It's your right to request a trial whether or not you're guilty, so if you want to "waste the court's time", why not? They waste enough time of their own.
Think I have a shot...?
- Thread starter Brogy
- Start date
- Status
Correction:
Should read "Don't waste everyone's time."
And:
The left turn changes everything a bit. I wasn't there. If you feel that you made the light, then fight the ticket. Take 35mm pictures (digital may not be allowed in your jurisdiction). Rule 5 or subpoena video and audio from the officer. Prep your case and allow a judge or jury to decide.
Should read "Don't waste everyone's time."
And:
The left turn changes everything a bit. I wasn't there. If you feel that you made the light, then fight the ticket. Take 35mm pictures (digital may not be allowed in your jurisdiction). Rule 5 or subpoena video and audio from the officer. Prep your case and allow a judge or jury to decide.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
No ..reread it again. This man is going to attempt to beat this marginal (again if you READ it again I said "take it on face value and, FOR THE MOMENT, assume that it's truthful - as you can see YOU'RE geared AUTOMATICALLY to assume that he's being disingenuous) ticket. IF I was going to fight this .......I would surely bring that officer to task as to what inspired him to stake out that intersection at a low traffic time for violations ..if for nothing else to expose the motivation for the citation. Let the magistrate know that this guy is a predatory officer that serves his self interests above that of the public in traffic enforcement. If he's a slacker and "uses" the unsuspecting public to justify his job ..he'll appear before that magistrate again with more pinches. Magistrates don't live in a vacuum and aren't automatically in some assumed collusion with just any officer that they have in their courtroom.
You, yourself ..on any day of the week, can write tickets all day long. Why don't you? It's because you're forced, to be an effective law enforcer, to prioritize and distribute your efforts where they will do the most good. You'll focus upon reckless drivers ..or other potential dangers to the motoring public before nitpicking on the multitude of things you could every day. As you said, sometimes you're under mandate to enforce something ..in a way that truly doesn't address the situation ..but works for awhile.
Whatever the cause (he may have been ordered to stake out this intersection) ..this, on the surface analysis, doesn't appear to have served to demonstrate anything in the sensible use of traffic enforcement. It may have been the "campaign" method ..or merely the easy way to write a ticket. My suggestions of what questions to ask will determine that.
We had a useless 25 mph zone on a long stretch of road. It did go through a school zone ..but the school was 150 yards off of the road frontage and the school was fenced. The local dept tried everything ..setting up speed traps for days on end ..enforced during the typical school drop off "rush hour" (it was also a major route to the high and middle schools) ..and throughout the school day. They even used one of those remote radar units to tell people that they were out of compliance.
..but instead of just continuing to cost people their licenses and monopolize all the enforcement time ..they installed two stop signs at intersecting side streets. No more long stretch of open roadway to gain speed. No more speeders. The people that they were stopping were not scofflaws ..they were people reacting to road conditions. The vast majority of these people tagged for speeding will never willfully run a stop sign. Problem solved for all but the most anti-social of drivers.
Around here, they can ticket you for entering an intersection when the light is yellow.
If this is your law, you have a lost case in court.
They are ALWAYS right.
If this is your law, you have a lost case in court.
They are ALWAYS right.
I surrender. You win. I obviously don't have the capability of reading one side of an argument and reach conclusions about the situation and the participants like you can. I'll not bother you or voice an opinion contrary to yours in the future.
ive never gotten any sort of ticket in my life not even a parking ticket. why do so many people put themselves in situations where you have the potential to get a ticket? if the light is yellow then stop if you cant make it all the way through without it going red. its that simple guys.
why bother trying to make the light? its only a minute or 2 out of youre life. the hassle of a ticket isnt worth it.
the popo rule the road. they tell you what you can and cannot do. its unfornate that there are so many corrupt cops out there but you can minimise youre profile by flying low and slow.
why bother trying to make the light? its only a minute or 2 out of youre life. the hassle of a ticket isnt worth it.
the popo rule the road. they tell you what you can and cannot do. its unfornate that there are so many corrupt cops out there but you can minimise youre profile by flying low and slow.
Wantin, I have no idea what you're saying, but i'm not guilty for anything, I know I didn't run a red light.
Gary, thank you, you're like the only person here that hasnt sided with the cop. I'm asking you people what I should do with this ticket, because I DIDN'T run a stoplight, and I had plenty of time to go through. I don't speed, I stop at every stopsign, always stop for pedestrians ect ect. I'm not a dangerous driver.
And master acid, that's the thing: I didn't put myself in a situation where I should have gotten a ticket, but I got one anyway. There was no need for me to stop, I wasnt speeding, it was a 50 mph zone and I was going around 30, there was no need for me to stop, the light turned yellow and I already had my hands in the position to turn the wheel left, that's how close I was. There was no need for me to stop, and if I did it'd have been a hurried hard stop.
And I agree with I forget who said it, I think it was definetly a warning situation if anything, since it's too close to judge every angle and determine I purposly sped that yellow or wasnt paying attention or if I did have enough time to stop or not, and I definetly wasnt putting anyone in danger nor was I driving carelessly or recklessly.
Sorry to sound rude but does anyone have anything useful to say or advice you can give me on what I can tell the judge? I'm going over now to snap some shots of the light, but bascially im thinking go there, show him some shots of the intersection and where the cop was, time the yellow to see how long it is, and tell him (like someone said above, that's a good idea if nothing else for the judge to symphasize for me) that I probally don't have a shot at getting out of the ticket, since it's my word against the officers, but I don't feel the ticket was justified because of where the cop was sitting, and I felt it was safer to proceed than make a quick stop, I had plenty of time to make the turn, and I entered when it was yellow and it only turned red when I was almost out of the turn. That and I wasn't driving carelessly or recklessly, nor was I endangering anyone.
If anything maybe I can get a higher fine and no points, i've heard of people doing that before with speeding tickets and such.
Plus remember, it's not the kind of thing like passing someone illegaly or running a stop sign, where it's one way or the other, you either did or didn't. This is a judgement call, and his judgement was off. And when it comes down to it cops will exaggerate even if a little to prove their point.
Like my dad one time, parked his car on the sidewalk. Just so happens they're putting a fire hydrant RIGHT THERE where he parked his car on that same day, no sign or anything warning him to not park there. So they install it (he's working, 9-10), cop sees him parked infront of a fire hydrant, writes him a ticket. He goes to court, my dad says it wasnt there when he parked there, the cop goes "I pass that hydrant every day, it's been there for over a month". My dad says #@$%!, they find out when it was installed, he gets out of the ticket.
Same with obbops story, where the cop lied.
Gary, thank you, you're like the only person here that hasnt sided with the cop. I'm asking you people what I should do with this ticket, because I DIDN'T run a stoplight, and I had plenty of time to go through. I don't speed, I stop at every stopsign, always stop for pedestrians ect ect. I'm not a dangerous driver.
And master acid, that's the thing: I didn't put myself in a situation where I should have gotten a ticket, but I got one anyway. There was no need for me to stop, I wasnt speeding, it was a 50 mph zone and I was going around 30, there was no need for me to stop, the light turned yellow and I already had my hands in the position to turn the wheel left, that's how close I was. There was no need for me to stop, and if I did it'd have been a hurried hard stop.
And I agree with I forget who said it, I think it was definetly a warning situation if anything, since it's too close to judge every angle and determine I purposly sped that yellow or wasnt paying attention or if I did have enough time to stop or not, and I definetly wasnt putting anyone in danger nor was I driving carelessly or recklessly.
Sorry to sound rude but does anyone have anything useful to say or advice you can give me on what I can tell the judge? I'm going over now to snap some shots of the light, but bascially im thinking go there, show him some shots of the intersection and where the cop was, time the yellow to see how long it is, and tell him (like someone said above, that's a good idea if nothing else for the judge to symphasize for me) that I probally don't have a shot at getting out of the ticket, since it's my word against the officers, but I don't feel the ticket was justified because of where the cop was sitting, and I felt it was safer to proceed than make a quick stop, I had plenty of time to make the turn, and I entered when it was yellow and it only turned red when I was almost out of the turn. That and I wasn't driving carelessly or recklessly, nor was I endangering anyone.
If anything maybe I can get a higher fine and no points, i've heard of people doing that before with speeding tickets and such.
Plus remember, it's not the kind of thing like passing someone illegaly or running a stop sign, where it's one way or the other, you either did or didn't. This is a judgement call, and his judgement was off. And when it comes down to it cops will exaggerate even if a little to prove their point.
Like my dad one time, parked his car on the sidewalk. Just so happens they're putting a fire hydrant RIGHT THERE where he parked his car on that same day, no sign or anything warning him to not park there. So they install it (he's working, 9-10), cop sees him parked infront of a fire hydrant, writes him a ticket. He goes to court, my dad says it wasnt there when he parked there, the cop goes "I pass that hydrant every day, it's been there for over a month". My dad says #@$%!, they find out when it was installed, he gets out of the ticket.
Same with obbops story, where the cop lied.
Just got back from taking pictures. They didn't come out too good so i'll take them in the morning.
I timed the light, it's only 3 seconds long from turning to red from yellow. Think about it for a second, count it out, 3 seconds is nothing. Posted speed limit is 50mph. Anyone know how they calculate the yellow light time? I'd love any information you can give me, since I think I have a very good chance if I point out the light is too short by law.
I timed the light, it's only 3 seconds long from turning to red from yellow. Think about it for a second, count it out, 3 seconds is nothing. Posted speed limit is 50mph. Anyone know how they calculate the yellow light time? I'd love any information you can give me, since I think I have a very good chance if I point out the light is too short by law.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Why surrender? We're not fighting. I think I've said nothing against any upstanding and virtuous officer of the law. I support law enforcement in every way that I can in the modality that they deserve it. I think I have a balanced view of law enforcement and attempted in every way that I know how to communicate that to you. I've aided officers ..at the threat of my personal well being ...but, apparently ...this doesn't even register on your radar since I suggested that SOME officers ...being human ..are flawed. If this is some crime to point this out ..then cuff me and take me away.
..Since I think that we can both admit that cops are only human (I'll seriously consider an alternative point of view)..that not all of them subscribe to some mythical "graphed in heraldry" type tenet of conduct. Just like teachers or any other professional association ..they're filled with all types. Those who deserve more than they receive in compensation and respect ...and some who don't deserve to watch my dog ...and everything in between.
They can't all be perfect. So, if we can admit that ..then we also acknowledge that any human is subject to the same flaws (reverse that if it makes more impact) ...since we're both flawed ..therefore we're all asked to be forgiven for our transgressions. So, when you rationalize when a cop makes a mistake ..or is in a bad mood ..is overly aggressive (oggresif-crock hunter RIP)for no darn good reason..or otherwise fails to be "perfect" ...so should you, if you have a balanced philosophy of life, grant any other human the right of "imperfection" and not dole out punishment based on marginal justification.
Judge how ye want to be judged. Very simple. There's no one way street on this issue ..just because you're a cop.
Gary:
I'd just add this item of perspective. Redlight running at certain intersections in Pensacola has become such an issue that we're seeing stories in the local paper with regularity that detail gruesome crashes, ped runovers, discussions about installing ticketcams, etc. Many readers, in story comments, are begging for officers to do this. My sense is that, at least at the moment, the idea of our LEOs targeting these intersections for enforcement action is a very popular idea. When I'm in court, I generally find myself in the role of cross-examining LEOs, and even I, having seen some of the nuttiness that goes on out there, find it comforting to see a cruiser lurking around the bad intersections. Personally, I don't see a problem with a patrol officer who is not involved in another more pressing matter, to be in "wait mode" where he can catch a scofflaw, even if it's a low traffic time. I may be reading too much into your comments, but this on particularly,
The O/P can to to court and have a hearing. We hope the judge responds to the individual merits of the particular case. And if it WAS an ambush, well, the surest way to avoid one is drive so that there's no doubt at all that you actually are in compliance with the applicable rules of the road.
I'd just add this item of perspective. Redlight running at certain intersections in Pensacola has become such an issue that we're seeing stories in the local paper with regularity that detail gruesome crashes, ped runovers, discussions about installing ticketcams, etc. Many readers, in story comments, are begging for officers to do this. My sense is that, at least at the moment, the idea of our LEOs targeting these intersections for enforcement action is a very popular idea. When I'm in court, I generally find myself in the role of cross-examining LEOs, and even I, having seen some of the nuttiness that goes on out there, find it comforting to see a cruiser lurking around the bad intersections. Personally, I don't see a problem with a patrol officer who is not involved in another more pressing matter, to be in "wait mode" where he can catch a scofflaw, even if it's a low traffic time. I may be reading too much into your comments, but this on particularly,
seems to be assuming a bit much about the officer's motives.
The O/P can to to court and have a hearing. We hope the judge responds to the individual merits of the particular case. And if it WAS an ambush, well, the surest way to avoid one is drive so that there's no doubt at all that you actually are in compliance with the applicable rules of the road.
Last edited:
ekpolk: Thanks for responding. I was beginning to think I was missing something. The officer was accused of being a predator and lazy and writing a marginal ticket based on the "testimony" of only one party of the encounter. At the risk of being put on Mr. Allan's "list" I'll thank you for giving me a little piece of mind in knowing that I'm not the only one that felt maybe he was assuming a little too much.
Brogy: It would not be appropriate, or ethical, for me to give you advice on how to contest this ticket. However I can comment on how the judge I deal with regularly conducts trials. He expects the officer to have some notes about the stop and to be able to clearly explain the case. If there is an in car video recording he will want to see it. Even if it doesn't show the offense it does show the demeanor of both people involved in the stop. I actually had a lady say "I don't care what that tape shows, that's not what happened". This was after the video of her passing me, in a marked car, in excess of 20 MPH over the limit was shown in court. After the judge stopped laughing he found her guilty. The deputy prosecutor will ask the officer to give his testimony and the judge will occasionaly ask a question or two. The defendant is then given a chance to question the officer and present any witnesses or evidence such as photos. Yes in most cases the judge rules in favor of the officer, especilly if the officer regularly appears in court and is truthful and known for issuing reasonable tickets. In my case I'm on a first name basis with the judge simply because I'v known him for a long time. That being said I have lost a couple of times when he felt the defendant was honestly convinced that he was innocent. Remember these cases are usually your word against the officer unless there is a video or witnesses that verify or deny one side's argument. It also helps the judges image in the community if he's considered a fair minded judge and not a "hanging judge" that automatically convicts everyone. It's no different than an officer giving a warning instead of a ticket if he/she feels the person committed an honest mistake. No hard feelings if I lose a ticket or two. I feel like I did my job issuing the ticket and the judge did his by disposing of the case however he deems as appropriate.
Brogy: It would not be appropriate, or ethical, for me to give you advice on how to contest this ticket. However I can comment on how the judge I deal with regularly conducts trials. He expects the officer to have some notes about the stop and to be able to clearly explain the case. If there is an in car video recording he will want to see it. Even if it doesn't show the offense it does show the demeanor of both people involved in the stop. I actually had a lady say "I don't care what that tape shows, that's not what happened". This was after the video of her passing me, in a marked car, in excess of 20 MPH over the limit was shown in court. After the judge stopped laughing he found her guilty. The deputy prosecutor will ask the officer to give his testimony and the judge will occasionaly ask a question or two. The defendant is then given a chance to question the officer and present any witnesses or evidence such as photos. Yes in most cases the judge rules in favor of the officer, especilly if the officer regularly appears in court and is truthful and known for issuing reasonable tickets. In my case I'm on a first name basis with the judge simply because I'v known him for a long time. That being said I have lost a couple of times when he felt the defendant was honestly convinced that he was innocent. Remember these cases are usually your word against the officer unless there is a video or witnesses that verify or deny one side's argument. It also helps the judges image in the community if he's considered a fair minded judge and not a "hanging judge" that automatically convicts everyone. It's no different than an officer giving a warning instead of a ticket if he/she feels the person committed an honest mistake. No hard feelings if I lose a ticket or two. I feel like I did my job issuing the ticket and the judge did his by disposing of the case however he deems as appropriate.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Not at all. Since YOU and I know that SOME ticketing is done with this as a primary motivator ..you would be totally delinquent in allowing that POSSIBILITY to go unexplored. Even if it's an implied courtroom savvy "wink-wink" with the officer giving a little squirm and the magistrate taking note of the reaction or masking reaction.
Gentlemen ...you are ONLY seeing what you want to see in my posts. There are negligent officers ..slacker officers ...desk dittos ..harsh cruel officers ...corrupt and criminal officers ...
Does anyone deny this? Do you live in a polarized Cool-Ray® filtered view that can only see the one side of the coin??? In this case ..it surely appears so.
How do you know THIS cop's motives were in the public interest?? Can you see into his mind?? If you can ..then you have no business in whatever business you're in. Be my pal and give me every the inside info on everything that will bring profit. I'll be generous with the rewards.
There are many fine officers. They moonlight as officials at youth activities ...run summer camp events ..and even those who don't ..truly manage to do a bang up job in spite of being human. (DID YOU READ THIS???)
I really can't believe that you can have such a filtered view of my posts. There are louses in every profession. Cops are not exempt. This guy may be next to Pope of Police for all I know ..or he may be the next one fired for being a jerk. How do you know?? You ask questions.
No one who's really HONEST objects to being challenged ..why are the cops here so 'averse' to scrutiny? Fear of failure?? I hope not. I hope that it's some "cop cultural" conditioned reflex with no sound basis in any sensible defensible rationale. You enforce the law because it's the law ..not a manipulation of your particular take on it ..or mood ..or lame self interests. You CAN switch hit if you so desire ....granting slack one day ...granting none the next ..but this is just your exercising your 'G0D' syndrome if that's what you do. You're adherence and absolute perception of the law is a floating one if this is the case.
So....we come back to "was it really worth doing this?" ..neither of us know the truthful events here ...not the particulars of the alleged violation ..nor the motivation of the officer....yet some seem to need to rationalize any behavior from the officer ..and none from the alleged violator.
Anyone see any balance in that attitude??? HONESTLY?? ANY BALANCE?? Not from my view.
Are all cops always motivated in the public interests? HONESTLY??
You're offended that the question is asked ..and are incapable of answering it ............HONESTLY. How's that sit with you looking as an outside observer?? HONESTLY??
Are we being asked to "excuse" such indiscretions ..and just pass them off as minor unfavorable side effects of an imperfect being thrust into a difficult job? If so, then I insist that all imperfect beings in all difficult jobs be granted the same grace from those who judge them.
This is very simple and there is no sensible philosophically defensible argument to grant some divine status just because you wear a badge.
Again, I'll entertain opposing points of view.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Objection, your honor!! The witness is being disingenuous!!
I said that this MAY be the case. I NEVER said that this officer was anything. I've cited situations that occur with SOME officers. He may be one of them. Can you say that it's not? You assume that it isn't. You're basing it on unproven faith that your take is the right one ...with no more proof or evidence then I have.
I'll grant you enough wisdom to see this is absolutely ..undeniably true ..even if you have the inability to admit it.
Just to hammer ..as hard as I possibly can (they apparently don't make one big enough for you) ..my best man was a current PA state trooper ..my BIL was a cop ..my FIL wife's SIL is a CPA with the FBI and was on the hostage negotiating team at the time of his wedding (never saw more SEALS and FBI agents in one spot -aviator sunglasses) ..and we're very ........very good shirt tail relatives.
So just dump that blue shield notion that I'm anti law enforcement. It's a faux insult that really shows poorly on your fairness in viewing the world and life in general.
Gary:
But the problem I still see it this. If the only issue you have to raise with the judge is the citing officer’s motives, you really have nothing to tell the judge that’s relevant, at least in a traffic hearing where whether or not you “did it” is the primary issue. The United States Supreme Court has said, in essence (understand, I’m grossly overdistilling the holdings of several cases), that so long as a LEO does not violate some specific constitutional provision that applies to their specific target person, pretty much anything goes. The can lie, “cheat,” act inequitably, or even from personally gratifying sadistic motives, just so long as they don’t violate your rights. And if in their efforts, they develop evidence that you broke the law, they can charge you, and the relative outrageousness of their behavior is a moot point.
Now, as you have bent over backwards to point out, most LEOs are decent folks who act in good faith (FF, we’ll presume you fall into that category
In the end, the courts are going to focus upon the actions of the accused and whether or not he did it. The officer’s behavior, if in fact it falls below what the community wants, expects, or both, is something for the local government to explore in another setting.
I don't see your comments as anti-cop at all. And I think you're right to be concerned about less-than-upright LEO behavior, where it happens. But I do think you're "mixing metaphores" and raising questions that in the context of the question originally asked, are largely irrelevant (except again for testimonial credibility). Good cop or bad, the real question is whether or not he ran the light.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Agreed. There would be no denying that you violated a law ...if you violated a law. However, there is no harm ..and all to gain in putting DOUBT in the officer's case. This is a matter of (as others have redundantly expressed) "his word against yours". If you can put a wedge in there of doubt of the veracity of the "pinch" via ANY modality and given your cited Supreme Court case (what's that latin term for "what's good for the goose is good for the gander - ah-ha!) Quid pro quo, counselor
I disagree. EVERY SETTING where alteration of this can be effected is the RIGHT place. Complacency is the reason that it exists. You enable it ..and in fact promote it, with tolerance and acceptance.
Virtually no law was written with the intent of being a boobytrap for otherwise law abiding citizens. It's to punish willful violation. Any use of it in ANY other modality is just plain WRONG ..even if you can legally get away with it.
Is this view incorrect ...or rather... socially negligent?? That brings us back to "selective enforcement under personal preferences of the mood of the day for fun and venting of personal anxieties and other decompensation methods of choice".
Fine use of authority if you ask me. It's always reassuring that your license and livelihood are subject to random acts of tempera mentality.
I disagree. EVERY SETTING where alteration of this can be effected is the RIGHT place. Complacency is the reason that it exists. You enable it ..and in fact promote it, with tolerance and acceptance.
Virtually no law was written with the intent of being a boobytrap for otherwise law abiding citizens. It's to punish willful violation. Any use of it in ANY other modality is just plain WRONG ..even if you can legally get away with it.
Is this view incorrect ...or rather... socially negligent?? That brings us back to "selective enforcement under personal preferences of the mood of the day for fun and venting of personal anxieties and other decompensation methods of choice".
Fine use of authority if you ask me. It's always reassuring that your license and livelihood are subject to random acts of tempera mentality.
Respectfully, I’ve got to disagree with that. This is where my experience in real courtrooms diverges from the stuff often portrayed in movies and TV about what we do. Whether in front of a judge or a jury, attempts to suggest doubt, based upon the officer’s motives, almost always fail. People seem to understand easily that the officer's motives, even if "shady looking" don't bear upon whether or not the accused did it. A good lawyer understands that it’s folly to rely upon some line of argument that’s likely to be rejected by the trier of fact.
The exception would be relatively rare cases in which there is something that’s objectively provable, that leaps out at everyone, AND that suggests that things really aren’t as they appear. The officer having a history of grudge against the particular accused might be an example. But just trying to pull doubt out of the air, without a solid, objective foundation for it, it a losing battle. In fact, it may be more harmful than doing nothing, because if it undercuts credibility, the judge or jury is then less likely to accept and believe the well-founded things you have to say.
I wholeheartedly agree that law enforcement should be carried out both honorably, AND in a way that appears honorable to all who care to look. But consider a couple hypos. Imagine a good citizen happens to be in a hurry, and approaching an intersection. The light goes yellow early, and objectively, he should stop. Being in a hurry, he decides to go for it. Then he sees an officer parked over on shoulder, slams on the brakes, and aborts his violation. OK, we have deterrence there, that’s good, no violation. Now let’s assume the same situation, but Mr. Citizen fails to see the officer, runs the light, gets stopped and cited. You would not object, I assume? Finally, same scenario, but the officer has chosen to deliberately conceal himself behind some bushes, and can’t be seen. Same outcome – a ticket.
Now, in that last scenario, is it not true that the only determining factor as to whether or Mr. Citizen gets a ticket the decision he makes about whether or not to run the light???
Does it matter whether the officer’s motive is: 1) responding to a string of citizen complaints demanding action to deal with redlight runners, or 2) perhaps he wants to sit, read the paper and have some coffee, undisturbed, until an “easy kill” presents itself in front of him???
"TUPELO - Drivers have a few more seconds on their side at 74 of the city's 89 intersections controlled by traffic signals thanks to a major effort to readjust yellow-light intervals here.
The signals - which previously glowed yellow for three seconds and red on both sides for two seconds at every intersection citywide - are now set based on the width of the intersections and speeds of the streets that cross there.
As a result, some signals now shine yellow for nearly twice as long as they previously did. The yellow light at Barnes Crossing Road and Highway 45, for example, lasts for nearly five seconds east of the bridge and nearly six seconds west of the bridge.
East Main Street at Coley Road and South Green Street at Daybrite Road now glow yellow for 4.7 seconds.
The move came after city officials discovered their previous settings went against the recommendations of most national signal-timing manuals. And the new timing could help prevent accidents or at least curb people's urge to run a light. But Tupelo Police Chief Harold Chaffin said it will take months to study the data before such outcomes can be confirmed."
Read an article a couple years ago about some munincipalities having too-short of a time period for the yellow lights to be on before turning read.
Been a couple lawsuits and some court fights.
Do a Google with "yellow light timing" or another pertinent search term.
It's common for yellow lights to be on for too short an interval.
Some believe that, at times, it is done purposefully so as to be a revenue source for local governments.
You might be able to copy some info from the on-line sources to use in your case, especially if you time the light's duration and it is incompatible with generally-accepted duration standards.
Renenmber to dress decently and shave and comb your unruly strands atop your noggin' before dazzling the judge and onlookers.
Oh, I used the "news" search area of Google. Try a "Web" search, also.
Yep.
The signals - which previously glowed yellow for three seconds and red on both sides for two seconds at every intersection citywide - are now set based on the width of the intersections and speeds of the streets that cross there.
As a result, some signals now shine yellow for nearly twice as long as they previously did. The yellow light at Barnes Crossing Road and Highway 45, for example, lasts for nearly five seconds east of the bridge and nearly six seconds west of the bridge.
East Main Street at Coley Road and South Green Street at Daybrite Road now glow yellow for 4.7 seconds.
The move came after city officials discovered their previous settings went against the recommendations of most national signal-timing manuals. And the new timing could help prevent accidents or at least curb people's urge to run a light. But Tupelo Police Chief Harold Chaffin said it will take months to study the data before such outcomes can be confirmed."
Read an article a couple years ago about some munincipalities having too-short of a time period for the yellow lights to be on before turning read.
Been a couple lawsuits and some court fights.
Do a Google with "yellow light timing" or another pertinent search term.
It's common for yellow lights to be on for too short an interval.
Some believe that, at times, it is done purposefully so as to be a revenue source for local governments.
You might be able to copy some info from the on-line sources to use in your case, especially if you time the light's duration and it is incompatible with generally-accepted duration standards.
Renenmber to dress decently and shave and comb your unruly strands atop your noggin' before dazzling the judge and onlookers.
Oh, I used the "news" search area of Google. Try a "Web" search, also.
Yep.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Well, I'll defer to your learned opinion in many cases ..however I've witnessed, first hand, getting a sphincter to twitch had altered a hearing.
Case in point: I was transporting radio pharmaceuticals (nuke meds). I was in an accident. No problems occurred with the load (this was in a car) and all was hunky dory. This was not my regular vehicle to transport these items and I had forgotten to transfer my fire extinguisher. Two DOT officials examined the car ..found no fire extinguisher. During testimony the first official was asked if he had examined under the spare tire for the extinguisher. He answered "No". The second was asked the same question after his testimony and said "Yes, I lifted it up and looked all around" with a look that not even a mother would believe. His lie was obvious to everyone in the courtroom. The magistrate only needed a token motion from my attorney to get that out of the complaint. For some reason, the state trooper was "angry" at me. This was an accident and all the "I"s were dotted EXCEPT the fire extinguisher. It was only because it made the news in 3 or 4 counties and they dispatched special equipment and personnel (DOT) that this ever resulted in a hearing.
So ...I DO see the value of exploration to motivation. This pencil/paper pushing geek was SO interested in justifying and advancing his PUBLIC DOLE job that he was willing to purger himself as he saw it "serving a greater good". He was educated ...socialized ..and an investigative arm of the Commonwealth.
..and he lied. I couldn't prove it ...but everyone KNEW it ..and the hearing flow reacted accordingly. This gave my attorney mojo in the backroom hammer session to see what was really going to happen. It emasculated that DOT official in any negative effect.
All the scenarios that you're describing are predisposed to a bona fide violation. There's no issue one way or the other in terms of "motivation" in those situations. You've constructed them that way to prove only your point.
I'll condense the point you're trying to express by simply saying "If you're tagged ...quit whining about the particulars ..you're tagged and at the mercy of the officer and/or magistrate". This I NEVER disputed ..nor offered any defense against (again, I ask that we re-read this post from the beginning and view the particulars on face value and assume for the moment that they are truthful). The question is "was this a legit arrest?".
Suppose however there's a situation where a person ..doing a reasonable speed ...they're not in a hurry ..are a "safe" driver ..and finds themselves in a situation where they enter an intersection on the yellow (stopping abruptly could be less safe if the car behind them is tail gaiting) and it turns red when they're halfway through it?? Up for grabs?? Yes. Was the alternative MORE potentially harmful then the driver's assumed remedy? How was society best served in this situation? Prove that choosing a safer course of action harms you? Now, sure, these are rationalization ..or perhaps even intellectualizations of, what could be viewed as, static events ..and any officer is surely "allowed" to avail themselves of nitpicking anal behavior. One could argue that the motorist in question could have slowed to an appropriate speed that, if a yellow light occurred, he/she could have slowed without hazard ...but any person with HALF a brain knows that this action is counter intuitive and not practiced by the majority of the motoring public where smooth conductance of traffic is a primary need in the hierarchy of needs. Police need this smooth conductance too.
How many cars making left hand turns are stuck in an intersection when the light turns red?? Many enter on the green ..some enter on the yellow. Yet I've never seen one written for it.
Edit: I think that we've established our differences in POV and, pretty much, my natural tendency to continue with the "point:counterpoint" debate will serve nothing other than taking up bandwidth. So, counselor ..esteemed constabulary ...I rest my case. You may, if you so desire, have the last word
Last edited:
Show up and take the plea bargain. It'll most likely be a defective vehicle citation with a smaller fine and no points. My vehicle has been defective a few times now
Contest the ticket. You can enter the intersection on a YELLOW. It's the RED that means STOP! If you go to court and he doesn't show up it will be thrown out. He may be sick, on vacation, or just doesn't want to go. Judge could also believe you and throw out the ticket. He may not believe you and find you guilty but reduce the fine. Who knows? It's a moving violation which will effect your insurance and driving record. You have nothing to loose! Keep us posted.
- Status
Similar threads
