RugerForum.com

This is a Ruger Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent Sturm Ruger & Company Inc. of Southport, CT.
It is currently Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:59 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:57 pm 
Buckeye

Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:14 pm
Posts: 1008
Location: Oregon
It was mentioned an officers testimony in court is taken differently than the defendant and others said there is no difference in weight of testimony. Your both partly right, here's why. This standard should be in all courts, but I suspect when the judge is the officers uncle in small town USA it maybe different.
In violations or sometimes called tickets the officer is the prosecutor of the case. The officer is a officer of the court. The officer must know facts and present them, here there is only about 6 things that must be proved to have the officer win. If the officer forgets or is caught making facts up the case should and will be dismissed. I know of 3 officers who were ruled has not creatable or really liers. They were bared bringing cases into that court or Judges courtroom.
So the facts of a case by an officer is held to a higher standard. The testimony if given correctly is weighted more as the true facts.
Unless the defendant is a lawyer or really good at disproving the officers testimony with facts and not web stuff they read about, the officer wins.
The defendant is a lay person and their testimony can be all over the place, not just facts. The Judges in courts here give defendants much more leeway, many do not like the officer objecting even when it's not valid testimony. They want the lay person to have their say in court to a degree and will stop them when they feel they should. That's their job.
This is a summary of a speeding violation: Officer presents all needed facts including how the speed was obtained, including tests of equipment and training.
Defendant mainly was thinking if the officer fails to show I win. Most never have a defense. Most are nervous, many say my speedometer in my car showed XX speed not what officer said, but have no proof that it was a correct verified speed. Some think they are making a defense to the charge. Normally it is not a defense that they use, just thought or feelings.
I have always said to new officers I trained, we always win in court, even if the ruling was against us. Do better next time. (Officers who lose much in traffic court do not care or need better training I have seen both). We get OT or 3 hours call back or are taken away from responding to crashes just to show up to sit inside a building during rain/hot weather etc. It is a break from patrol and is not punishment. We always get paid.


Last edited by kmoore on Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:09 pm 
Blackhawk

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:50 am
Posts: 676
Location: Saint Petersburg, FL
Thank God that I never married a wombat like her, that would have been unending Hell.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:00 pm 
Hawkeye
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 12808
mistermills357 wrote:
Thank God that I never married a wombat like her, that would have been unending Hell.


But remember...she's a country girl. :roll: :mrgreen:

_________________
Cary Chapman
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:22 pm 
Hawkeye

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:01 am
Posts: 9725
Location: Memphis, TN USA
caryc wrote:
If you're driving along the freeway at 80 MPH and a cop is behind you and clocks you at 80 MPH and stops you and issues a ticket, it's your word against the cops that you were going 80 MPH.

Who's word do you suppose the judge in court is going to take? A police officers word certainly does carry more weight in court. For one thing, being that the defendant is a perfect stranger to the officer, it is assumed that the officer has no reason to lie and is just carrying out his job.


CaryC,

You remind me of a story (groan!) about my late son-in-law. He got a speeding ticket for going 65 mph in a 55 mph zone. He took the ticket, signed for it, and decided to contest it.

In court, the police officer testified he clocked Mike going 65 mph on his cruiser's speedometer. Son-in-law's response: "That just shows you had to go 65 to overtake me. If I was (sic)going 65, you would not have caught up with me."

Judge dismissed the charge.

Bob Wright


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:28 pm 
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:26 pm
Posts: 8732
Location: Illinois
Yep ..... her word against that mean bad cops ..... and the video. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:52 am 
Single-Sixer

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:59 pm
Posts: 276
Location: East of Austin
Actually both escalated the situation the tail light was not an arrest-able offence, the officer is required to tell her that she is required by law to sign the ticket , she does not have to sign it, usually the court would issue a warrant for her to appear. The officer showed NO professionalism and He is the one who chose to pursue her . She showed a lack of respect for the law BUT, with all the problems of late with police corruption it is little wonder why this is continuing to happen. IMHO


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:46 am 
Hawkeye
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 12808
jack black wrote:
Actually both escalated the situation the tail light was not an arrest-able offence, the officer is required to tell her that she is required by law to sign the ticket , she does not have to sign it, usually the court would issue a warrant for her to appear. The officer showed NO professionalism and He is the one who chose to pursue her . She showed a lack of respect for the law BUT, with all the problems of late with police corruption it is little wonder why this is continuing to happen. IMHO


He didn't arrest her for the tail light. He arrested her for not signing the ticket.

_________________
Cary Chapman
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:01 am 
Buckeye
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:04 pm
Posts: 1837
Location: Texas
jack black wrote:
t..........the tail light was not an arrest-able offence, the officer is required to tell her that she is required by law to sign the ticket , she does not have to sign it ........



Obviously some of y'all don't wanna realize that statutes differ State to State, but most do follow a similar theme.....well, at least the ones that are signatories of the NRVC. Y'all might wanna take a minute to familiarize yourself with that one..... :idea:
As has been posted, the signature is not a plea. It is only your "Promise to Appear" and make some type of disposition on the citation within the allotted time period. That fact is (usually) printed near the signature block. In Texas the usual methods are: setting it a for a trial, paying the fine or requesting a "compliance dismissal" (in this instance, by showing proof that you have fixed the taillight). There are subcategories for each, but these terms are the most easily understood. If you are unwilling to make that (roadside) written promise, you may be "taken immediately before a magistrate". Once there, you will most likely be required to post a "surety bond" ($$$), which the courts will hold (as an your monetary "Promise to Appear") until your case is disposed of. If you opt for a trial and don't show up (or show good cause as to why), the bond can be forfeited and a warrant issued for your arrest. Additional consequences to that scenario: with that outstanding warrant, not only are you subject to arrest...... but you may not be able to register or re-register any vehicle in your name, do any maintenance on your drivers license, renew, replace lost or even changing your address comes to mind.
In Texas, there are only two offense that you cannot be immediately arrested for.
The first is speeding (unless it is of such velocity that it becomes a "reckless driving" charge).
The second is a violation of the "open container" statute......yeah, it's stupid.....but hey, it came from Austin.

This is where that NRVC thing comes into play. I do not know the procedures of each of the non-participating entities now, but years back if you were a non-resident, stopped for a traffic violation (and not an active military member) you were required to post a cash bond (usually the cost of the cite) or surrender your home-State DL as your "Promise to Appear". That was done using a pre-addressed envelope ...... right there on the side of the road....well, more accurately, at the closest USPS public mailbox. If you did not make finale disposition, the cash bond was forfeit and became your payment as well as your guilty plea. I do not know what happened if you chose to surrender you DL to them as I was never that stupid. I just paid the fine and went on with my life.....

Y'all do what ya want......but I suggest that you know all of the rules before you decide to play the game. :idea:

I tell all my folks, "y'all be just as nice as the public lets ya".

_________________
Between Fort Worth and Waco
Fight only when you must. But if you must fight, do it like you're the third monkey tryin' to get on the Ark.
NRA Benefactor Member


Last edited by tinman on Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:37 am, edited 15 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:02 am 
Buckeye
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:04 pm
Posts: 1837
Location: Texas
caryc wrote:

He didn't arrest her for the tail light. He arrested her for not signing the ticket.


.........I think her driving off played a bigger part....... :roll:

_________________
Between Fort Worth and Waco
Fight only when you must. But if you must fight, do it like you're the third monkey tryin' to get on the Ark.
NRA Benefactor Member


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:55 am 
Hunter
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:21 pm
Posts: 3095
Location: Orange County,CA
BTW - just for some context of why a warning wasn't issued here's a picture of the busted tail light that she admitted to the officer she'd been driving around with for 6 months...

Image

...I think that goes beyond a warning if you ask me. It's not like it's a little crack or a small hole in it. Obviously it's totally inoperable.

_________________
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you. -- Gen.9:3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 3:22 pm 
Hunter
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 1:01 am
Posts: 4089
Location: Davisburg, MI. USA
Bob Wright wrote:
A police officer's word carries no more weight in court than does the defendant's.
Bob Wright


Bob, don't believe that for a second.

Long story, but I will shorten it as much as possible. I was driving my Father in Laws full size Pontiac for the day. My car was a tiny econobox. I left work about 9pm. It was well after dark. On the freeway (M-59) near work I caught my self doing 65 in a 55. It did not feel that fast due the large change in car size. (55 was max back then) I promptly set the cruise for 55 to prevent this from happening again. A couple miles later M-59 met I-75. It's a nice ramp and I did not need to turn off the cruise. Just as I merge a white car FLYS past me on I-75 and gets off at the next exit. Just as he exits I see flashing lights crest a hill in the top 1/4" of mirror. He was waaaaayyyy back there. I grin and think to myself that guy is toast. NOPE. The cops pulls up behind me and pulls me over. Says he paced me doing 85 At Adams Rd. (5 miles before I entered the freeway) I explained what happened he said I was lying. I fought it. No matter what I said the magistrate said the cop had more /better training. (there is much, much, more to the court proceedings) and I was found guilty and it cost me $150.

The cop screwed up, then flat out lied, and I got hammered for it. Since then I have fought every ticket and used any and all means to discredit the cop because the system owes me. I must say I have won a LOT more times than most. Being an automotive engineer has it's perks for data and details.....

Bull Barrel wrote:
The officer's word would prevail.
This is reality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:01 pm 
Hawkeye

Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 16651
Location: Redlands CA USA
Hi,

"White privilege" at work? If she'd have been a young black male in the inner city and gave a cop that much trouble, chances are the coroner would be on the way...

This one's a perfect specimen to support my theory there are some people who aren't smart enough to breathe our air if it weren't a reflex.

Rick C

_________________
"If you bought only one (gun) through an FFL, the .gov knows you have it. And you can rest assured by my iron clad guarantee that the .gov will not come for it." --Le provocateur formerly known as CDFingers

It would seem that iron is rusting through...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group