• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

(Now, with 106% moar *PAINT* illustration) I fought the law and...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mikeford said:
Going to court requires an understanding of the law if you want to win. Showing your "evidence" isn't enough, you need to break the officers testimony, show some clear contradiction within the requirements of the statute including the logic behind your evidence.

The critical area is usually your cross examination of the officer where you set up the contradiction with the evidence. Such as asking did you observe my vehicle at the white line before the stop light?

Common mistake is that you bring evidence that is fishy, or doesn't directly relate to the charge or the points of the statute the officer is required to meet.
Click to expand...

In other words, you are guilty by accusation until you prove you are innocent. It's a fucked up, back assward country, you do realize that.
 
boomhower said:
No law against it here, drives me crazy.
Click to expand...

No law for avoiding a stop light light? It's one of the few traffic laws cops here care about. We can speed, cut red lights, merge in the left turn lanes and the cops don't care as long as you are not being unsafe. But cut through a parking lot to avoid a light and let a cop see you? You are done.
 
SSSnail said:
Yeah, should've called Saul. I tripped the officer up pretty good, but I don't think the judge had any interest in hearing it.
Click to expand...

So did you not stop at all, st-go, or come to an absolute complete stop?

I think judges realize that like 3% of the population or maybe even less, comes to a complete and utter stop... It's quite a ridiculous notion you should do it every time.
😉
 
mizzou said:
So did you not stop at all, st-go, or come to an absolute complete stop?

I think judges realize that like 3% of the population or maybe even less, comes to a complete and utter stop... It's quite a ridiculous notion you should do it every time.
😉
Click to expand...

This.

I'm thinking that's the only reason you still got cited is because whether or not she could see where you were, she *could* see whether you completely stopped at *any* given point in time which means she could confidently call the "California stop" on you.

And don't think for one minute I'm on their side. Traffic citations royally PISS me off. I want cops to fight criminal activity, not petty traffic violations. It was interesting that I noticed in my town there was a MASSIVE flood of police pulling folks over after January 1. It's a matter of a chief meeting with officers telling them, "Go get 'em!" and then as soon as that quota's met, thy citations cool down. F#^@ 'em!! That is some sinister bullsh!t right there.

Glad you fought it!!!! FWIW!!
 
mizzou said:
did you represent yourself?
Click to expand...

I really don't think that should matter. The way it's supposed to work is that the defendant shouldn't have to prove anything because the burden of proof should be on the officer.

I know that's not how the system works, especially when dealing with circuit courts or trying to disprove an officer's testimony.

I think that too many people place way too much trust in cops. Whenever someone is charged with a crime, most people immediately assume that person is guilty of that crime just as most people will take the side of the police officer in cases of altercations with civilians and law enforcement.

Not saying that all cops are bad. I've known a few cops, and even they will tell you that they are human beings who are just as flawed as anyone else.
 
SSSnail said:
The law won.

Cited by CHP for turning right on red light without stopping. Went to court, contested the ticket with photographic evidence that there was no way on earth the officer could have seen the white line, let alone the right turning lane. Still guilty. FTML.

Justice, as they say, is indeed blind, and it wasn't served today.

Edit: As promised, here are the pictures I took of the intersection, from different angles. These are the same pictures I presented to the Judge/Jury/Executioner.

In the opening statement, the officer stated that she was behind two cars turning right. After I showed her the pictures, she said she was in the middle of the intersection. Mind you, her light had just turned green when I was about to get on the on ramp, and I saw her when I cleared a truck that was in the way.

Here's the approach to the freeway, I would be on the right lane, in a car that's has a much lower profile than what you'll typically see there.
12687809554_de85e38551_b.jpg


Here's a picture of a truck, waiting for the light, pretty much in the same condition as when I got the ticket. Note where the truck stops, and where the white line is.

12687813254_c1030d61de_b.jpg


Here's a picture of the road, without any cars in it, so you can see the shrubs.

12687343815_081a872b36_b.jpg


Here's the money shot, where the CHP car was, and the officer's POV when I saw her, before she turned on her lights, went through the intersection and tagged me just right before I got on the freeway. Take note of the truck and car position waiting for their light as other cars were turning left onto the freeway.

12687817574_e32dfc4fee_b.jpg


And, as promise, awesome PAINT illustration of the entire scene.
12687817954_a091d2a3fa_b.jpg

kkbkK9
Click to expand...

Needs a banana for reference
 
Police are like grizzly bears standing next to a rushing stream grabbing random salmon out of the air as they go about their business.

Even though you did nothing wrong, you happened to be the unlucky salmon and get to contribute your money to the police. Now you can smile when you have taxes deducted knowing they're going to bullies with guns and badges that use your own money to harass you.
 
Clearly a great injustice has been committed here. You should appeal to the US supreme court.

As for financing your appeal, Kickstarter is your friend.

Good luck
 
1) Were you actually arguing that you stopped, or didn't stop? That makes a world of difference regarding your evidence. If you claimed that you did stop and she said you didn't, then your evidence would be relevant. If you were only arguing that she couldn't see, then that means shit because you admitted you're guilty of not stopping.
2) What is your car's make/model and color? Are you driving a douchemobile like a red porsche/vette/ricer? If so, no sympathy here.
3) It's possible that she could have seen the roof of your car over the bush, but we need more info (#2).
4) Alex Smith, and Jesus, love you.
 
Last edited:
88keys said:
I really don't think that should matter. The way it's supposed to work is that the defendant shouldn't have to prove anything because the burden of proof should be on the officer.

I know that's not how the system works, especially when dealing with circuit courts or trying to disprove an officer's testimony.

I think that too many people place way too much trust in cops. Whenever someone is charged with a crime, most people immediately assume that person is guilty of that crime just as most people will take the side of the police officer in cases of altercations with civilians and law enforcement.

Not saying that all cops are bad. I've known a few cops, and even they will tell you that they are human beings who are just as flawed as anyone else.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how court works.

It's not that hard to come up with some evidence for the officer.

One still needs to defend against that.

This is a good summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
 
Last edited:
alkemyst said:
I don't think you understand how court works.

It's not that hard to come up with some evidence for the officer.

One still needs to defend against that.

This is a good summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
Click to expand...


What evidence? The officer's word? That's not evidence. I understand how courts work and I know that justice is often perverted, but I don't think that you understand what it means to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Assuming that the story is accurate, the OP raised doubt that the officer we even able to see his car in the first place. That and she changed her story. That really should have been good enough. But if you want to win against law enforcement, you're gonna have pay a lawyer to talk to the judge before the trial even begins at which point he'll most likely decide his verdict before the trial even begins.
 
Last edited:
88keys said:
What evidence? The officer's word? That's not evidence. I understand how courts work and I know that justice is often perverted, but I don't think that you understand what it means to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Assuming that the story is accurate, the OP raised doubt that the officer we even able to see his car in the first place. That and she changed her story.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the differences between federal, civil and traffic courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top