EBSB52 0
Recommended Posts
QuoteHe doesn't go to jail for this. He just gets billed for it.
Or else he can move to Florida, like OJ and stiff the judgement. OJ is still searching the golf courses of Florida for the REAL killers....
He didn't stiff the judgment. There were writs issued and OJ lost most of his possessions to satisfy the judgment. OJ is living rather comfortably, however, on his retirement. Retirement income CANNOT be collected because a federal law, ERISA, does not allow it.
His home on Rockingham is now gone! I mean gone as in razed.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
EBSB52 0
QuoteQuoteHe doesn't go to jail for this. He just gets billed for it.
Or else he can move to Florida, like OJ and stiff the judgement. OJ is still searching the golf courses of Florida for the REAL killers....
He didn't stiff the judgment. There were writs issued and OJ lost most of his possessions to satisfy the judgment. OJ is living rather comfortably, however, on his retirement. Retirement income CANNOT be collected because a federal law, ERISA, does not allow it.
His home on Rockingham is now gone! I mean gone as in razed.
It was leveled, right? Why did they levela viable house? Was it that it wouldn't sell? His dead ex-wifes house sold.....
I like this one......
"Cop didn't show and even if he did judges love favors from cops, so they would dismiss the case to protect the recorded statements from getting too public in case the cop runs a light and kills innocent people."
Could it be they dismissed the case because of the simple fact the cop is the ONLY witness for the Prosecutor, and without the ONLY witness, the Prosecutor has no way to prove the evidence provided in the notes on the ticket?? Just maybe??
As for police not being allowed to speed, I think you're a little confused. Most state, and all provincial traffic acts up here in Canada, have sections that percluded police from certain rules of the road to enforce traffic laws. Thats why cops can pace you to figure out you speed.
I don't know what Utopia you live in......
"Cop didn't show and even if he did judges love favors from cops, so they would dismiss the case to protect the recorded statements from getting too public in case the cop runs a light and kills innocent people."
Could it be they dismissed the case because of the simple fact the cop is the ONLY witness for the Prosecutor, and without the ONLY witness, the Prosecutor has no way to prove the evidence provided in the notes on the ticket?? Just maybe??
As for police not being allowed to speed, I think you're a little confused. Most state, and all provincial traffic acts up here in Canada, have sections that percluded police from certain rules of the road to enforce traffic laws. Thats why cops can pace you to figure out you speed.
I don't know what Utopia you live in......
I don't put a whole lot of faith in jurys. Would put my faith in a judge, who should be the one with the professional law expercience to know the way the law reads, not some jury member that could possibly let emotions or feeling other than fact affect there judgement. One of the jury members in the MJ trial, for example, seemed upeset with one of the witnesses for the prosecutor because she "snapped her fingers at us". Ok, immature, but has nothing to do with the facts of the case in question. Now I don't know if MJ is guilty or not guilty, don't care. But it shows that juries focus on just as much of the fact as the courtroom antics of witnesses.
EBSB52 0
QuoteI like this one......
"Cop didn't show and even if he did judges love favors from cops, so they would dismiss the case to protect the recorded statements from getting too public in case the cop runs a light and kills innocent people."
Could it be they dismissed the case because of the simple fact the cop is the ONLY witness for the Prosecutor, and without the ONLY witness, the Prosecutor has no way to prove the evidence provided in the notes on the ticket?? Just maybe??
As for police not being allowed to speed, I think you're a little confused. Most state, and all provincial traffic acts up here in Canada, have sections that percluded police from certain rules of the road to enforce traffic laws. Thats why cops can pace you to figure out you speed.
I don't know what Utopia you live in......
Could it be they dismissed the case because of the simple fact the cop is the ONLY witness for the Prosecutor, and without the ONLY witness, the Prosecutor has no way to prove the evidence provided in the notes on the ticket?? Just maybe??
First of all, the USC allows for every state jurisdiction to run it's traffic system the way they want. Here in Nazizona the state has done something to make extorting money from motorists easier. The ARS has been circumvented around the criminal process for smaller traffic tickets, hence there is a separate section in the rules of court for "Civil traffic violation cases." The jeopardy is less, but due process is a joke here. The cop plays the prosecutor.
Funny tho, if you appeal the ticket higher than the superior court, who plays the first level appellate court, it gets transferred as a criminal case. The reason is that they would be required to adhere to federal due process rules if it were criminal from the start, and it’s easier to extort the bling from the defendants w/o that interference.
Anyway, the statement you took was out of context; I'll put it back in context for you.
I have beat several tickets, but the only way to do it is to incriminate the cop. For example, I had a criminal speeding ticket 3 years back that I took to discovery first. During that meeting, I asked the cop how fast he was going to catch me, he replied, "75-80." That was all I needed.
More facts:
cited for 67 in a 45, cop was stopped, pulled me over exactly 1 mile away, either he was going 80 in a 45 to catch me or I wasn't going 67. Cop didn't show and even if he did judges love favors from cops, so they would dismiss the case to protect the recorded statements from getting too public in case the cop runs a light and kills innocent people. Virtually the only way to win a ticket is to drag the cop into it somehow - sucks on both ends.
So, the point I was making was that cops will intentionally stay away from a trial if there has been a deposition and statements were made that are unfavorable to them. And if they had the balls to show, or if the incriminating evidence came out at trial/hearing, the judge will likely pitch the case to protect the cop - seen it several times. See, lower courts in AZ have a tape recorded hearing rule and if the defendant wins - no tape. If the defendant loses and wants to appeal, then the lower court need to poop a tape - if no tape, then an automatic Trial De Novo. I’m speaking of AZ runs its cases, every jurisdiction is a little different. AZ is one of the worst in the nation as far as due process goes. So do you now understand my original point?
As for police not being allowed to speed, I think you're a little confused.
See, you’re gonna start with that garbage and then cry when it gets ugly. I think if you had a lot more knowledge I could classify you as confused. Now cry that you’ve been offended. I didn’t call you confused when you didn’t understand my point above, but you insist on it. Geez.
percluded
And I’m confused????
Most state, and all provincial traffic acts up here in Canada, have sections that percluded police from certain rules of the road to enforce traffic laws. Thats why cops can pace you to figure out you speed.
Most state… which laws preclude cops from following laws? Maybe in Canada, but in the US I know of no laws that allow cops to break laws, however that’s the US. I won’t pretend to know Canadian law and you don’t state US law unless you have cites, Mmk.
I don't know what Utopia you live in......
I don’t, I live in the US - far from utopia.
About 4 years ago as I recall, a state cop, DPS, ran a light in pursuit after being told to call off the chase and impacted a car in an intersection killing a 25yo college kid. He received 6 whopping months in county jail on a manslaughter conviction. Funny thing was that a photo red light camera got him running and speeding at over 60mph in a 40.… of course he lied about the speed and the running of the light.
Here’s another case:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/civil/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2001-001033
Cop chasing a stolen truck, told to call off, stolen truck killed the 19yo son of a doctor. City paid 2.8 million.
What if a cop, on duty or off, ran a light, was speeding, whatever the case, and causes a collision and he is on record of saying, “Ya, I will do 90 in a 40 to catch a speeder.” Criminally, depends upon the prosecutor; civilly, let’s run it thru court. Get it? If a doctor was recorded as saying that he hates seeing black patients because xyz and a black patient of his ends up suing him for malpractice and this tape surfaces……uhoh. Same with a cop on record as saying he does 80 in a 45 to catch a speeder.
Now, do you want to argue that lower court judges protect cops and vice versa? Get my points now?
To add a pint, cops use radar, VASCAR, laser and many means other than pace to establish speed. Let’s not forget visual estimation, which is the primary form of speed assessment and the first testified to AZ courts.
EBSB52 0
QuoteI don't put a whole lot of faith in jurys. Would put my faith in a judge, who should be the one with the professional law expercience to know the way the law reads, not some jury member that could possibly let emotions or feeling other than fact affect there judgement. One of the jury members in the MJ trial, for example, seemed upeset with one of the witnesses for the prosecutor because she "snapped her fingers at us". Ok, immature, but has nothing to do with the facts of the case in question. Now I don't know if MJ is guilty or not guilty, don't care. But it shows that juries focus on just as much of the fact as the courtroom antics of witnesses.
I don't put a whole lot of faith in jurys. Would put my faith in a judge, who should be the one with the professional law expercience to know the way the law reads, not some jury member that could possibly let emotions or feeling other than fact affect there judgement.
WHat you're saying here is that judges are the finder of law and juries are the finders of fact. Unless you elect to have a bench trial, the the judge is both.
One of the jury members in the MJ trial, for example, seemed upeset with one of the witnesses for the prosecutor because she "snapped her fingers at us". Ok, immature, but has nothing to do with the facts of the case in question. Now I don't know if MJ is guilty or not guilty, don't care. But it shows that juries focus on just as much of the fact as the courtroom antics of witnesses.
You think judges don't get caught up in that shit? You have got to be fucking joking. Judges can be very spitefull. W/o stating anything with the MJ deal, judges would react very harshly too, in fact, might even find a witness in contempt for that, whereas do nothing if a witness did it to the jury.
In AZ trial attnys are appointed by the governor, and they tend to be very conservative. There are limited cases where it is advantageous to elect to have a bench trial.
Where did you get your law background?? Do you work in law (lawyer mayber??), did you study it in a post secondary institute??
The reason I ask is that you seem to base several of your opinions on experience. ie the judge pitching a case to deflect the cop from getting in trouble line. This I laugh at, but then you make me laugh more when you throw in the cop running the red light and he gets in trouble. While I agree he get in trouble for several reasons (being told to stop pursuing, not displaying due diligence when he placed the need for apprehension above public safety and ran the red etc), it seems to fly in the face of the "don't go to court so you don't look like a boob" defence for the cop not showing.
As for being allowed to break the law...no they can't. Are they excempt from certain traffic law for example?? Yes. Ie: red and/or blue lights with siren allow them to go through red stop lights, GIVEN they execute due dilligence in ensuring it is safe to do so. Even when there emergency equipment legally gives them right away, they may be found civilly at fault for not using due care (ie getting t-boned). I would like to ask how cops are expected to apprehend speeders, who are going faster than the speed limit, without exceeding the speed limit as you seem to indicate.
As for judges, they find the facts and apply the law to them. Juries find what they feel to be important facts based on what they have been told about how the law works, and then make an opinion that the just, generally through case law, acts upon.
Oh, and I make my living in the legal word. And while I am not up to as much speed as you may be about American law, Canadian law I know inside and out. Here, police are required to attend court, just like any witness who receives a subpeana.
Understanding law is what I do...
J
The reason I ask is that you seem to base several of your opinions on experience. ie the judge pitching a case to deflect the cop from getting in trouble line. This I laugh at, but then you make me laugh more when you throw in the cop running the red light and he gets in trouble. While I agree he get in trouble for several reasons (being told to stop pursuing, not displaying due diligence when he placed the need for apprehension above public safety and ran the red etc), it seems to fly in the face of the "don't go to court so you don't look like a boob" defence for the cop not showing.
As for being allowed to break the law...no they can't. Are they excempt from certain traffic law for example?? Yes. Ie: red and/or blue lights with siren allow them to go through red stop lights, GIVEN they execute due dilligence in ensuring it is safe to do so. Even when there emergency equipment legally gives them right away, they may be found civilly at fault for not using due care (ie getting t-boned). I would like to ask how cops are expected to apprehend speeders, who are going faster than the speed limit, without exceeding the speed limit as you seem to indicate.
As for judges, they find the facts and apply the law to them. Juries find what they feel to be important facts based on what they have been told about how the law works, and then make an opinion that the just, generally through case law, acts upon.
Oh, and I make my living in the legal word. And while I am not up to as much speed as you may be about American law, Canadian law I know inside and out. Here, police are required to attend court, just like any witness who receives a subpeana.
Understanding law is what I do...
J
Quote
I don't put a whole lot of faith in jurys. Would put my faith in a judge, who should be the one with the professional law expercience to know the way the law reads, not some jury member that could possibly let emotions or feeling other than fact affect there judgement.
HA! Judges get quite emotional and they let it show and they let it affect their decisions....
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
EBSB52 0
QuoteQuote
I don't put a whole lot of faith in jurys. Would put my faith in a judge, who should be the one with the professional law expercience to know the way the law reads, not some jury member that could possibly let emotions or feeling other than fact affect there judgement.
HA! Judges get quite emotional and they let it show and they let it affect their decisions....
And I agree with you. The bold postst are the ones that I am quoting from someone else; the reply is in normal font. Your quote is from someone I quoted and responded to - go back and look. My reaction was basically the same as yours.
The guy posting that is from Canada, and perhaps it works that way there. He then wants to transpose whatever legal knowledge he has from Canada and pretend it works verbatum here......
To respond to your quote about...
"The guy posting that is from Canada, and perhaps it works that way there. He then wants to transpose whatever legal knowledge he has from Canada and pretend it works verbatum here......"
I post my previous quote...
"Oh, and I make my living in the legal word. And while I am not up to as much speed as you may be about American law, Canadian law I know inside and out."
Never pretended it was the same, but when it comes right down to it, case law is case law, and both system were spawned from the same school of thought.
J
"The guy posting that is from Canada, and perhaps it works that way there. He then wants to transpose whatever legal knowledge he has from Canada and pretend it works verbatum here......"
I post my previous quote...
"Oh, and I make my living in the legal word. And while I am not up to as much speed as you may be about American law, Canadian law I know inside and out."
Never pretended it was the same, but when it comes right down to it, case law is case law, and both system were spawned from the same school of thought.
J
Just to help you out a little, this coming from a cop.
First, just because I issue a ticket or make an arrest doesn't mean I have an option of whether or not to testify in court. "IF" the D.A. wants an officer in court then the officer will be issued a subpoena. If an officer isn't in court it's because he/she wasn't issued subpoena, not because the officer, D.A. or judge is afraid the officer can't prove their case or whatever reason you may think.
Second, in the United States of America the police are not allowed to "break" ANY laws on or off duty just like you. However, for the safety of the public, police while performing their duties of protecting you are allowed to do certain things that the "non-trained" general public can't. I am allowed to exceed the speed limit to catch a speeder within reason. There isn't a certain MPH over listed, just within reason. Does that mean I can do 100 mph on the interstate thats posted 65 MPH, light traffic, and the speeder is doing 75 MPH...yep it sure does and no its not "breaking the law". Can I do 65 MPH through a 15 MPH school zone to stop someone for doing 5 MPH over...no. As long as the officers are not ignoring the safty of the public it's legal not "allowed to break the law." I have testifed to my speeding in multiple high speed pursuits to prove the violators speed and it's never been questioned and it never will. Another example is it's illegal to point a gun at someone who isn't causing YOU a threat of injury or death, but I can point my gun at someone who is threatening you only, with injury or death. Wouldn't that piss you off if a cop was standing in front of you while some asshole had a knife to your neck and the cop didn't pull their weapon because it's against the law. I can go on all day with examples.
If you would like the ability to be able to do certain things that the law ALLOWS (not break) only law enforcement to do then get trained and become officer, deputy, agent, ect. Have cops made bad decisions in the past with pursuits and such...yep. If they were accountable they were held accountable. If you're talking about some backwoods area where everyone is related including spouses, you MIGHT have a point, but on the majority it's not like that.
If you got off on a few tickets congrats to you, but you didn't beat the cop you beat the court. For whatever reason the D.A. decided not to prosecute period...may have been the cop was testifying in something a little more serious that some little bullshit speeding ticket, you know something like a child abuse or rape case.
Editededed: spling
First, just because I issue a ticket or make an arrest doesn't mean I have an option of whether or not to testify in court. "IF" the D.A. wants an officer in court then the officer will be issued a subpoena. If an officer isn't in court it's because he/she wasn't issued subpoena, not because the officer, D.A. or judge is afraid the officer can't prove their case or whatever reason you may think.
Second, in the United States of America the police are not allowed to "break" ANY laws on or off duty just like you. However, for the safety of the public, police while performing their duties of protecting you are allowed to do certain things that the "non-trained" general public can't. I am allowed to exceed the speed limit to catch a speeder within reason. There isn't a certain MPH over listed, just within reason. Does that mean I can do 100 mph on the interstate thats posted 65 MPH, light traffic, and the speeder is doing 75 MPH...yep it sure does and no its not "breaking the law". Can I do 65 MPH through a 15 MPH school zone to stop someone for doing 5 MPH over...no. As long as the officers are not ignoring the safty of the public it's legal not "allowed to break the law." I have testifed to my speeding in multiple high speed pursuits to prove the violators speed and it's never been questioned and it never will. Another example is it's illegal to point a gun at someone who isn't causing YOU a threat of injury or death, but I can point my gun at someone who is threatening you only, with injury or death. Wouldn't that piss you off if a cop was standing in front of you while some asshole had a knife to your neck and the cop didn't pull their weapon because it's against the law. I can go on all day with examples.
If you would like the ability to be able to do certain things that the law ALLOWS (not break) only law enforcement to do then get trained and become officer, deputy, agent, ect. Have cops made bad decisions in the past with pursuits and such...yep. If they were accountable they were held accountable. If you're talking about some backwoods area where everyone is related including spouses, you MIGHT have a point, but on the majority it's not like that.
If you got off on a few tickets congrats to you, but you didn't beat the cop you beat the court. For whatever reason the D.A. decided not to prosecute period...may have been the cop was testifying in something a little more serious that some little bullshit speeding ticket, you know something like a child abuse or rape case.
Editededed: spling
______________________________________________
"A radical man is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"A radical man is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
EBSB52 0
QuoteJust to help you out a little, this coming from a cop.
First, just because I issue a ticket or make an arrest doesn't mean I have an option of whether or not to testify in court. "IF" the D.A. wants an officer in court then the officer will be issued a subpoena. If an officer isn't in court it's because he/she wasn't issued subpoena, not because the officer, D.A. or judge is afraid the officer can't prove their case or whatever reason you may think.
Second, in the United States of America the police are not allowed to "break" ANY laws on or off duty just like you. However, for the safety of the public, police while performing their duties of protecting you are allowed to do certain things that the "non-trained" general public can't. I am allowed to exceed the speed limit to catch a speeder within reason. There isn't a certain MPH over listed, just within reason. Does that mean I can do 100 mph on the interstate thats posted 65 MPH, light traffic, and the speeder is doing 75 MPH...yep it sure does and no its not "breaking the law". Can I do 65 MPH through a 15 MPH school zone to stop someone for doing 5 MPH over...no. As long as the officers are not ignoring the safty of the public it's legal not "allowed to break the law." I have testifed to my speeding in multiple high speed pursuits to prove the violators speed and it's never been questioned and it never will. Another example is it's illegal to point a gun at someone who isn't causing YOU a threat of injury or death, but I can point my gun at someone who is threatening you only, with injury or death. Wouldn't that piss you off if a cop was standing in front of you while some asshole had a knife to your neck and the cop didn't pull their weapon because it's against the law. I can go on all day with examples.
If you would like the ability to be able to do certain things that the law ALLOWS (not break) only law enforcement to do then get trained and become officer, deputy, agent, ect. Have cops made bad decisions in the past with pursuits and such...yep. If they were accountable they were held accountable. If you're talking about some backwoods area where everyone is related including spouses, you MIGHT have a point, but on the majority it's not like that.
If you got off on a few tickets congrats to you, but you didn't beat the cop you beat the court. For whatever reason the D.A. decided not to prosecute period...may have been the cop was testifying in something a little more serious that some little bullshit speeding ticket, you know something like a child abuse or rape case.
Editededed: spling
Just to help you out a little, this coming from a cop.
With all respect, I'll understand your position bias and we should all take into consideration your jurisdiction and mine. As you know, all state jurisdictions can run their traffic rules of court, etc as they wish. So before I read your post, I will take this into consideration, just as should you take into consideration any bias I have and my differing jurisdictional rules.
First, just because I issue a ticket or make an arrest doesn't mean I have an option of whether or not to testify in court. "IF" the D.A. wants an officer in court then the officer will be issued a subpoena.
And that's what I was trying to explain to the other poster in this thread; not all tickets are criminal. In civil matters in our jurisdiction, a summons is generally issued to all parties, not a subpoena. Conversely, in civil traffic matters, no bench warrant is issued, just a suspension of the driver's license and then if the subject gets pulled over he/she has that charge as well. It's very Nazi, I would much prefer it to be the way most jurisdictions are - speeding tickets are criminal and federal criminal due process is applied. It’s total criminal due process circumvention at its finest.
Furthermore, even if you fail to appear as a witness in a traffic issue, are they even going to entertain the notion of issuing a warrant against you? They would just dismiss the ticket. If you thought there would be something incriminating coming out of the trial, you would not appear - no record. During the trial, if something comes out that incriminates you, the judge would likely pitch the ticket, as the defendant could appeal and get a transcript or recording of the statements. Judges love cops and vice versa - please don't try to get us to think otherwise.
If an officer isn't in court it's because he/she wasn't issued subpoena, ...
Never is it that the cop's car broke down or an emergency arose. Also, never is it that the few times discovery was initiated by the defendant that statements were made where the cop claims he was speeding like hell - twice over maybe - to catch a speeder. If I was a cop, I would want the matter to go away so that deposition recording became forgotten and wasn't reiterated by a court transcript.
...not because the officer, D.A. or judge is afraid the officer can't prove their case or whatever reason you may think.
See, you guys are about the finding of guilt, not the immunity and general protection of the cop (sarcasm). Again, pretend as you will, but the establishment will go to great lengths to protect cops. I can give you many examples of it.
Second, in the United States of America the police are not allowed to "break" ANY laws on or off duty just like you.
Thank you, now I hope the Canadian guy will finally realize he isn't that aware of US law. I didn’t pretend to know anything about Canadian law or jurisdiction..... anything, but Mr. legal clerk, or whatever he is, thinks he can throw a blanket across US law or international law and have it work and make sense. I know attnys that have practiced for years and are still getting better, learning, etc...
However, for the safety of the public, police while performing their duties of protecting you are allowed to do certain things that the "non-trained" general public can't.
You realize that facade is crap, right? What if you're chasing Jeff Gordon; who's untrained there? That is such crap when the system tries to portray cops as this mountain of superheroes. Just as society, they come in all different sizes, shapes, and driving abilities.
Now, please show me your jurisdiction's written rule that allows you to speed, run lights, etc. Also, is it statute (state law) or is it departmental policy? I would like you to expound on this.
I am allowed to exceed the speed limit to catch a speeder within reason.
Per??????????
There isn't a certain MPH over listed, just within reason.
Right, purely subjective, just like the government likes it, immunity via opinion. Again, I am just waiting to see where this comes from. Please list a law, statute, policy or whatever allows this, unless this is, "JUST THE WAY IT'S DONE."
Does that mean I can do 100 mph on the interstate thats posted 65 MPH, light traffic, and the speeder is doing 75 MPH...yep it sure does and no its not "breaking the law".
No charge - no crime. A scumbag cop helped to rob (I believe) my house and his department refused to initiate a police report - no report - no crime. A later conversation with his IA yielded that IA detective saying that there was a crime committed, but the prosecutor wouldn't run with it, so no report will be issued. No charge - no crime, doesn't make it legal, but it sure makes it technically a crime.
Can I do 65 MPH through a 15 MPH school zone to stop someone for doing 5 MPH over...no.
This is kind of "ends justifies the means" logic here. Is it about the per or the cop's actions?
As long as the officers are not ignoring the safty of the public it's legal not "allowed to break the law."
Alright, enough of these semantics. This concept of not legal, just not breaking law bullshit needs clarification. Macrostructurally and not limited to traffic law (please don't remind us of the fact that driving privs are not guaranteed under the US Const - I'm not saying that) , the constitution gives us rights - ordinance, state law, and federal law limit, restrict or revoke them. With that, these ordinances, state laws, and federal laws have language that spells out what is allowed and what is not, so where is it stated that cops don't have to abide by laws when pursuing so-called perps?
You know as well as I do that cops, often the youngest, most naive adults in our society, have the great power of deciding what is a crime and what is not, if it is not written then it must not have been a crime. So again, this is another, "ends justifies the means" argument from your end. If the cop does 150 in a school zone and no one is hurt, then he must have been reasonable in his discretion.
I have testifed to my speeding in multiple high speed pursuits to prove the violators speed and it's never been questioned and it never will.
You lose tons of credibility when you play Jean Dixon here. You can't foresee the future, Maybe one of those guys you helped pry money from for the sake of the state saved the recordings of you saying you sped like hell to catch him. Maybe you blow thru an intersection and kill someone, or the guy you're chasing does that, and thsi recording surfaces where you admit to essentially throwing caution to the wind to catch a 200 dollar ticket. Maybe a jury decides you acted irresponsibly and they decide to return the favor and pry some money from you to give to the decedent's family. Maybe.....
But I generally agree, cops are immune from most laws. Hell, many have killed people in very questionable circumstances and gotten away with it.
Another example is it's illegal to point a gun at someone who isn't causing YOU a threat of injury or death, but I can point my gun at someone who is threatening you only, with injury or death.
Maybe in your jurisdiction, but I believe most or all jurisdictions allow civilians to use deadly force if imminent and potentially lethal danger is present. As for justifiable homicide affirmative defenses, imminent danger of lethal proportion is a viable defense, so I disagree with you.
Wouldn't that piss you off if a cop was standing in front of you while some asshole had a knife to your neck and the cop didn't pull their weapon because it's against the law. I can go on all day with examples.
Please do go on all day, but we were talking speeding here, not use of deadly force. Granted, cops are usually excused from all the aforementioned, and this is the immunity to which I was initially referring. I do agree that cops will be made immune in virtually all civil/criminal occurrences, where we differ is that you claim it's "legal" and I disagree saying it's departmental policy or, "THE WAY IT'S DONE." BTW, departmental policy doesn’t make it legal, just makes it more of, "THE WAY IT'S DONE."
As far as your absurd example of a person holding a knife to my throat and you doing nothing because it's not you being threatened, ridiculous example. Firstly, I, as a civilian could shot a person holding another person a knifepoint and it would be justifiable homicide. Secondly, even if you still think you're right, a parent has a 'Special Relationship Contract' with their child and that parent is violating that contract, hence the law if they fail to render great aid in regard to their child. So they could definitely use any and all force to save their child and it be in the meat of JH. Furthermore, you probably don't know this - you should tho - but you are another Special Relationship Contract with your job. You have to (so the un-enforced rules go) render aid while on duty.
Oh, and please do list some relevant examples with some sort of support.
If you would like the ability to be able to do certain things that the law ALLOWS (not break) only law enforcement to do then get trained and become officer, deputy, agent, ect.
You mean be able to speed and have buddy bubba call it professional courtesy? Again, this semantic shit you call, "to do certain things that the law ALLOWS" and not calling it violating statue, is the establishment taking careof itself. If there is statute making certain behavior illegal, then that is illegal, period. Being a cop doesn't officially make you immune, just immune by practice. It's corruption at its finest.
Have cops made bad decisions in the past with pursuits and such...yep.
All the time.
If they were accountable they were held accountable.
Sadly you're right. What you meant to write was more like if they were responsible they were held accountable. Truth is you were right; if they were accountable then they were held accountable. Problem is they're often not held accountable, hence not accountable.
If you're talking about some backwoods area where everyone is related including spouses, you MIGHT have a point, but on the majority it's not like that.
Really, Phoenix is backwoods then, even tho the 5th or 6th largest city in the nation. Please don't try to shove this argument at me about it's only in remote areas. How about the Luoima case....NY is remote (rolls eyes). The LA case where they slammed the kid's face on the car and walked. Rodney King. And these were just the rare filmed incidents.
If you got off on a few tickets congrats to you, but you didn't beat the cop you beat the court.
Is there a difference? The lower court judge and the cop are as one, in reality. Can you just feel the ego here? 'You didn’t beat me, er I mean the cop, you beat the court.' I hope ya get a warm one when you pry the last few dollars from some poor slob's hands, congrats to you.
For whatever reason the D.A. decided not to prosecute period...may have been the cop was testifying in something a little more serious that some little bullshit speeding ticket, you know something like a child abuse or rape case.
Or it was a civil case and the cop is listed as the prosecutor. Uh huh, that’s right, Nazizona considers the cop as the prosecutor here in civil traffic cases. See, I’m trying to impart to you that Nazizona has most of their traffic tickets as civil, so no prosecutor is need; isn’t it Naziriffic? They do this to expedite the entire matter. Conversely some cops are made to look like the boobs they are by some defendants. Of course having the judge as a former 20-year cop and the general love between cops and lower court judges doesn’t hurt the cop’s chances to pry money form the defendant to give to the state. Let’s just call him the anti-Robin Hood. Remember when you were a kid in school and someone pulled someone’s hair and the teacher wanted to know who did it? Well, that rat-fink who told grew up to be a cop and very few like him/her. Some members might actually back you in here, but don’t be fooled, many just got tickets last week and are thinking impure thoughts about cops in general, nothing personal. Now cops that solve crimes instead of collect revenue, well that’s different in many/most cases.
In criminal court, need 100%, beyond a resonable doubt, you are guilty. Any doubt, and there is the not guilty verdict.
Welcome to utopia, now please don't wear your shoes on the silk carpet. The above listed standards of proof have general percentages assigned to them:
Reasonable suspicion = 10%
Probable cause = 255
Preponderance = anything over 50%
Beyond Reasonable DOubt = 85-90%
The bad thing is that with all standards, especially BRD, the mpre money, the higher the bar. With Jackson, let's say it was at at least 95%. I would say higher, but the jury did mull it over for 8 days.
With ray Crone it was around 60%. Ray Crone is an AZ citizen that had 2 trials by, let's say blood-thirsty AZ maggots on the jury. All they had was:
1. The defendant frequented the same local bar to play darts as the deceased worked and where she was killed.
2. The defendant had "snaggleteeth" and there was a bite on the breast of the deceased that supposedly matched it.
PERIOD
Character factors are that Ray was an honorbaly discharged veteran, never been arrested, 35 year old guy with a job and no knocks.
Ray spent 3 years on death row until he received his 2nd trial, where he was again convicted and this time the judge imparted that he was unsure of the verdict and Ray's guilt. The judge had the ability to do a "Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict" and pitch the case, but instead he sentenced Ray to life. 7 years later and 300k of Ray's families money Ray was exonerated by the bench, not a jury of self-riteous panel of maggoted jury members out for self-satisfaction.
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/criminal/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR1992-000212
In civil, if there is a likely possibility you most likely had a impact on the offence being committed, then you are found at fault.
I understand it to be more like the concept of if it is more likely than not that you caused a damage you will be found responsible. I just sued a former employer for treatment that made me quit (good cause quit).
1. They bounced 4 of 10 checks
2. They leaned on me to illegally sign off FAA docs
3. The owner of the company said that it is ok to tell coworkers you are going to kill them as long as you're kidding, but it had been established that myself and the "killer" had been on adverse grounds, so there was no joking in that relationship.
VERDICT: Employer not responsible. It was in maggot-loving Scottsdale, essentially the valley's Beverly Hills. So again, I proved my elements, the standard moves around based on your wealth, venue, etc., etc., etc.... Don't get too hung up on equal protection and due process.... they were just joking when they wrote that.
This is whether or not you had intent to commit the offence or not.
Which is the definition of strict liability.
Traffic court runs much this way.... "I didn't know I was speeding" doesn't matter. If it is reasonable to believe the evidence provided, you will be found guilty.
Er, ya. If the cop shows the state wins is more like it. I have beat several tickets, but the only way to do it is to incriminate the cop. For example, I had a criminal speeding ticket 3 years back that I took to discovery first. During that meeting, I asked the cop how fast he was going to catch me, he replied, "75-80." That was all I needed.
More facts:
cited for 67 in a 45, cop was stopped, pulled me over exactly 1 mile away, either he was going 80 in a 45 to catch me or I wasn't going 67. Cop didn't show and even if he did judges love favors from cops, so they would dismiss the case to protect the recorded statements from getting too public in case the cop runs a light and kills innocent people. Virtually the only way to win a ticket is to drag the cop into it somehow - sucks on both ends.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites