of Bad Cops. Let people in the community know that their neighbors are Bad Cops. Let their kids know who the kids of these Bad Cops are. Let the ministers at the churches know. Only a Good Cop can run off the Bad Cops. You have a civic responsibility to do it. Get to work and let us know each week how many Bad Cops you are responsible for running off. You will earn our sincerest praise if you do. Then when it's time for the referendum on pay raises, you will be rewarded. -- "To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson
From: Brent P on 26 Feb 2007 13:30 In article <45e32122.305980375(a)news-server.houston.rr.com>, Citizen Bob wrote: > I am a party partisan - I vote Straight Republican. In which case there is no reason for reform, your vote is a given.
From: Steve Furbish on 26 Feb 2007 13:31 On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:58:17 -0900, Robert Bolton wrote: > Interesting. If I was going to guess, I'd say most of the time the driver > isn't listening well because either they're not used to being stopped by a > policeman or are juts not wanting to admit they were at fault. In my > particular case I really don't believe I misunderstood him, but you never > know. The idea that he was making it up hadn't really occurred to me. > Like most people, I assume a judge would believe a policeman over me, so > why would he feel the need to make stuff up? I could see a false reason > for a stop happening with a suspicious car (3am potential drunk), but not > mid-day in suburbia with school just getting out. Maybe his goal was to > write some tickets and the pickens were slim? Anyway, I didn't mean to > throw folks off-topic with my editorial comment. Sorry. For the record Robert, when it comes to minor traffic infractions it has been my experience that most PEOPLE - both cops and respondents - tend to tell the truth if a case goes to trial. The truth told from two or more subjective perspectives can sound like one or the other must be lying. More often than not the judge doesn't have to choose the cop over you because the testimony leads to the same conclusion. The majority of defendants that I've gone to trial with over the years admitted a degree of violation or had foggy memories of the important elements. Even though they have a vested interest in the outcome (and I maintain that I do not) I've only seen a handful of defendants actually lie at trial. Unfortunately, it's usually not a matter of veracity either way but a matter of the low burden of proof required to prosecute a traffic violation in most jurisdictions. Pulling someone over and actually giving them a BS line about a law that doesn't exist and then citing them would be extremely risky for any patrol officer in these days of everything we do being recorded. Steve
From: Brent P on 26 Feb 2007 13:34 In article <45e323d2.306668609(a)news-server.houston.rr.com>, Citizen Bob wrote: > On 26 Feb 2007 09:26:14 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> They may not be infallible but you choose to violate them at your own >>> peril. > >>That's right - sit in the back of the bus, or be arrested. > > And when the jury nullifes that illegitimate law, the civil rights > movement begins. The masses are too dumbed down, to the point of sheeple to even understand that jury nullification exists these days. It's easy enough to keep those people who understand it off a jury.
From: Brent P on 26 Feb 2007 13:42
In article <pan.2007.02.26.18.31.45.211682(a)hotpop.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > For the record Robert, when it comes to minor traffic infractions it has > been my experience that most PEOPLE - both cops and respondents - tend to > tell the truth if a case goes to trial. It doesn't change the trend, but I've been called a liar in not so many words by a judge when it was the cop that lied about our conversation when he pulled me over. The conversation at the road side would have shown the judge that my defense wasn't manufactured after the fact. > Pulling someone over and actually giving them a BS line about a law that > doesn't exist and then citing them would be extremely risky for any patrol > officer in these days of everything we do being recorded. I have had cops pull me over twice and threaten to cite me for made up law (bicycles cannot be on the roadway) or obey it. Looking back I should have made them cite me instead of obeying it until they were gone. |