Legal, Speeding ticket question,, LEO ?

[gsxrmike]

Yea, do not get me started,one year ago When I was hit by a hit and run driver a block from my house,,, A neighbor seen who did it and recognized them,,, I even had it put on crime stopers...
The kids in laws have BIG money,,, The DPS have been too busy to even call the witness ... I have been told the DPS are short staffed in the area.....
Mike

Originally Posted by Tim Ritz

Well, best of luck getting it erased, Mike. Sorry you were victimized by the state while simply trying to enjoy a vacation. Gee, a whole 12 miles over on a lonely country road -- what a dastardly criminal deserving of punishment you are!

Heh-heh.

[BexarWolf]

Originally Posted by Tim Kreitz

Well, best of luck getting it erased, Mike. Sorry you were victimized by the state while simply trying to enjoy a vacation. Gee, a whole 12 miles over on a lonely country road -- what a dastardly criminal deserving of punishment you are!

Heh-heh.

[Sleepy Weasel]

Originally Posted by BexarWolf

No, kitty! I said that's a bad kitty! Respect mah authoritah!

[Larry_77084]

Originally Posted by Tim Kreitz

Bad advice, in my opinion.

I'd take it to a lawyer and make sure it gets deferred. The government thieves enough money from us as it is. If you were being safe and responsible, you should refuse to simply bend over out of some misguided sense of duty, regardless of your speed.

IMHO

I think this is one of the main problems of our society. "Rules don't apply to me".

It's OK that I run that red light, I looked for other cars, I'm being safe.

I see no kids in that school zone, screw it I'm not going to do 20, I'm being safe.

I'm not saying all rules are good ones and there are a number of rules that are ridiculous, the speed limit in that area may be one of them, but that doesn't give you the right to ignore it because you are being safe, what about the guy thats not being as safe and driving carelessly thinking his skill level makes him safer at that speed than normal folks.

A DPS trooper would have a hard time, on the stand, defending his judgment about giving him a ticket and not you because you were being safer then he was.

There are sections of roadway we know so we ride them faster that the limit, however what about the rider that is on this road for the first time, and doesn't know the road? What's the rule supposed to be? Speed limit 50 MPH, unless you've ridden the road a minimum of 20 times then it's 70 MPH?

The other side of that is the speed limit being set so it will generate revenue. I don't deny the existence of these roads either.

"Misguided sense of duty", that's a kick in that nads to every LEO

FYI, I'm no "goody 2 shoes" (my mom used to say that) and have gotten my share of tickets, I've taken defensive driving, DA, paid the fine and yes I've had it dismissed it by getting a lawyer. I've never justified it by saying I was being safe, no I was usually being stupid and got caught. No justification. Just stupidity.

[Tim Kreitz]

Originally Posted by Larry_77084

FYI, I'm no "goody 2 shoes" (my mom used to say that) and have gotten my share of tickets, I've taken defensive driving, DA, paid the fine and yes I've had it dismissed it by getting a lawyer. I've never justified it by saying I was being safe, no I was usually being stupid and got caught. No justification. Just stupidity.

That's a good citizen. It's best not to question the government, its laws, or its motives. Just obey -- and pay up.

Kidding aside, this isn't about how the "rules don't apply to me", as you characterized it. It's about bad law, bad discretion, and vesting a government monetary interest upon the commission of misdemeanors. The enforcement of law shouldn't be allowed to devolve into little more than a revenue industry, as it is now. When someone screws up in a way that effects the property of another, then it's time for the government to act. Until then, the rule should generally be no harm, no foul.

Heck, there shouldn't even be daytime speed limits on many of those rural highways. See Germany, Italy, Spain, and any other country where speed limits are either higher, or loosely -- if at all -- enforced, yet roads are safer. The Montana Paradox also comes to mind.

[Sleepy Weasel]

Originally Posted by Tim Kreitz

Kidding aside, this isn't about how the "rules don't apply to me", as you characterized it. It's about bad law, bad discretion, and vesting a government monetary interest upon the commission of misdemeanors.

Uh, but you advised him to get a lawyer before we had any report of extenuating circumstances.

I'd take it to a lawyer and make sure it gets deferred. The government thieves enough money from us as it is. If you were being safe and responsible, you should refuse to simply bend over out of some misguided sense of duty, regardless of your speed.

You said this when all we knew was that he got a ticket and they wrote the wrong color on it. He hadn't even said what the ticket was for at that point. It could have been for a broken tail light. Your automatic reaction says to me that you feel that EVERY ticket is worth fighting. THAT seems to fit Larry's "the rules don't apply to me" statement.

[Tim Kreitz]

Originally Posted by BexarWolf

[Tim Kreitz]

Originally Posted by Sleepy Weasel

Uh, but you advised him to get a lawyer before we had any report of extenuating circumstances.

So? And that's bad? Since when is seeking legal counsel when you've been accused of a crime considered unethical?

Originally Posted by Sleepy Weasel

You said this when all we knew was that he got a ticket and they wrote the wrong color on it. He hadn't even said what the ticket was for at that point. It could have been for a broken tail light.

Geez, that's a bit of a stretch. Plus, you're forgetting that Mike and I have been riding together on-and-off for over a decade. He never goes the speed limit!



That it was a speeding ticket seemed clear to me from the beginning. If it had been issued for anything else, the unusualness of the citation would've likely been mentioned from the get-go.

Originally Posted by Sleepy Weasel

Your automatic reaction says to me that you feel that EVERY ticket is worth fighting.

Not every one, but most are -- mainly because they're usually issued as a means of raising capital when no harm has actually been done.

Originally Posted by Sleepy Weasel

THAT seems to fit Larry's "the rules don't apply to me" statement.

I believe the rules do apply to me -- but only the just ones.

When you choose to obey bad laws, you allow bad things to happen. Ask Suzanna Hupp how obeying the law and leaving her pistol in her car worked out, that day she and her parents decided to have lunch at the Killeen Luby's. That incident led to the availability of the CHL in Texas. If enough people get mad enough and make enough noise, things can change.

[Sleepy Weasel]

Originally Posted by Tim Kreitz

So? And that's bad? Since when is seeking legal counsel when you've been accused of a crime considered unethical?

Never said it was unethical... just pointing out that your first reaction was "Find someone to get you off the hook" even if he happened to BELONG on that hook. It's a statement that says you think he should avoid responsibility for his own actions.

Originally Posted by Tim Kreitz

Geez, that's a bit of a stretch. Plus, you're forgetting that Mike and I have been riding together on-and-off for over a decade. He never goes the speed limit!



That it was a speeding ticket seemed clear to me from the beginning. If it had been issued for anything else, the unusualness of the citation would've likely been mentioned from the get-go.

Ok, so you knew that statistically, the most likely reason for him to get a little one-on-one time with a cop is for speeding. It also says that you know from personal experience that he has a habit of breaking the law.

Originally Posted by Tim Kreitz

Not every one, but most are -- mainly because they're usually issued as a means of raising capital when no harm has actually been done.

So, speed laws should all be erased from the books?

Originally Posted by Tim Kreitz

I believe the rules do apply to me -- but only the just ones.

So who decides which laws are just? I imagine that the lady who pulled her car in front or my DR650 would prefer that there were no right-of-way laws.

Originally Posted by Tim Kreitz

When you choose to obey bad laws, you allow bad things to happen. Ask Suzanna Hupp how obeying the law and leaving her pistol in her car worked out, that day she and her parents decided to have lunch at the Killeen Luby's. That incident led to the availability of the CHL in Texas. If enough people get mad enough and make enough noise, things can change.

I missed the part where he was speeding to save his life, or the lives of others.

That said, your very last sentence says what I've been saying... if the law bothers you, speak up. If enough people agree with you, it will change.

[Texason]

Originally Posted by Larry_77084

IMHO

I think this is one of the main problems of our society. "Rules don't apply to me".

It's OK that I run that red light, I looked for other cars, I'm being safe.

I see no kids in that school zone, screw it I'm not going to do 20, I'm being safe.

I'm not saying all rules are good ones and there are a number of rules that are ridiculous, the speed limit in that area may be one of them, but that doesn't give you the right to ignore it because you are being safe, what about the guy thats not being as safe and driving carelessly thinking his skill level makes him safer at that speed than normal folks.

A DPS trooper would have a hard time, on the stand, defending his judgment about giving him a ticket and not you because you were being safer then he was.

There are sections of roadway we know so we ride them faster that the limit, however what about the rider that is on this road for the first time, and doesn't know the road? What's the rule supposed to be? Speed limit 50 MPH, unless you've ridden the road a minimum of 20 times then it's 70 MPH?

The other side of that is the speed limit being set so it will generate revenue. I don't deny the existence of these roads either.

"Misguided sense of duty", that's a kick in that nads to every LEO

FYI, I'm no "goody 2 shoes" (my mom used to say that) and have gotten my share of tickets, I've taken defensive driving, DA, paid the fine and yes I've had it dismissed it by getting a lawyer. I've never justified it by saying I was being safe, no I was usually being stupid and got caught. No justification. Just stupidity.

There are laws against hurting and killing people. There are laws against infringing on other people's rights. Those are good, just, laws. Who was hurt by this rider's speeing in the boonies? Was anybody killed? Yeah, not this time. IF he had hurt someone, I would say put him in jail. But he didn't. Thus, the speeding ticket is a revenue raising scheme.

To me this is the same situation as gun control laws and hate crime laws. There are already laws against killing people. Why do we need more laws on top of the laws against murder and violence?

It's just more ways for the government to control your behavior (and thought).

[BexarWolf]

So, let me get this straight. I'm a little slow at 2 o'clock in the morning after working all day to help support the family unit.

Any law that does not cause harm or infringe on someone else's rights should be abolished. Speed limit laws are only for collecting revenue.

Collectively, I gather that:

The little blinky lights in the school zone should be ignored as long as I don't see little ones in the area?

As long as there's no one else around, I should be able to go as fast as I want out on the highway?

It's 3am and there's no other traffic, so stopping at that 4-way stop sign is senseless, right?

I should be able to smoke as much dope as I want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights?

Seriously, there's no reason to register my bike with the state, it's not bothering anyone. And why bother with inspection stickers? Who's going to drive/ride a vehicle that's unsafe?

Let me clue you in. More felony arrests are made off of "useless law" traffic violations than you know. Like it or not, in my past life I've taken some serious felons off the street for not having a license plate light. Fleeing murders have been caught because of simple traffic violations. Thousands of pounds of marijuana have been taken off the street because a "mule" committed a traffic violation (that's called drug interdiction). But, marijuana is a harmless drug so that one doesn't count, right?

Folks, when you get all these "useless" laws abolished, give me time to get out. Laws are enacted and voted on by the folks WE put into office. I, for one, do NOT want to drive through Austin when they abolish traffic enforcement..........I don't care if it's 3p or 3a.

How would you write the speed limit laws? "As long as there's no one in sight, it's ok to go as fast as you want to"? You think the laws are complicated now? Wait until you try to legislate the laws to accommodate your need for a little adrenaline dump.

The laws are there. If you don't like them, get rid of the folks who wrote them into the books. Or you can just ignore them, get cited, hire a lawyer to get you off the hook and eventually lose your license for being a habitual violator.

But who needs a license? Obviously if you're operating the vehicle you know what you're doing. Why do you need some state authority to tell you it's ok for you to operate a motor vehicle? It's your Right, right? Oh wait, that's wrong. Operating a vehicle is a privilege, not a Right. Oops.

[terrebandit]

Assuming you are not a habitual speeder, take defensive driving and safe some of your hard earned cash for more gas and hop-up parts.

[ruger9mm]

That color issue will probably not work, if he can place you on the bike and your sig is on the ticket. You will probably lose.
Ask to take defensive driving or seek deferred adjudication.

[Tim Kreitz]

Originally Posted by Sleepy Weasel

It's a statement that says you think he should avoid responsibility for his own actions.

Wrong. You should be held responsible when your actions cause damage to someone else's property. If he had indeed caused some kind of harm or damage to someone's property in the process (highly unlikely), there would've been something to actually hold him responsible for. Doing 10 or 12 mph over the limit on a deserted highway to no ill effect is nothing to be punished for. In old common law the concept was called no harm, no foul. But that concept has long since died. Today we have the rule of enforce frivolous offenses and take their money instead of jailing them. Very profitable, indeed.

Originally Posted by Sleepy Weasel

Ok, so you knew that statistically, the most likely reason for him to get a little one-on-one time with a cop is for speeding. It also says that you know from personal experience that he has a habit of breaking the law.

We all have a habit of breaking the law, and that inlcudes you too. I love it when people try to get pious on this issue. I bet you committed 5 to 20 citable traffic offenses, either wittingly or unwittingly, if you drove or rode today. So what are you waiting for? Get down to city hall and cut them a check! After all, you've got it coming, right?

Originally Posted by Sleepy Weasel

So, speed laws should all be erased from the books?

Errrrrr -- no. Please don't attempt to pull the argument off-subject by being silly.

However, this does imply to me that you don't seem to understand the rightful purpose of laws -- a common plight in this day and age. Laws should generally exist so that, in cases where one person creates damage to another's person or property, there is a guideline and framework for resolution of the justiciable controversy. It shouldn't mean using the penal code at every turn to collect money for the state's coffers -- especially by extoring it through bad discretion and official force from those who have done no harm.

Originally Posted by Sleepy Weasel

So who decides which laws are just? I imagine that the lady who pulled her car in front or my DR650 would prefer that there were no right-of-way laws.

You're profaning the argument. If someone decides to disregard a stop sign and hits you, they should be required to make you whole again. Why, exactly, do you think my position is somehow opposed to this idea? A person should be held fully responsible when they cause harm, but not until then -- and certainly not on the outside chance that they "might" cause harm. (Things such as recklessness and deadly conduct not withstanding, of course.)

Originally Posted by Sleepy Weasel

I missed the part where he was speeding to save his life, or the lives of others.

Wait, what? I'm talking about making positive changes in general through activism and resistance. Are you saying that no bad law should be changed unless it involves life-or-death dynamics? I'm afraid I disagree with that.

Originally Posted by Sleepy Weasel

That said, your very last sentence says what I've been saying... if the law bothers you, speak up. If enough people agree with you, it will change.

Ewkay. You seem to have contradicted the previous quote with this point, but since this friendly debate has long since run its course, I'll leave it at that.

[Tim Kreitz]

I answered a lot of these traffic points already, so I'll refer you to previous posts. As for this stuff...

Originally Posted by BexarWolf

I should be able to smoke as much dope as I want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights?

Yep. And you should be held responsible for any damage you do to yourself as a result. If a man does not own himself, then what does he own?

Originally Posted by BexarWolf

Seriously, there's no reason to register my bike with the state, it's not bothering anyone.

Building and maintaining roads is a proper function of government for which they are rightfully authorized. You should register your bike.

Originally Posted by BexarWolf

And why bother with inspection stickers? Who's going to drive/ride a vehicle that's unsafe?

Washington State doesn't require vehicle inspections, and it's not exactly bedlam there. Heck, as I understand it, their vehicles tend to be in much better repair than a lot of the foreign trucks rolling through the NAFTA states.

Besides, contrary to nanny-state dogma, the average reasonable person will not willingly put himself into situations where he feels he might be hurt or killed. I don't maintain my cars and bikes because I believe in state inspections -- I do it because I want to successfully manage risk.

Originally Posted by BexarWolf

Let me clue you in. More felony arrests are made off of "useless law" traffic violations than you know.

And there we have the full admission of the truth. In addition to collecting fines, most frivolous stops are about gaining so-called probable cause to conduct searches and otherwise "check people out". Just more profaning of the constitution.

Originally Posted by BexarWolf

But who needs a license?

That's actually a pretty good question, if you'll stop for a moment and think about it. If I have the "right" to travel, why do I need a driver's license? Heck, our driver's ed is a joke in this country, anyway.

If I have the "right" to bear arms, why do I need a CHL? If I have a "right" to wed, why do I need a marriage license? Did you know that until after the end of the Civil War, there were no marriage licenses in the US? They primarily were instituted to keep blacks and whites from intermingling. The first gun laws came along about that time as well. Wanna take a guess as to whom they were written to keep guns away from?

[Texason]

Originally Posted by BexarWolf

So, let me get this straight. I'm a little slow at 2 o'clock in the morning after working all day to help support the family unit.

Any law that does not cause harm or infringe on someone else's rights should be abolished. Speed limit laws are only for collecting revenue.

Collectively, I gather that:

The little blinky lights in the school zone should be ignored as long as I don't see little ones in the area?

As long as there's no one else around, I should be able to go as fast as I want out on the highway?

It's 3am and there's no other traffic, so stopping at that 4-way stop sign is senseless, right?

I should be able to smoke as much dope as I want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights?

Seriously, there's no reason to register my bike with the state, it's not bothering anyone. And why bother with inspection stickers? Who's going to drive/ride a vehicle that's unsafe?

Let me clue you in. More felony arrests are made off of "useless law" traffic violations than you know. Like it or not, in my past life I've taken some serious felons off the street for not having a license plate light. Fleeing murders have been caught because of simple traffic violations. Thousands of pounds of marijuana have been taken off the street because a "mule" committed a traffic violation (that's called drug interdiction). But, marijuana is a harmless drug so that one doesn't count, right?

Folks, when you get all these "useless" laws abolished, give me time to get out. Laws are enacted and voted on by the folks WE put into office. I, for one, do NOT want to drive through Austin when they abolish traffic enforcement..........I don't care if it's 3p or 3a.

How would you write the speed limit laws? "As long as there's no one in sight, it's ok to go as fast as you want to"? You think the laws are complicated now? Wait until you try to legislate the laws to accommodate your need for a little adrenaline dump.

The laws are there. If you don't like them, get rid of the folks who wrote them into the books. Or you can just ignore them, get cited, hire a lawyer to get you off the hook and eventually lose your license for being a habitual violator.

But who needs a license? Obviously if you're operating the vehicle you know what you're doing. Why do you need some state authority to tell you it's ok for you to operate a motor vehicle? It's your Right, right? Oh wait, that's wrong. Operating a vehicle is a privilege, not a Right. Oops.

I wish I knew better how to intersperse my thoughts within the quote. Oh well. I'll do my best to format it myself:

The little blinky lights in the school zone should be ignored as long as I don't see little ones in the area?

This sounds an awful lot like the "It's for the children" crowd. You know the old argument that if it is for the children you would have to be a monster to disagree. If there were properly harsh penalties for injuring a human being of any age then people would self modulate their speed in a school zone, not because there are children!!! but because there are more human beings walking around.

As long as there's no one else around, I should be able to go as fast as I want out on the highway?

Same response: if I hurt someone else then throw the book at me. If I don't, what harm has been done?

It's 3am and there's no other traffic, so stopping at that 4-way stop sign is senseless, right?

Maybe I am wrong but I see 4-way stops completely different. Controlling traffic at an intersection is esential or there would be chaos and gridlock.

Seriously, there's no reason to register my bike with the state, it's not bothering anyone. And why bother with inspection stickers? Who's going to drive/ride a vehicle that's unsafe?

I have no problem paying taxes for the roads I use. In fact, I am a HUGE proponet of toll roads. I think everyone should as close as possible pay dirctly for the government services they use. Remember that $50,000,000 bridge to nowhere in Alaska? Debacles like that could not happen if the government did not spread the ludicris taxes across the entire population. There are probably a lot more states that don't have any vehicle inspection process than states that do. Is there "BLOOD ON THE STREETS" in those states that do not require inspections?

Laws are enacted and voted on by the folks WE put into office.

I disagree with this. Laws are made by politicians who want to LOOK like they are doing something, or accomplishing something. How many thousands of redundant or even conflicting laws are on the books?

Let me clue you in. More felony arrests are made off of "useless law" traffic violations than you know. Like it or not, in my past life I've taken some serious felons off the street for not having a license plate light. Fleeing murders have been caught because of simple traffic violations.

This is a good example of The State inconveniencing the 99.95% of law abiding citizens to catch 0.05% of criminals. Another example of this is the jumping through hoops I have to do to get Sudofed when I am sick. Hooray, we made it slightly more difficult for meth-heads to get their kicks while inconveniencing the entire rest of society. My sister-in-law has four kids and a husband who were all sick and NEEDED Sudofed to prevent eardrum ruptures among other issues. She COULD NOT get it. I've gone off track, the bottom line here is stop treating everyone like criminals.

in my past life I've taken some serious felons off the street for not having a license plate light.

Is there no other way these felons would have been caught? If not for that one little light they would have gone free the rest of their life? I guess it is easier to randomly catch a few this way than to really investigate and find the criminals. Why don't we just set up checkpoints on the roads and ask for everyone's travel papers? Then we'll catch them all.

Wait until you try to legislate the laws to accommodate your need for a little adrenaline dump.

I am not a squid. Even if they obolished all speed limits I might choose not to exceed 65 or 70.

[Texason]

Looks like Tim K typed faster and probably more coherently than I did.

[10-95]

All this for "if he wrote down the wrong color...."




I'll just answer the original question.

NO. That isn't something the court would throw a ticket out for. FYI, your ticket is just a notice to you that you got caught doing something you shouldn't have done. It has some info that is mandatory on the back, but the front means absolutely nothing.

[RedPill]

Originally Posted by Tim Kreitz

Did you know that until after the end of the Civil War, there were no marriage licenses in the US? They primarily were instituted to keep blacks and whites from intermingling. The first gun laws came along about that time as well. Wanna take a guess as to whom they were written to keep guns away from?

Absolutely right on this, Tim, and not a lot of people realize it. A great many laws on our books of the licensing and control variety were essentially written to keep portions of the populace "in their place". These were not always racially motivated. Some were written against mine workers and unionists. But in general they were written to be used against folks with darker skin.

[aharbi]

This is the United States of America, land of the golden rule, "he who has the gold rules" So, go out and pay for an attorney and buy "justice". It is the way America works. Lobbyist, big business, special interest groups all follow the golden rule. How else can "we the people" loose healthcare, pensions, investments, mortgages while CEO's make millions in bonus at our expense and our tax dollars pay for their bankruptcy? We, in America have lost sight of a government of the people, by the people, for the people.