RadioBanter - Beware of hams planting dis-information...

On Wed, 04 May 2005 04:39:44 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:

"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.

No argument. But finding those witnesses and the evidence is the
normally the problem. Too often all you have is your own account of
the altercation, and that is not enough to overturn the professional
account of a trained police officer, unless you get real lucky.

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?

Because there is a difference between the letter of the law and the
intent of the law. I know very few people who come to a complete stop
and count to 3 before proceeding. Most of the cops I know will not
cite someone if they make the effort to stop, even if the wheel may
still be moving slightly. And that's the whole point. The point where
a so-called "California stop" is tolerated is often up to the opinion
of the cop.

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.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here. Are you asking me if I
know of cases where the cops I know write tickets for infractions
which are illegitimate? If that's the case, than no, I don't know of
any. Then again, if they did, I'm sure they wouldn't tell me that.
Although one of my friends is retired now, so his risk exposure is
more limited now.

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.

Well, yea, I would think so. But if he didn't actually see you do it,
then why chase you down and ticket you in the first place? And even if
he did guess, it's still your word against his in court. How do you
PROVE that you complied fully with the law?

If so, then you have your witness's, do your homework
and present it accordingly.

What witnesses? You are driving alone in the car, and the only people
who can testify to what happened are you and the cop.

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.

Then the cop did a poor job of presenting his case, and you got off on
a technicality. Your whole defense hinged on the cop's ability to see
you based on their location. Something they are not required to tell
you at the time they give the ticket. But congrats anyway. You managed
to successfully prove your innocence. My whole point in the first
place. Had you not been able to prove your innocence, the citation
would have stood. Hence my original claim that you are presumed guilty
and must prove your innocence in these cases.

I was also once cited for a stop sign violation. In my case, I was in
an unfamiliar area, and the stop sign was not in an expected place and
somewhat hidden and I blew right through it unconsciously. I drove
quite a few blocks before I even noticed the cop behind me. I had no
idea where he was when he "saw" me, and he didn't tell me. When he
asked me if I knew I had run the stop sign, my response was "What stop
sign?". He had me dead to rights and I paid the fine. But even if I
had seen the stop sign and stopped at it, I would not have known where
he was to mount the sort of defense that you did had he chosen to cite
me for an arguably "poor" stop. In retrospect, when a cop stakes out a
residential area like that, it's usually in response to neighborhood
complaints. Evidently a lot of people blow through that particular
stop sign. Which likely is a result of its poor placement. Something
they should look into.

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.

Probably. Again, that's why in Pa, they usually give such a wide
tolerance before citing people. It's a lot harder to argue accuracy
issues when you're 15 MPH or more over.

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)

LESS likely. But remember the court usually takes the personal bias of
a passenger into consideration.

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.

Yes, but they should give you fair warning that your on the FCC's
radar, and plan accordingly.

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.

Not if you can prove that the fine is a financial burden. In many
cases, the fine will be lowered.

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.

Yes.

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.

A cop is a professional law enforcement officer, trained in the law,
and in observational skills. For that reason alone, you have to be
better able to present your case. All things being equal, the cop is
given more credibility by virtue of his job.

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,

Some people can't admit that they did something wrong, or feel that
they were somehow "singled out" over everyone else.

but if you are innocent and present your case in a legit way, you
will probably get off.

Yes, but the burden is on you to prove it so. Which is contrary to the
idea of "Innocent until proven guilty".

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.

Who did you pass?

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.

I guess you had to be there. I don't see how a video dramatization
after the fact absolves you of what the cop claimed you did.

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 don't know many people who would go to all the trouble that you did
to "prove" your case. Most just appear and "plead" their case
verbally. Again, that's why the speed law here has a high threshold,
because the court historically will throw out speed infractions
tickets which are within the realm of reasonable accuracy disputes.

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.

A perfect example of why I don't want us going down that path.

The fundamental problem is one of lack of respect. Many people feel
that their right to express themselves supersedes their responsibility
to respect the rights and feelings of others. Too often those people
place the burden of responsibility to other people to clean up after,
or avoid their social infractions. The whole "if you don't like it,
turn it off (or leave)" mentality. I find that mentality to be
extremely selfish, and inconsiderate.

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?

If they violate a specific indecency law, I would say that they're
fair game.

Because you
don't have the common sense to turn it off or change channels?

Sometimes, it's too late.

Case in point, the whole Janet Jackson escapade. People have an
expectation for a certain level of programming and are unexpectedly
"shocked" by something that is not within that expectation. At the
very least, the government should impose strict guidelines for
programmers. If you want "racy" programming, then there should be
specific channels for it, and there needs to be all sorts of warnings
associated with it that warn people ahead of time what they will be
subjected to. So-called "family rated" channels would not be allowed
to carry anything in the least bit sexually or violently explicit.
Then at least people might have some choice as to what they can see
and not see. With the advent of digital TV and the ability to cram 10
or more MPEG compressed services (at 256 QAM) into the same space as
one analog TV channel, bandwidth is not a problem.

Regulation does not mean an outright ban.

That's messed up, you had better hope that the country never gets
to that stage.

I'd rather hope that the human race rediscovers the concepts of
morality, and both personal and civic responsibility.

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.

Why not? I am interested in any aspect of society that has the
potential to affect me.

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.

No, but that was the original intent.

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.

I agree with this, so how is this wrong? BTW, I support the idea of a
"civil union" for gay people for the purpose of securing secular
benefits (and liabilities) that society normally offers to married
couples. I just don't want it called "marriage".

I believe that if the gay community would back off from their
belligerent insistence on "gay marriage" and concentrate instead on
creating civil unions, they'd have far less opposition.

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.

My boss would probably agree with you. But my workload ebbs and flows.
A week or so ago, I was very busy, and I couldn't spend much time
here. Next week looks to be a busy one too. I play things by ear.....

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

On Tue, 03 May 2005 23:24:18 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:00:00 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
The difference between you and I is only a matter of degree. When you
make relative value judgements, this is the danger you run into. When
you apply logic in the justification for allowing certain behaviors,
the same logic can be applied to a successive list of increasingly
abhorrent behaviors and practices. It comes down to what you are
willing to tolerate. Once you start down that slippery slope, there's
no turning back, without abandoning your logic and adopting some sort
of "bigotry".

That "degree of morality" is established by society, not you, and not
any religious activist group. The overwhelming majority of people
(99%) feel that murder, sex crimes, etc are 'immoral'. But there
isn't much of a majority condemning homosexuality. -That's- how you
make a "relative value judgment".

Based on what statistics?

snip
If you lead a monogamous lifestyle and do not engage in dangerous
recreational habits, your chances of contracting AIDS is minuscule.

HIV doesn't care if you are gay or straight.

No, but how you get it most definitely depends on how sexually
promiscuous you are.

And maybe you missed the
boat on this one too, but a lot of people got the disease from blood
transfusions.

If you read the link I provided, you'd find that the percentage of
those people are less than 2%.

So if you are going to suggest that AIDS is a disease
that is contracted only by evil people then you are even more ignorant
than you have so far demonstrated.

If you are suggesting that sexual promiscuity and gender orientation
have no part in it, then you are more ignorant that you are accusing
me of.

If you want to drastically slow down the spread of AIDS, the answer is
quite simple. Abstain from sex.

Science therefore vindicated the gay community. But it also exposed
people to their own misperceptions about homosexuality. Apparently you
weren't paying attention.

I was paying attention. To the facts.

There are many who believe that AIDS is the work of God, sent to
punish those who engage in "unworthy" behavior. It's easy for those
who have little faith in a supreme being to deny this possibility. But
it's interesting in where the highest percentages of HIV cases are,
and what activities place people at the most risk. Coincidence?

I was wrong about you, Dave. I thought you were intelligent but a
little misguided. Now I see that you are a certifiable holy-roller
racist whacko.

I am far from a holy roller, but I also cannot deny both the timing
and the groups of people who have had the most affect from this
disease. I'm not one who believes in random coincidences, so I am
forced to consider the possibility that this could be deliberate. It's
called having an open mind. Something you have demonstrated that you
do not have by discarding it and covering it by an ad-hominem attack
at me.

BTW, how is this "racist"?

snip
Well, kick back and pop a
brew, Dave, because this is America,

A nation founded by Christian people based on Christian doctrine, even
if the 1st amendment decries that there is no "official" state
sponsored religion.

Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the
main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the
Constitutional Convention.

Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to
the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded
as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office.

This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom (as
well as other important principles). After being forced by England to
practice only one religion (the religion of the state), the new
Americans wanted people to have the freedom to practice religion
according to their belief, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
Bhuddism, Taoism, Monoanimism..... or even no religion at all.

The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state.

Not "officially", but our whole government is littered with Christian
references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings. The swearing
on the Bible, and others. Things that have been here for many years,
yet liberals are now fighting to have removed.

and you have the right to
practice your religion as you see fit -- just let the rest of us do
the same.

As long as what you do doesn't infringe on what I do or diminish the
values that this country was originally founded on.

Gay marriage doesn't change your legal rights and responsibilities. It
doesn't change your tax filing status. It doesn't give your kids birth
defects. It doesn't invalidate your will. It doesn't change your life
insurance policy premiums, or any other bills you pay.

Actually it may. If insurance is forced to extend benefits to same sex
partners, the increased the pool of insured, which will mean that
everyone's rates will ultimately increase to cover it.

It doesn't
change the color of your house, the mileage of your car, or how fast
the weeds grow in your garden. It doesn't affect you in any way except
the way you feel.

It tarnishes the sanctity of marriage. If you are someone who does not
believe strongly in anything, then nothing can affect you. Who was it
that said that "those who will not stand for anything, stand for
nothing"?

And -you- are responsible for the way you feel, not -anybody- else.
There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates how a person should
feel. If gay marriage weakens the value of your marriage, it does so
only because you let it, and that's nobody's fault but your own.

It diminishes the value of the whole institution. It's not much
different in principle than earning a college degree. If they change
the requirements for a college degree to only needing 2 years of
course study, then it diminishes the value of that degree for those
who put in their 4 years.

If your bigoted brain had any intelligence you would realize that gay
marriage would -strengthen- the value of your marriage because it
provides a contrast to your own definition of the union.

How does diluting an institution strengthen it?

But that's
not the case. You just hate homosexuals. It's as simple as that, isn't
it, Dave?

It's easy for people like you to vilify and demonize any opposing
views as hate. That's an overly simplistic justification and usually a
sign of someone who's afraid to take on the topic and discuss it to
the level that's needed. A common tactic employed by liberals. Are you
SURE you're not a liberal Frank?

I don't "hate" anyone Frank. But I do acknowledge that homosexuals are
biologically and mentally anomalous. It's not "normal" behavior no
matter how much anyone wishes to sugar coat it. I also resent efforts
to "normalize" obvious abnormal behavior rather than trying harder to
correct it.

snip
..... Or do you support the position
of right-wing conservative Christians who say (by their actions) that
any participation of fags in America's free-market economy should be
supressed?

Sometimes politics is at odds with economic considerations. Sometimes
you have to cut off your own nose to make a much larger point. That's
called "principle"

A simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

But would have been incorrect.

snip
The "right" choice is any choice that isn't unconstitutional.

The constitution is relative as well. It was framed by Christian
people with their religious inspired morality contained within its
wording.

You have obviously never read it.

I have. Many times.

Maybe you should. Here it is:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

If you choose to reject science and
logic, that's your business.

Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of a creator or, more
generally, the concept of intelligent design. Our whole ecosystem, the
intricate specialization of the various functions of our bodies and
other aspects of nature are far too complex to have occurred and
evolved at random. There is simply not enough order in chaos for this
to happen.

I see you slept through history -and- science.

No, actually those were my strongest subjects. I had to explain to my
4th grade teacher how nuclear fission worked. I have also studied the
intricacies of our planet and its ecosystem. It is far too complex to
have evolved totally randomly.

If I'm wrong then you can rest assured
that I'll pay for my indiscretions -- but that's -my- business, not
your's.

Yes, it is. But it's my business if you try to poison others by
"immoral" thinking. And hence we have the classic "moral dilemma".

No, it's -not- your business if I try to "poison" others by stating
that I'm an atheist.

You can state anything you want. But don't get mad if those who
disagree with you, challenge you.

You have just as much right to declare that you
are a Christian (or whatever warped permutation of religion you have
adopted to validate your "core beliefs"). And no group of Christians,
no matter how large, has the right to impose it's version of morality
on me.

Nor do you have the right to denounce any display of religiously
inspired morality.

This is 21st Century America, not the dark ages or the Spanish
Inquisition. But it -is- your business to abide by the Constitution
the United States, which clearly states that religion has no place in
this government. If that makes you feel bad, tuff ****. Learn to live
with it or get out. I would highly recommend the latter.

I just wish all those sore losers at the end of the 2004 election
would make good on their threats to leave this country and join
Canada. Then this country can return to more traditional values.

These "Christians" really need to start practicing what they
preach. Or at least how to live and let live.

Not when abhorrent behavior is cancerous to their way of life. They
have a right to fight for what they believe in, just as much as those
who would throw traditional morality to the wind in support of the
latest hedonistic pop-culture fad.

Rock and roll is here to stay, Dave.

Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good,
and that new ideas are always better than old ones right? March like
the rest of the lemming right off the cliff........

snip
Once again you are confused, Dave. It was statutory law that initiated
the Constitutional challenge. The statute was -overthrown- by the
Supreme Court, not established.

Exactly. But what right should a branch of government which is
supposed to interpret and apply the law, have in making or overturning
standing law? That is the job for the legislature.

Oh dear god, you really don't have any clue about how the government
works, do you? Three branches of government? Checks and balances?
Seperataion of powers? But why should I be suprised -- you haven't
even read the Constitution.

I told you before. But you don't seem to know how government works.
The legislative branch makes the laws. The executive branch enacts
them. The judicial branch applies them. Those are your checks and
balances.

And case law is just as much 'law' as
statutory law because of the system of 'checks and balances' -- to
suggest that a law is something less because it is a "judicial ruling"
is completely bogus.

I call it "overstepping their bounds". No law that is made by the
legislature should be struck down by a panel of judges without debate,
which should include the legislature who passed the law in the first
place.

When I realize that people like you vote, it comes as no suprise that
Bush was re-elected..... he has great appeal with the ignorant.

Then you should have voted for him. No, strike that. You're not
ignorant. You're worse. You think you know things, but what you know
is twisted.

It's clear that you never learned the basics of your own government.

Because I don't agree with your warped view of it?

Just like you never learned the basics of electronics. The problem is
that you can't possibly make an informed decision about who to vote
for if you don't even know the job description!

I'm not the one who threw away my vote on a non-candidate. One who is
the most socialist leaning of any of them. Yet you claim to support
the constitution. You are a person of contradictions Frank. No wonder
you can't understand what I'm telling you.

Climb down off your morality horse

Morality is the foundation of any successful government. You have yet
to learn that.

Dave
"Sandbagger"