Ever wonder where some stats come from?

[ShadowHM]

I neither justify, applaud, nor whimper about anything to do with breaking traffic laws. I understand full well action and consequence. My point is that NO ONE should let ANYONE take advantage of themselves because they feel guilty about something.

So, somehow, accepting your speeding ticket when you actually were speeding is being taken advantage of because you feel guilty about having been speeding?

You suggested that people who paid their speeding fines instead of fighting them on the grounds that the police didn't really have admissible evidence were 'being scammed'. You tried to clarify that it was only because the speeders had not taken any oaths to uphold the law but the police had.

If you do the deed, feeling guilty about it should be a natural consequence, along with accepting the legal consequences. That doesn't qualify as 'being taken advantage of'.

Now if we were discussing pleading guilty to speeding when we were not speeding because we felt guilty about the illegal turn we took just before that, I would be right there with you.

[cheezz]

So, somehow, accepting your speeding ticket when you actually were speeding is being taken advantage of because you feel guilty about having been speeding?

You suggested that people who paid their speeding fines instead of fighting them on the grounds that the police didn't really have admissible evidence were 'being scammed'. You tried to clarify that it was only because the speeders had not taken any oaths to uphold the law but the police had.

I am replying despite the fact that I now think that you are starting to twist my words in order to prove to me that I am somehow wrong or misguided.

You know if you are speeding and as you pointed out, you will have a measure of guilt about it. The officer thinks you are speeding but has no legal proof and therefore no probable cause. If he pulls you over with no probable cause then it is an illegal stop. Most officers do it anyway because they know that you know that you were speeding and that you will feel guilty about it. They know that most people will self incriminate to a lesser charge because they feel guilty. In essence, they just used your guilt to get you to self incriminate to legitimize their own misconduct. That is using your guilt to take advantage of you.

If an officer has proof of speeding, it will be specifically listed on the ticket. In that case, you are caught, feel free to mail in the fine. I myself still prefer to go to court, if only to beg for mercy.

The comment about oaths was not to clarify anything. It was made to explain why I held the opinion that police misconduct was worse than traffic violations. I should have split that paragraph into two separate ones. My apologies over any confusion about that.

On to the 'scammed' issue. I never stated that all stops for speeding were scams. I offered a specific example from Pennsylvania of how police can scam you. As I stated before, the laws in PA are specific- the police must have legal proof to initiate a stop for speeding. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Failure to obey a speed limit sign is the literal definition of speeding. I've seen this particular ticket several times, (none were mine, by the way) and the section that lists proof of speed is always left blank. The officers always omit the fact that they have no proof, (again, no probable cause) and they always downplay the consequences of the ticket. Purposely omitting facts to manipulate people is lying. Paying a fine is a financial loss. Suffering a financial loss due the misrepresentations of someone else is being scammed.

You can call this lawyering all you want, but legally speaking- no proof, no crime. The police are not allowed to break the laws in order to enforce them and giving them permission to break laws just because you did serves no one.

[ShadowHM]

I do think you are misguided on this issue.

You can call this lawyering all you want, but legally speaking- no proof, no crime.

I will go with calling this rules lawyering. And while you may feel that the rules lawyering is justifiable, I disagree. The laws (on speeding, in this case) were created for a reason (public safety, in this case), and getting out of the consequences of breaking them because of the way they were written is still circumventing the intent and purpose of them.

I am having trouble understanding why you would persist in defending this.

The police are not allowed to break the laws in order to enforce them

Agreed.

giving them permission to break laws just because you did serves no one.

But what has this to do with paying a speeding ticket when you were actually speeding? I fail to see how this is tantamount to 'giving them permission to break laws'.

I may well have misunderstood your explanation, but all I am seeing is that if the officer doesn't fill in the form correctly with the evidence that the form requires then you don't have to pay the fine for speeding. I am not seeing any rationale for them to not stop you in the first place (because, yanno, you were speeding). What law are they breaking by doing that?

[kandrathe]

I do think you are misguided on this issue.

... adding my two cents... I'm a part of the system, and not external to it. The traffic laws exist due to a consensus opinion of my fellow citizens. I may disagree with them, but to deny my guilt, or force them to prove it adds to the burden to the system I help to pay for. If I am passionate enough to change the system, I would begin by organizing my fellow citizens to petition the government for changes to the laws. As, has happened with speed limits in our state.

[cheezz]

"Innocent until proven guilty." Interesting concept.

I'll try to condense this as much as I can. This applies to PA only.

There are currently three methods of proving speed acceptable in PA.

1. Pacing you for 3/10 of a mile. They can pull you over for any amount.

2. Electronic device (ex. - radar). They can't nail you until you are at least 6 miles over the limit. These devices are limited to state troopers.

3. Manual device (ex. - timer). They can't nail you until you are at least 10 miles over the limit.

PA supreme court has ruled that officers can't use 'estimates' or 'opinions' of speed to pursue/initiate a stop.

PA legislature repeatedly refuses to grant the police use of rolling radar and speed cameras.

Police may NOT pursue/initiate a stop for speeding unless one of these three methods was used, and the criteria met. All equipment must be tested and recertified at specific intervals.

They are required to inform you of the whats, whys and hows. If you get a speeding ticket, it will tell you how you were timed, where you were timed, when you were timed, what speed you were timed at, and when the equipment was last certified.

They are NOT allowed to pull you over without probable cause. In the case of speeding, concrete proof of speeding is the only way to give them probable cause. If that section of the ticket is blank, it's because they didn't time you. If they didn't time you, they have no probable cause and by law CANNOT pull you over. If they pull you over anyway, they are knowingly breaking the law. They can't write a speeding ticket based on evidence that came from where the sun don't shine.

If they catch me fair and square, I'll plead guilty. If they want make it up as they go, Ima fightin it.

Kandrathe - A cop fabricates probable cause, tramples my rights, and I'm the burden? And here I thought I was entitled to due process.

ShadowHM - I hope you realize this is for sake of argument. I have a CDL and have used it to provide for myself. I keep my nose as clean as I can because I don't want to jeopardize my CDL.


sidenote - There has been a seemingly endless parade in my area of cops being caught doing horrible crimes. One wonders how many of those downward spirals started with fudging tickets.

[eppie]

There are currently three methods of proving speed acceptable in PA.

Yes, to have these rules are a general thing everywhere, even though the exact rules might differ a bit.

In my perception it happens many, many times more often that people try and fight the fact they got a ticket for all kinds of little nittpicking legal errors the police made (like two days to late with calibrating the device).
So what happens is that people actually find it correct that they should not pay a fine because of some small procedural error (even though they were speeding) and often the judge agrees with them.

These are all your 'model well behaving citizens' and that it is generally cool to complain about the police giving speeding tickets. So these people costs us valuable court time etc. etc.
So in my country police brutality doesn't happen so often and I see this whining about getting tickets as a far greater problem.
(and to be honest.... if you are really unlucky you get 1 ticket for every 100 times you drive over the speed limits or so?)

[kandrathe]

Kandrathe - A cop fabricates probable cause, tramples my rights, and I'm the burden? And here I thought I was entitled to due process.

If you are guilty of a crime, and the cop accurately cites you for violating the law, then you can decide to either fight the system to (wrongfully) prove your innocence, or accept your punishment. Personally, I go to court for most every ticket I get, and I truthfully explain my side of the story, apologize where needed, and ask the court for leniency if I feel it is merited.

There has been a seemingly endless parade in my area of cops being caught doing horrible crimes. One wonders how many of those downward spirals started with fudging tickets.

I've met many cops off duty who are in it for the power trip, and shouldn't be cops at all. My grandfather was an honorable cop, and I'd wince when he told some of his stories of subduing perpetrators -- but, he was a humble, and good man. It's the kind of job that alters your perception of the value of human beings.

[cheezz]

As I have said, I have no issue if I am caught fair and square. The problem is that if they fabricate their evidence, I have only one of two choices I can make. I can plead guilty, which while morally right puts my personal stamp of approval on their lawlessness; or I can plead innocence and get the ticket dismissed, thereby proving that their actions were wrong. Even after that, there are no repercussions for them anyway. The system is set up to proclaim one party right and one party wrong. There are no allowances for both parties being wrong. Worse, one party can be punished for being wrong but the other one can't.

You have to understand, I have spent most of my life in Washington county, PA. It can best be described as urban sprawl meets the country. Some townships and municipalities have their own police, some don't. Some don't have a big enough tax base to support a police force so you can guess what happens- They may not exist to write tickets, but they do write tickets to exist. In twenty years of driving I have been railroaded twice. In both cases, I had physical proof that they could not have timed anybody. In one I had a witness as well. Neither cop actually knew if anyone was speeding. One was handing out tickets at random like candy and the other was fishing for drunks. (wasn't drunk, so he had to invent a reason to legalize his stop) Both cops were from forces known
for funding themselves with fine money and didn't bother to show up for court.

Time for bed, I need to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for yet another lythotripsy.

[kandrathe]

Time for bed, I need to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for yet another lythotripsy.

This too shall pass. Sorry about the pain.