blown fuse

DSN_KLR650
Moose
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:49 pm

nklr i know i was guilty..........

Post by Moose » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:23 pm

Ask the officer what he perceived your speed at, what method he used and how long he saw your vehicle to make that determination. If the officer just hit you with the radar and wrote the ticket, then it should be dismissed. The speed should be based on his perception and training on how to gauge speed, with the radar as a verifying instrument, not the end all of it. Lots of officers forget that, especially when they get a beep on the radar and lock it in. Also ask him if he was moving and how fast. If he was moving, he has to be moving more then 30 mph for it to work correctly. Moose revmaaatin wrote:
--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Jud Jones" wrote: > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Dail" wrote: > > ----------------------- > > If you've driven it this way 7 years, and gotten away with it, > > count yourself lucky, pay the ticket & slow down > > > No, don't just pay it. Fight it. Fight 'em all. Speed law enforcement is a scam, and you > know it. 53 in a 35? That ain't speeding. 83 in a 35, that's speeding. > Judd your suggestion goes-to a YES/NO survey given on TV last night from an A&E crime fighter/bad cop episode: Q. Should a police officer's testimony have more validity than a 'civilian'. vote: YES/NO. Most magistrates (in my experience) will say, Q. what did the radar gun say? A. 53 mph. and there you have it. GUILTY.--NEXXT! And we are ALL supposed to believe that the radar gun is reset, and you are not being shown, the previous guy/gal speed. Some of the newer technology is HUD (heads up display) of the radar feed into the LEO camera. If that is the case, your car, and your speed, is all on the tape (at least that is the way I understand it). As for fighting it, perhaps you can suggest to us how, without engaging a lawyer, which is always equally, or more so, spendy, what is a person to do? Who is the magistrate going to believe? It seems it is all about intimidation, doesn't it. I can't think of anything worse than a bully with a badged-uniformed- authority, and yes, that includes 'bad' priests and pastors, only more so. The misuse of authority should be called what it is, and placed a special category of treason. revmaaatin. --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $310,000 Mortgage for $999/mo - Calculate new house payment [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jud Jones
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:52 pm

nklr i know i was guilty..........

Post by Jud Jones » Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:58 pm

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Moose wrote:
> > Almost every state has a law like that, not just California. Just most of them fall under the
Careless and Reckless section. Usually it's worder like this "Without due caution and cicrumspection and at a speed or in a manner as to endanger persons and property, to wit:"
> A lot of people call it a catch all, or article 32 in the military, but it works >
MN used to have a version of that called a prima facie speed law. Any speed over the posted limit raised a presumption that your speed was not reasonable and proper for the conditions. However, you could rebut the presumption by introducing evidence that your speed was reasonable; Weather, traffic, the special equipment or capabilities of the car, anything. Of course, a speed under the posted limit could also be illegal should conditions warrant. I'd like to have that rule back, but we'll never see it again.

Jud Jones
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:52 pm

nklr i know i was guilty..........

Post by Jud Jones » Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:59 pm

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "revmaaatin" wrote:
> > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Jud Jones" wrote: > > > Judd your suggestion goes-to a YES/NO survey given on TV last night > from an A&E crime fighter/bad cop episode: > Q. Should a police officer's testimony have more validity than > a 'civilian'. vote: YES/NO.
That's a question I have been known to ask a prospective juror. Ask it a few times, and strike a panelist or two for a "wrong" answer, and the process can have a salutary effect on the judgment of the remaining jurors.
> > Most magistrates (in my experience) will say, > Q. what did the radar gun say? > A. 53 mph. > and there you have it. GUILTY.--NEXXT! > And we are ALL supposed to believe that the radar gun is reset, and > you are not being shown, the previous guy/gal speed. > Some of the newer technology is HUD (heads up display) of the radar > feed into the LEO camera. If that is the case, your car, and your > speed, is all on the tape (at least that is the way I understand > it).
It is possible every once in a while to discredit the radar/laser technology. But if you actually get to that point, you have probably already lost.
> > As for fighting it, perhaps you can suggest to us how, without > engaging a lawyer, which is always equally, or more so, spendy, what > is a person to do? Who is the magistrate going to believe? It seems > it is all about intimidation, doesn't it.
Often, in a rural jurisdiction, you can get representation on a simple traffic charge for under $200. I have to charge more than that because of travel/parking/sitting around on the calendar time in a spread out urban/suburban court system. But my strategy works best if you have a lawyer, which sends one very simple message: I am prepared to take the time to make the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The system is geared to intimidate both parties and lawyers from going to trial. The courts are averse to actually having trials, so the settlement possibilities get better and better on the day of trial. If you refuse to be intimidated, you will get a better deal. Plus, there is many a slip, as they say, twixt the cup and the lip. A good deal may be an amended charge to something that doesn't go on your record, or a "continuance for dismissal", where you pay "prosecution costs" rather than a fine, and the ticket is dismissed if you are a good boy for 6 months or a year. If you have a good record, you may be able to get an offer like that even without a lawyer. You will never get such an opportunity if you just pay the fine. Yup, it all costs money. You have to weigh that against the cost of increased insurance. It is also worth quite a bit to have a clean record, as that may give the officer the excuse he needs not to write you up in the first place.
> > I can't think of anything worse than a bully with a badged-uniformed- > authority, and yes, that includes 'bad' priests and pastors, only > more so. The misuse of authority should be called what it is, and > placed a special category of treason. >
I agree. However, my experience is that cops are generally decent guys, and even if not, if you treat them as such, they will respond as if they are. If they find you harboring an attitude that most cops are bullies, they have a way of sniffing that out and making you pay for it. I can't remember a single occasion where being angry or snotty has ever gotten me out of a ticket. OTOH, I could lull you to sleep with stories of how just being kind of laid back and friendly has resulted in a warning, a "You have a nice day, sir" or a few minutes spent in congenial conversation by the side of the road. I have a trail riding buddy who is a retired St. Paul cop. He likes to say that nobody ever talked him out of a ticket, but hundreds of guys have talked him into one.

Don S
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:27 pm

nklr i know i was guilty..........

Post by Don S » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:21 pm

Hey Jud. You still have Jessie (THE BODY) Ventura as your governor? Don Jud Jones wrote:
--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Moose wrote: > > Almost every state has a law like that, not just California. Just most of them fall under the Careless and Reckless section. Usually it's worder like this "Without due caution and cicrumspection and at a speed or in a manner as to endanger persons and property, to wit:" > A lot of people call it a catch all, or article 32 in the military, but it works > MN used to have a version of that called a prima facie speed law. Any speed over the posted limit raised a presumption that your speed was not reasonable and proper for the conditions. However, you could rebut the presumption by introducing evidence that your speed was reasonable; Weather, traffic, the special equipment or capabilities of the car, anything. Of course, a speed under the posted limit could also be illegal should conditions warrant. I'd like to have that rule back, but we'll never see it again. --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $510,000 Mortgage for $1,698/mo - Calculate new house payment [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jud Jones
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:52 pm

nklr i know i was guilty..........

Post by Jud Jones » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:45 pm

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Don S wrote:
> > Hey Jud. > > You still have Jessie (THE BODY) Ventura as your governor? >
Not any more. He was a one-term guy, didn't run for a second term. I think he's hanging out in Baja or somewhere. It's just as well. I voted for him, got just what I expected out of him, and am glad he's gone. In the end, he proved to be too thin-skinned for politics. Which may be to his credit.

Stuart Mumford
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2000 6:45 pm

nklr i know i was guilty..........

Post by Stuart Mumford » Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:06 am

What kind of oil were you running in your Toyota? I reckon you're screwed. Selective enforcement sucks when you are the fish, but I think the Baretta Doctrine applies. Cheers CA Stu

Keith Saltzer
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 10:03 pm

nklr i know i was guilty..........

Post by Keith Saltzer » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:47 pm

The system is geared to
> intimidate both parties and lawyers from going to trial. The
courts are averse to actually
> having trials, so the settlement possibilities get better and
better on the day of trial. If you
> refuse to be intimidated, you will get a better deal. Plus, there
is many a slip, as they say,
> twixt the cup and the lip. > > A good deal may be an amended charge to something that doesn't go
on your record, or a
> "continuance for dismissal", where you pay "prosecution costs"
rather than a fine, and the
> ticket is dismissed if you are a good boy for 6 months or a year.
If you have a good record,
> you may be able to get an offer like that even without a lawyer.
You will never get such an
> opportunity if you just pay the fine.
I'm finding out that not only is the above true, but alot more things too. I've read all of the things you guys have said, did lot's of soul searching, and thought about alot of different things. I think my views of the situation now are: 1. The whole cop/ticket/court/guilty or not guilty thing can go many many different directions and for many many different reasons. The cops were originally put there for "safety" reasons and I believe that in the beginning it worked out pretty well overall. As time went on I believe that things have gotton quite a bit out of whack. As a result you can get a ticket that you deserve, or one that you don't deserve. 2. I used to be very true to myself about each ticket, and if "I was guilty, I was guilty", and just accepted it but didn't screw myself. I would still go to court to see if the cop showed up, and/or get it reduced, or at the very least I would always get traffic school. Sometimes traffic school was available without court and because I knew I was purposely breaking the law and got caught, I would just pay it, do traffic school, and try to behave for a year or so. Because of the new (stupid) law that truck drivers can no longer attend traffic school for any reason, I now feel forced to fight every single ticket that I get for any reason. It just makes good sense now. My license is my income, transportation, and my fun. Now, whether I am plainly guilty or not, I am fighting it. I am changing the way I drive and ride, I really am. I am obeying the laws much more now, and actually have been before I even got this last ticket. Getting a ticket the other day was just pure dumb bad luck, and NOTHING stopped that cop from writing me a ticket anyway. That pissed me off. So yesterday afternoon I got home from work early and decided that I needed to do something asap about getting ready to fight this sucker. I found a lawyer in the phone book and as it turns out my wife does alot of scopist work and this same guy is one of the attorneys in alot of the depositions and court proceedings. She said that he should be a good choice. I met with him yesterday and after talking about the situation we both feel I have a real good chance of getting this thing to go away. It's just a dog and pony show in my opinion now, and he knows the right people, so lucky for me. While I was taking to him, I had the chanced to "name drop" my wifes work and who she works with, and this attorney knows him really well. As soon as I left his office he called my wife and talked to her about a few things, and let her know that I could take off 1/3 of the quote that he gave me which was $600. So for $400, we'll see what happens. I'll keep you posted. MrMoose A14 (4 awhile)

Ronald Criswell
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:29 pm

nklr i know i was guilty..........

Post by Ronald Criswell » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:51 am

If they were really interested in safety instead of enriching their coffers, they would concentrate more on red-light runners and stoplight runners and constant lane switchers. Better yet, put round- abouts in instead of stop lights or signs. Get drunks off the road. Get drunks off the road. Doing 10 over or 20 over in West TX is not a safety issue (unless you have bald tires or are sleepy or drunk). My Dad never got below 90 driving in central or West TX and never had an accident even driving on 2 ply biased belted tires. Criswell
On Nov 17, 2006, at 7:14 AM, Moose wrote: > > __No, don't just pay it. Fight it. Fight 'em all. Speed law > enforcement is a scam, and you > know it. 53 in a 35? That ain't speeding. 83 in a 35, that's speeding. > > ,_._,___ > Unfortunately that is the general attitude that is the biggest > problem with speeders. That and, the speed limit doesn't apply to > me because i'm a better then average driver. Speed limits were put > in place not just because of the safe speed and handling of the > vehicles, but also for the reactions of the drivers. Do some > research and see what happened in the US when there were no speed > limits or traffic enforcement, it was pretty brutal. A 35 MPH zone > is more then likely a 2 lane road in a residential neighborhood. > Try setting some cones out, hot 53 MPH and see if you can stop in a > reasonable distance. That extra 18 MPH will add enough distance to > make a difference. 5 mph over isn't speeding, it's fast. Once you > get over 10 mph, that's speeding. > > --------------------------------- > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

kestrelfal
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:31 am

nklr i know i was guilty..........

Post by kestrelfal » Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:54 am

Have you ever considered driver rehab? Fred,,,,,under cover somewhere south of Saskatchewan --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Ronald Criswell wrote:
> > If they were really interested in safety instead of enriching their > coffers, they would concentrate more on red-light runners and > stoplight runners and constant lane switchers. Better yet, put round- > abouts in instead of stop lights or signs. Get drunks off the road. > Get drunks off the road. Doing 10 over or 20 over in West TX is not a > safety issue (unless you have bald tires or are sleepy or drunk). My > Dad never got below 90 driving in central or West TX and never had an > accident even driving on 2 ply biased belted tires. > > Criswell > On Nov 17, 2006, at 7:14 AM, Moose wrote: > > > > > __No, don't just pay it. Fight it. Fight 'em all. Speed law > > enforcement is a scam, and you > > know it. 53 in a 35? That ain't speeding. 83 in a 35, that's speeding. > > > > ,_._,___ > > Unfortunately that is the general attitude that is the biggest > > problem with speeders. That and, the speed limit doesn't apply to > > me because i'm a better then average driver. Speed limits were put > > in place not just because of the safe speed and handling of the > > vehicles, but also for the reactions of the drivers. Do some > > research and see what happened in the US when there were no speed > > limits or traffic enforcement, it was pretty brutal. A 35 MPH zone > > is more then likely a 2 lane road in a residential neighborhood. > > Try setting some cones out, hot 53 MPH and see if you can stop in a > > reasonable distance. That extra 18 MPH will add enough distance to > > make a difference. 5 mph over isn't speeding, it's fast. Once you > > get over 10 mph, that's speeding. > > > > --------------------------------- > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >

Mike Brodhead
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:07 pm

nklr i know i was guilty..........

Post by Mike Brodhead » Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:27 am

On Nov 20, 2006, at 4:49 AM, Ronald Criswell wrote:
> My Dad never got below 90 driving in central or West TX and never > had an > accident even driving on 2 ply biased belted tires.
I did some research on this for a term paper back in high school. One source claimed that high speed was not well correlated with highway accidents, but was well correlated with severity of injury in the event of an accident. This was 1984 or so, so there may be some better research now. --mkb [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 85 guests