Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not with Obama or with Bush or any other major sweeping legislation, but with this decision in the Ohio Supreme Court allowing police officers to simply "estimate" when writing speeding tickets.
This means that a cop with a grudge could simply say "I estimated that the driver was going 100" to write someone a ticket. The lack of any proof or the need to prove makes it so the cop has unlimited power. In this country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but with police being allowed to act as their own RADAR gun, this may no longer be the case. In Arizona they passed that ridiculous law on people who "appear to be immigrants". How long until they say that we can be searched because we "look like criminals"?
This is how a country goes from freedom to fascism, it's not at the national level, but rather the local and state level.
This is how a country goes from freedom to fascism, it's not at the national level, but rather the local and state level.
No, it's not.
Now, I'm not a fan of estimating. In fact, I'm not a fan of judging guilt based on eye-witness report. Humans err too often.
However, a police officer's estimate is just one piece of evidence that can be presented when/if one contests the ticket. Different traffic court judges will also weight evidence based on their experiences. This does not automatically open doors for police to ticket motorists based on estimated excess speeds. In fact, I imagine that if an officer wrote very many such tickets, his superiors would cast a critical eye on his work.
When you think about how many people have skated from perfectly deserved tickets, it helps to put things in perspective. In the past, accurate radar readings were thrown out because the cop's radar training was out-of-date, the cop failed to show up in court, or because the cop failed to produce the original reading printout in court.
Now, I'm not a fan of estimating. In fact, I'm not a fan of judging guilt based on eye-witness report. Humans err too often.
However, a police officer's estimate is just one piece of evidence that can be presented when/if one contests the ticket. Different traffic court judges will also weight evidence based on their experiences. This does not automatically open doors for police to ticket motorists based on estimated excess speeds. In fact, I imagine that if an officer wrote very many such tickets, his superiors would cast a critical eye on his work.
When you think about how many people have skated from perfectly deserved tickets, it helps to put things in perspective. In the past, accurate radar readings were thrown out because the cop's radar training was out-of-date, the cop failed to show up in court, or because the cop failed to produce the original reading printout in court.
But a court decision allowing someone to be "guilty" without any kind of evidence opens doors for much more than just speeding tickets. Plus, that decision in Arizona is basically the same thing, except that it's in direct violation of the 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Well, allowing someone to seize money (which is what a speeding ticket is, a seizure of money) without any kind of evidence that can be presented in a court is the very first step to eliminating that important clause in the Bill of Rights.
So what amendment does allowing an eyewitness account as evidence violate? Because many criminal and civil trials rely on eyewitness accounts.
The rules of evidence still pertain. The reason a police officer's account is taken as valid evidence is that he/she is considered "trained" in judging vehicle speed. The driver is welcome to question each officer's training, whether he marked travel time between two set points, etc. and have the judge evaluate that information. In no way does this set a precedent for criminal conviction without evidence. No basic liberties are violated.
The AZ law, however, does appear to conflict with constitutional law. Therefore, various groups are already working on challenging the law in court.
Why is that when people use the word "freedom" in context such as these that I begin to wonder if the word has any meaning worthy of consideration.
Only dim minds cannot see the ramifications of these kind of things. This is not about some jerk's speeding ticket (this guy was actually arguing because the cop was doing them a favor by estimating the speed at 79 instead of the RADAR reading at 81), this is about allowing the police the freedom to simply lie without any kind of recourse. It sets a precedent that is very dangerous. Give a man an inch and he'll take a foot. Giving the cops the power to simply throw out their RADAR guns and still be able to write speeding tickets and allowing them to pull someone over for simply looking like an immigrant, these are not the rights this nation was founded to abandon.
If you don't think that this violates the 4th amendment that guarantees that we cannot be subject to a seizure without due process of law. How is being judged guilty of speeding without any evidence any different than being judged guilty of assault or murder without any evidence other than eye-witnesses? It takes more than "I saw him do it" to convict someone of a crime, but how long before "I saw him do it" becomes the sole tactic in court? How long before "He seems like a child molester" or "He looks like he's on drugs" becomes the sole evidence used to convict? That's what's scary about this.
But of course, dim minds cannot connect the dots and this is exactly how these things happen. The Weimar Republic was a Democratic government that eventually elected in the most evil man of the century and he took away the very rights they had gained just over a decade earlier. People aren't all that smart and they generally don't realize the ramifications of their actions. This is why we still have an embargo with Cuba, why prostitution is illegal and why we spend billions fighting a futile war on drugs. It's because people who don't see that these things are all connected and they all have an effect on us, regardless of whether we would ever go to Cuba, buy a hooker or take some drugs.
Only dim minds cannot see the ramifications of these kind of things.
Self realization is the first step towards enlightenment.
Quote:
this is about allowing the police the freedom to simply lie without any kind of recourse.
The last I checked a ticket is not a judgement of guilt (I believe that cops mention that when you sign the ticket). I also seem to remember that one's recourse would be to contest the citation before a competent tribunal and that even the verdict of such a tribunal is subject to appeal even to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court. The last I checked.
Quote:
If you don't think that this violates the 4th amendment that guarantees that we cannot be subject to a seizure without due process of law.
What search and what seizure might you be referring to, which brings me to the gist of my comment (which wasn't to argue whether not I like the idea of speed estimation) I'm sorry but there are far more fundamental issues regarding liberty and freedom which need to be treasured and safe guarded well before descending into a mass of hysteria over whether or not Ohio cops are allowed to guestimate one's breach of speed limits.
Is this an unhappy turn of events for speeders or those who almost do, certainly, is the anything approaching "the end of freedom" not in the least bit. If anything this sort of argument once again demonstrates the childish frivolousness that some Americans have for the very concept of freedom.
Not with Obama or with Bush or any other major sweeping legislation, but with this decision in the Ohio Supreme Court allowing police officers to simply "estimate" when writing speeding tickets.
This means that a cop with a grudge could simply say "I estimated that the driver was going 100" to write someone a ticket. The lack of any proof or the need to prove makes it so the cop has unlimited power. In this country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but with police being allowed to act as their own RADAR gun, this may no longer be the case. In Arizona they passed that ridiculous law on people who "appear to be immigrants". How long until they say that we can be searched because we "look like criminals"?
This is how a country goes from freedom to fascism, it's not at the national level, but rather the local and state level.
The first time someone gets pulled over with a GPS signal proving that the officers estimate was wrong, this law will be overturned in court.
The first time someone gets pulled over with a GPS signal proving that the officers estimate was wrong, this law will be overturned in court.
Are you arguing that individually and widely owned technology trumps the encroachment of tyranny? Whoda Thunk!
Perhaps this is a conspiracy of Obama and the greedy GPS manufactures to force these devices down our throats, have you thought of that???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
