"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:50:49 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:53:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

While they may not
specifically say it this way, the fact that you got a ticket, is
evidence of guilt, and you have to try your best to prove that you're
not guilty. The word of one cop is enough, in most cases, to render a
"guilty" verdict, unless you're damn lucky and can somehow "prove"
your innocence

Um Dave, when the officer hands the book to you and says "sign here"
he always says: " This is not an admission of guilt, but a promissory to
appear in court", so how does your statement apply?

In Pa, you sign to acknowledge receipt of the citation. You then have
the choice to either plead guilty and remit the amount of the fine to
the address included. Or, you can plead "not guilty" and take your
chances fighting in court. But unless you have some means of actually
proving your innocence beyond that of playing he said- he said with a
cop, you pretty much have the cards stacked against you. Oh, and you
will be assessed court costs in addition to your fine if found guilty.


Same here. Yes, if you don't do your homework and submit
the evidence correctly, you are at the mercy of the court. Of
course if your guilty, why would you be there? If not, do
your homework, present a good case with evidence & witness's
and you will be found innocent.


If you didn't do anything wrong, you have the RIGHT to appear in
court, present your evidence to the JUDGE and let him make the
decision, not a bunch of people sitting around a table, drinking
coffee, eating donuts and then saying....."um, this guy said SH*T,
let's fine him..........$25,000.00, yeah, that's a good amount"

Whether or not you did something wrong or not may be open to
subjective interpretation. Most cops would not bother to write someone
a ticket for not coming completely to a stop and waiting the required
3 seconds before proceeding at a stop sign.

Why not? if they didn't wait, they could get the ticket. You have
"unnamed" cops that are friends, do they tell you that they only
ticket people that they see, 100% do something wrong? If they
say yes, they are probably lying.

But the point between
what's an acceptable stop and one that's not, is a subjective gray
area, and not one that you will usually win.

That's some of my point. If he really didn't see you not stop, he's
guessing. If so, then you have your witness's, do your homework
and present it accordingly. I was sighted once for that offence,
there was no way he could have seen me stop, let alone not stop.
I took my pictures, measurements and showed in court that there
was no way that the officer could have seen me stop, let alone run
the stop sign from the position he said he was in. I won, and I was
only 18 years old then.

Most traffic law issues
are not always black and white. Yes, if you actually feel that you
were unfairly targeted, you might be tempted to fight. But if you are
still guilty of violating the letter of the law, if not the intent,
you might find it a tough battle.


Maybe, but if your speedo is off, you can go to court, show that
it was off and also show that it was repaired, most of the time the
judge will dismiss the case.

On the other hand, if you **** off a cop and he pulls you over and
"invents" a few charges to stick you with, you will still have a hard
time proving that you did not commit them unless, of course, the cop
in question has a history of abusing his power in such a way.

Maybe again. But if you have someone with you, that type of stuff
is less likely to happen (witness factor)


Is this fair? No. But is it a fact of life? Certainly.



You have a better chance of beating a ticket if your inocent than
an FCC fine, at least you appear before a Judge and you can request
a jury trial, try to do that with a FCC NAL.

You can fight an NAL as well. In most cases the FCC gives fair warning
before handing out the NAL.

Warnings are not NAL, so there is nothing to fight.

If you heed the warning, in most cases
that will be the end of it. I haven't read any accounts of people
popped by the FCC who weren't guilty of the offense charged.

It doesn't matter Dave, you can't fight a NAL, you either pay it
or have a lein on your property or wages garnished.

In most
cases, their "defense" consists of crying poor, or somehow trying to
justify their actions. Some of the excuses given are quite laughable.

Same as a real court.



Why play word games? The end result is the same. The accuser has to
prove his innocence, by discrediting the evidence against him. The cop
is not required to demonstrate 6 different ways from Sunday how the
accuser is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". He only has to show up
and testify that the accuser ran such and such red light, and it's his
word against the accuser's. So who does the court tend to believe? How
is this a "presumption of innocence"?

What word games? The officer presents his evidence, then you have your
turn, do you think that just because he's a police officer he's always
right?

No, he's not always right, but he's more credible in the eyes of the
court than Joe Average Citizen.

Why? He's a person just like anyone else. His credibility rides on
what he presents and how he does it, just like you.

Cops are viewed with a certain amount
of public trust. If it comes down to a battle of testimony between
you and the cop, the court will side with the cop in most cases.

Again, if you did something wrong, why waste the time of the courts,
but if you are innocent and present your case in a legit way, you
will probably get off.


If you present the correct type of evidence, witness's, you will be found
innocent.

Tell me, just how great are your chances of having an impartial
witness around when you need them, or having some other form of
concrete exculpatory evidence?

I made a right hand turn onto another street, I proceeded into the
right side of the lane partially into the bike lane (legal if with-in
a certain distance of the intersection). Cop saw it and gave me a
ticket for passing on the right. I showed with both video, pictures
and measurements, after the officer said I passed on the right some
1000 to 1300' before the intersection. That being said I would have had
to pass him on the right before the previous light (I had turned onto the
road in front of him, so how did I pass him?) I was found innocent
via US mail and the judge enclosed a note saying that I had come to
the court very well prepared with my evidence in proper sequence.


You are talking how things should be in theory. I'm talking about how
they are in reality. In an ideal world, all innocent people would
never be accused or wrongly convicted of a crime. The real world
paints an entirely different picture. I'm not saying it's right. I'm
just acknowledging that it happens.

Sorry, in the real world I'll bet you more people that do the right thing
while in court get off more than you think.



I'm waiting until the FCC gets into the Satellite radio scene.


I'm waiting until the FCC starts regulating the internet.


It's coming.


That's a very sad statement Dave, if you can't regulate what you
hear and watch, you have to have the governmet do it for you.
A clear case.......... Lack of self control.

It's an unfortunate truth that there are some people out there that
can't exercise self control and, by their lack of respect for others,
pollute the public venues with inappropriate behavior.

If you don't like Stern, change the channel, if you don't like Queer
eye for the straight guy, don't watch it, but don't ask the government
to stand in and say " this is bad, people don't want to watch this,
take it off the air. You would have culture shock if you ever get
over to Europe.

Barring
vigilante justice, government intervention is often the only sensible
alternative.

So when the public is tired of seeing televangelist all day and night,
politicians are tired of it, it's ok to bar them from TV? Because you
don't have the common sense to turn it off or change channels?
That's messed up, you had better hope that the country never gets
to that stage.


Ironically, I tend to be a "minimal governmental intrusion" advocate.
But as more and more people adopt an "in your face" attitude with
respect to their perceived rights, I start to understand the need for
stricter controls.


Homosexuality is a disorder of the brain. Not much different than
schizophrenia, bipolar, or a host of other disorders. We should be
looking for ways to treat and correct it, not for reasons to excuse
it.


LOL!!!! Dr. Sigmund Hall is in the office..... Too funny

You disagree? You obviously haven't read the studies on the subject.



Nor do I care too, it's not anything that I'm concerned about.


A marriage is a symbolic ritual of bonding that occurs between
biologically compatible couples. There can be no natural procreation
in a homosexual union. So yes, those values ARE diminished.


Symbolic Yes. I'm not sure what you mean by "biologically compatible"
Do you mean, if your gay, you can't be a compatible couple?

You cannot procreate, which is the whole point of marriage and family.


Hummm, maybe, but it's not the only reason for marriage.



Don't get me wrong Dave, I agree with you on "Gay marriage", I think
your words are wrong though.

In what way?

I think they can have what ever type of saying they want, but marriage is
and
has always been between a man & a woman, not a man & man or woman &
woman.



Too much stuff to comment on here Dave, you have got way to much time
on your hands, I for one have to get to work, see yaa.

I'm already here. I'm on lunch right now. My day is 2/3rds over. This
small distraction is hardly a dent in my work day.


Well I have bigger things to do than this group, so time is more precious
to me.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj


Landshark


--
__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `