Where were you when your car was stopped? Did the officer witness you stopped there? Can you prove how far it is to the point where he clocked you? Can you prove where he clocked you?
It's written on the ticket where he started clocking me (where he lists the
infraction as having begun to take place) so basically I can prove that
there wouldn't have been enough distance between that point and the point at
which I took off from a stop light for me to have gotten up to 80. (I was
turning around in a turn around on the median of a divided highway, which
then turned into a freeway immediately thereafter). I have no proof other
than my own word that I turned around there, since there was no one else in
the car with me at the time, so that might work against me, but since I did
actually turn around there, the cop would have to lie in order to try to
disprove my math.
Also, what if he claims that he started clocking me at a different place
then where the infraction is claimed to have begun to be committed on the
ticket? Would that be enough to get it thrown out? He stated I was speeding
at a certain point, but then maybe he might have to admit that he didn't
actually have me clocked there. Also, the law on radar is quite ignorant of physics. If a larger vehicle is coming up behind you, and you are not speeding, the radar can and does read the speed of the faster, larger vehicle. Cops like to think they can point and aim accurately, but based on how poorly they do in shoot outs, we all know this is not the case. All it takes is some of the waves to be reflected off the faster vehicle, which will happen unless the gun is so close to your car that the officer gets run over, and it will automatically read the higher, incorrect speed. However, the courts have ruled time and time again that physics do not apply in a courtroom.
Alex Rodriguez
07-10-2003, 01:03 PM
In article <1chPa.591$H91.13806@news.itd.umich.edu>, Eric@Eric.com says...I have no proof otherthan my own word that I turned around there, since there was no one else inthe car with me at the time, so that might work against me, but since I didactually turn around there, the cop would have to lie in order to try todisprove my math.
If you testify under oath that that is what you did, and there is no proof
that you didn't, then they have to believe you. That won't work against
you.
-----------------
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
TCS
07-10-2003, 01:32 PM
<html><input type crash></html>
begin
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:03:51 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote: In article <1chPa.591$H91.13806@news.itd.umich.edu>, Eric@Eric.com says...I have no proof otherthan my own word that I turned around there, since there was no one else inthe car with me at the time, so that might work against me, but since I didactually turn around there, the cop would have to lie in order to try todisprove my math. If you testify under oath that that is what you did, and there is no proof that you didn't, then they have to believe you. That won't work against you.
1) they don't have to believe you
2) it won't stop a cop from lying
and
3) if it's the cops word against you, you'll always lose.
Ruger
07-10-2003, 06:03 PM
You have a great chance of getting off if you can show that the vehicle
could not be at the speed listed on the cite. One thing though, be sure you
get someone to certify that YOUR car couldn't be at that speed. Do not rely
on something from the auto maker about the same make and model. Vehicles
can be modified. You will need to get someone to test your vehicle. Be
sure to film the demonstration and have your "tester" available to testify.
Of course if you prove that you could have been doing 80, just get rid of
the evidence and lie like everyone else.
"Eric" <Eric@Eric.com> wrote in message
news:1chPa.591$H91.13806@news.itd.umich.edu... Where were you when your car was stopped? Did the officer witness you stopped there? Can you prove how far it is to the point where he clocked you? Can you prove where he clocked you? It's written on the ticket where he started clocking me (where he lists
the infraction as having begun to take place) so basically I can prove that there wouldn't have been enough distance between that point and the point
at which I took off from a stop light for me to have gotten up to 80. (I was turning around in a turn around on the median of a divided highway, which then turned into a freeway immediately thereafter). I have no proof other than my own word that I turned around there, since there was no one else
in the car with me at the time, so that might work against me, but since I
did actually turn around there, the cop would have to lie in order to try to disprove my math. Also, what if he claims that he started clocking me at a different place then where the infraction is claimed to have begun to be committed on the ticket? Would that be enough to get it thrown out? He stated I was
speeding at a certain point, but then maybe he might have to admit that he didn't actually have me clocked there. Also, the law on radar is quite ignorant of physics. If a larger vehicle is coming up behind you, and you are not speeding, the radar can and does read the speed of the faster, larger vehicle. Cops like to think they can point and aim accurately, but based on how poorly they do in shoot outs, we all know this is not the case. All it takes is some of the waves to be reflected off the faster vehicle, which will happen unless the gun is so close to your car that the officer gets run over, and it will automatically read the higher, incorrect speed. However, the courts have ruled time and time again that physics do not apply in a courtroom.
DTJ
07-11-2003, 04:53 PM
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:16:11 -0400, "Eric" <Eric@Eric.com> wrote:
Where were you when your car was stopped? Did the officer witness you stopped there? Can you prove how far it is to the point where he clocked you? Can you prove where he clocked you?It's written on the ticket where he started clocking me (where he lists theinfraction as having begun to take place) so basically I can prove thatthere wouldn't have been enough distance between that point and the point atwhich I took off from a stop light for me to have gotten up to 80. (I wasturning around in a turn around on the median of a divided highway, which
Good so far, except you can't prove where you started.
then turned into a freeway immediately thereafter). I have no proof otherthan my own word that I turned around there, since there was no one else inthe car with me at the time, so that might work against me, but since I didactually turn around there, the cop would have to lie in order to try todisprove my math.
Not necessarily. One can assume you believe you were not speeding.
Thus since the cop did think you were, either he or you is wrong. If
he thought it was you, but it was another vehicle, then he probably
did not see you turn around. Or if he did, he didn't care.
Also, what if he claims that he started clocking me at a different placethen where the infraction is claimed to have begun to be committed on theticket? Would that be enough to get it thrown out? He stated I was speedingat a certain point, but then maybe he might have to admit that he didn'tactually have me clocked there.
Then the judge legally would have to throw it out, but that does not
guarantee he would.
Also, the law on radar is quite ignorant of physics. If a larger vehicle is coming up behind you, and you are not speeding, the radar can and does read the speed of the faster, larger vehicle. Cops like to think they can point and aim accurately, but based on how poorly they do in shoot outs, we all know this is not the case. All it takes is some of the waves to be reflected off the faster vehicle, which will happen unless the gun is so close to your car that the officer gets run over, and it will automatically read the higher, incorrect speed. However, the courts have ruled time and time again that physics do not apply in a courtroom.
DTJ
07-11-2003, 04:55 PM
On 10 Jul 2003 20:32:00 GMT, TCS
<The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
<html><input type crash></html>beginOn Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:03:51 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote: In article <1chPa.591$H91.13806@news.itd.umich.edu>, Eric@Eric.com says...I have no proof otherthan my own word that I turned around there, since there was no one else inthe car with me at the time, so that might work against me, but since I didactually turn around there, the cop would have to lie in order to try todisprove my math. If you testify under oath that that is what you did, and there is no proof that you didn't, then they have to believe you. That won't work against you.1) they don't have to believe you2) it won't stop a cop from lyingand3) if it's the cops word against you, you'll always lose.
No, that isn't true. I have seen judges rule against cops quite
often. Statistically they favor cops, but not 100%.
TCS
07-11-2003, 06:43 PM
<html><input type crash></html>
begin
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:55:12 GMT, DTJ <f> wrote:On 10 Jul 2003 20:32:00 GMT, TCS<The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
<html><input type crash></html>beginOn Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:03:51 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote: In article <1chPa.591$H91.13806@news.itd.umich.edu>, Eric@Eric.com says...>I have no proof other>than my own word that I turned around there, since there was no one else in>the car with me at the time, so that might work against me, but since I did>actually turn around there, the cop would have to lie in order to try to>disprove my math. If you testify under oath that that is what you did, and there is no proof that you didn't, then they have to believe you. That won't work against you.1) they don't have to believe you2) it won't stop a cop from lyingand3) if it's the cops word against you, you'll always lose.
No, that isn't true. I have seen judges rule against cops quiteoften. Statistically they favor cops, but not 100%.
Nothing is 100%. But if it is simply your word against the cop, odds are
in the cop's favor by a wide margin. You have to introduce some doubt
and "No, I didn't." isn't a defence.
DTJ
07-12-2003, 03:32 PM
On 12 Jul 2003 01:43:22 GMT, TCS
<The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
> If you testify under oath that that is what you did, and there is no proof> that you didn't, then they have to believe you. That won't work against> you.1) they don't have to believe you2) it won't stop a cop from lyingand3) if it's the cops word against you, you'll always lose.No, that isn't true. I have seen judges rule against cops quiteoften. Statistically they favor cops, but not 100%.Nothing is 100%. But if it is simply your word against the cop, odds arein the cop's favor by a wide margin. You have to introduce some doubtand "No, I didn't." isn't a defence.
Agreed. But that is not what was said. Always lose is simply a
statement of opinion not fact.
And even though cops can get away with lying very easily, what else
can the judge do but side with them. That is why bad cops need to be
punished severely.
Which brings up another good point - good cops who make mistakes need
a method by which they can correct their errors without being
punished. For example, if while on the stand the officer realizes he
made a mistake and tells the judge, nobody should harbor any ill will
towards him/her, and he should be rewarded for his honesty.
Lamar
07-12-2003, 04:53 PM
You said something about the cop might have to lie,well let me tell you
that most likely he will because they do it so well,he'll say anything
in court to try to make sure you lose your case.
Go for it though and pray that he won't be able to make it to court that
day.
Thin Blue Line402
07-12-2003, 07:02 PM
"cop might have to lie,well let me tell you that most likely he will because they do it so well,he'll say anything in court to try to make sure you lose your case."
I try to be civil and respectful of everyone in the groups, so I want to
apologize in advance for this!
"Lamar" <malevocalist@webtv.net> wrote in message :
You said something about the cop might have to lie,well let me tell you that most likely he will because they do it so well,he'll say anything in court to try to make sure you lose your case. {end of quote}
That is BULL****. You say "most", you are wrong! I would say that 95% of
officers will not lie on the stand. There are several reasons for this.
1. I do a job. If I observe, what I perceive as a violation of the law, I
am going to charge you with that. If the court decides that I have not
proven you guilty, then so be it.
2. I do think that any officer is going to risk getting caught in a lie
while under oath. From that day on his/her testimony would not be worth
****. Loss of a career, pension gone, no separation pay. That is a big
risk for me to take so that I can win a case in District Court!
3. It is not my law, It is the law of The State of NC. So I am not going
to lose sleep over a traffic citation!
You are so full of ****!!!
"Lamar" <malevocalist@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22567-3F109F83-778@storefull-2151.public.lawson.webtv.net... You said something about the cop might have to lie,well let me tell you that most likely he will because they do it so well,he'll say anything in court to try to make sure you lose your case. Go for it though and pray that he won't be able to make it to court that day.
Thin Blue Line402
07-12-2003, 10:06 PM
Sorry everyone. I try to be smart and do not read my message before
posting. In regards to reason #2 below, I should have typed I do
<U>NOT</U>think that any officer.....
"Thin Blue Line402" <thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:653Qa.97691$Io.8431488@newsread2.prod.itd.ear thlink.net... "cop might have to lie,well let me tell you that most likely he will because they do it so well,he'll say anything in court to try to make sure you lose your case." I try to be civil and respectful of everyone in the groups, so I want to apologize in advance for this! "Lamar" <malevocalist@webtv.net> wrote in message : You said something about the cop might have to lie,well let me tell you that most likely he will because they do it so well,he'll say anything in court to try to make sure you lose your case. {end of quote} That is BULL****. You say "most", you are wrong! I would say that 95% of officers will not lie on the stand. There are several reasons for this. 1. I do a job. If I observe, what I perceive as a violation of the law, I am going to charge you with that. If the court decides that I have not proven you guilty, then so be it. 2. I do think that any officer is going to risk getting caught in a lie while under oath. From that day on his/her testimony would not be worth ****. Loss of a career, pension gone, no separation pay. That is a big risk for me to take so that I can win a case in District Court! 3. It is not my law, It is the law of The State of NC. So I am not going to lose sleep over a traffic citation! You are so full of ****!!! "Lamar" <malevocalist@webtv.net> wrote in message news:22567-3F109F83-778@storefull-2151.public.lawson.webtv.net... You said something about the cop might have to lie,well let me tell you that most likely he will because they do it so well,he'll say anything in court to try to make sure you lose your case. Go for it though and pray that he won't be able to make it to court that day.
