ticket

[moon]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

And so you want a police officer to spend a day in court court so you can try and weasel out of some of the punishment for something you already concede you know you did?

My guess is that he would prefer that the officer doesn't show up and spend the day in court.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Let me be the first to say it; to get it over with quickly, so you all can blast us "responsibility" types - how about you just suck it up, pay the ticket, and take it as a lesson in paying more attention to your driving rather than passing responsibility for this off on "the cop" or this "interesting has new light set up there, it use to be a stop sign only"?

I agree. Why do so many people try to find a way out? You did it, pay up.

There have been several threads on this. I'm guessin this one will end up the same as the others.... someone already listed your options.... pick one and run with it....

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Personally, I'm getting to the point of wondering if there shouldn't be a penalty for people who waste the court's and the officer's time like this.

Yes, because we all want to live in a police state where you can be charged with something and have no recourse to a court of law to protest your innocence.

We live in a society where the rule of law applies to the police and courts no less than it does to the rest of us; such a system does cost money, it is does invite abuse, and it does mean that some who break the law escape the consequences due to this fact. However, the alternative is far worse, so before you start mulling over radical restructuring of the justice system in order to punish some vehicular scofflaws, think about what kind of precedent that would set, and think again.

Also, the "time and money wasted" argument is laughable at best. Traffic fines are a net moneymaker, not a moneyloser, and going to court is factored in to cops' daily schedule - it's not some sort of extraordinary duty that causes chaos thru the ranks as they scramble to deal with its consequences.

In this instance I don't think there is a legitimate case to be made for the defence, but if the guy wants to go to court, that is his right, and not some sort of assault upon society that must be discouraged at all costs - telling people they shouldn't exercise their rights is how you end up with a country of sheep instead of citizens.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by jammies

Yes, because we all want to live in a police state where you can be charged with something and have no recourse to a court of law to protest your innocence.

We live in a society where the rule of law applies to the police and courts no less than it does to the rest of us; such a system does cost money, it is does invite abuse, and it does mean that some who break the law escape the consequences due to this fact. However, the alternative is far worse, so before you start mulling over radical restructuring of the justice system in order to punish some vehicular scofflaws, think about what kind of precedent that would set, and think again.

Also, the "time and money wasted" argument is laughable at best. Traffic fines are a net moneymaker, not a moneyloser, and going to court is factored in to cops' daily schedule - it's not some sort of extraordinary duty that causes chaos thru the ranks as they scramble to deal with its consequences.

In this instance I don't think there is a legitimate case to be made for the defence, but if the guy wants to go to court, that is his right, and not some sort of assault upon society that must be discouraged at all costs - telling people they shouldn't exercise their rights is how you end up with a country of sheep instead of citizens.

We also live in a society were no one will take responsibility for their own actions.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

We also live in a society were no one will take responsibility for their own actions.

That is (besides being debatable) a matter of culture, and irrelevant to this situation. A society of fools cannot be made wise by passing laws against stupidity.

Originally Posted by jammies

Yes, because we all want to live in a police state where you can be charged with something and have no recourse to a court of law to protest your innocence.

We live in a society where the rule of law applies to the police and courts no less than it does to the rest of us; such a system does cost money, it is does invite abuse, and it does mean that some who break the law escape the consequences due to this fact. However, the alternative is far worse, so before you start mulling over radical restructuring of the justice system in order to punish some vehicular scofflaws, think about what kind of precedent that would set, and think again.

Also, the "time and money wasted" argument is laughable at best. Traffic fines are a net moneymaker, not a moneyloser, and going to court is factored in to cops' daily schedule - it's not some sort of extraordinary duty that causes chaos thru the ranks as they scramble to deal with its consequences.

In this instance I don't think there is a legitimate case to be made for the defence, but if the guy wants to go to court, that is his right, and not some sort of assault upon society that must be discouraged at all costs - telling people they shouldn't exercise their rights is how you end up with a country of sheep instead of citizens.

I am not sure our forefathers (curse you Trudeau and your CCRF) really envisioned the 'right' to go to court this way. Who knows, maybe I am wrong, but in my estimation the court system (with all its series of checks and balances) was created to give people the opportunity to plead their INNOCENCE before a higher power. Unfortunately, as this thread illustrates, it has become a means whereby clearly guilty people have the opportunity to lessen the consequences for their actions. Again, I am not sure that's what a court is for.

I don't think anyone is suggesting there shouldn't be courts, as there is ofcourse thousands of cases of people wrongfully accused. Nor is anyone suggesting that a police state is a better alternative (you kinda sounded like Bill O'Reilly there), only that the purpose of the court system has become a means by which people absolve themselves of their careless actions.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by jammies

That is (besides being debatable) a matter of culture, and irrelevant to this situation. A society of fools cannot be made wise by passing laws against stupidity.

It is completely relevant to this situation.

[Ford Prefect]

I have a question regarding insurance companies. If you don't tell them about any tickets you get, how do they find out? As I understand the situation, they do not get notification from the traffic courts of convictions, and they do not automatically review everyone's driver's abstract. I've heard they randomly pull files and check a certain percentage of abstracts, so if you don't tell them about convictions, and if you aren't one of the ones whose abstract they randomly check, I would assume they won't find out.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by jammies

Yes, because we all want to live in a police state where you can be charged with something and have no recourse to a court of law to protest your innocence.

We live in a society where the rule of law applies to the police and courts no less than it does to the rest of us; such a system does cost money, it is does invite abuse, and it does mean that some who break the law escape the consequences due to this fact. However, the alternative is far worse, so before you start mulling over radical restructuring of the justice system in order to punish some vehicular scofflaws, think about what kind of precedent that would set, and think again.

Also, the "time and money wasted" argument is laughable at best. Traffic fines are a net moneymaker, not a moneyloser, and going to court is factored in to cops' daily schedule - it's not some sort of extraordinary duty that causes chaos thru the ranks as they scramble to deal with its consequences.

In this instance I don't think there is a legitimate case to be made for the defence, but if the guy wants to go to court, that is his right, and not some sort of assault upon society that must be discouraged at all costs - telling people they shouldn't exercise their rights is how you end up with a country of sheep instead of citizens.

I am in no way against giving anyone their due process. If someone believes they need to be heard because of a mistake, extenuating circumstance, or hardship then for sure they should be free to take advantage of their time in court.

But this isn't the first thread where a person full admits they are at fault and are looking for some way to beat the system. I would prefer police officers being on patrol rather than sitting in court. I would prefer our court system to be available for people who truly need to be heard rather than being used by people unwilling to pay the price for their own actions.

Hearing about people taking advantage of the systems in place is something that just irks me. I'm far from someone who wants a police state. Indeed, I think if you could dig out my previous posts you would see I am more of a privacy advocate. But I want these systems in place for people who need justice, not clogged by people shirking their responsibilities to the rest of society.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Who knows, maybe I am wrong, but in my estimation the court system (with all its series of checks and balances) was created to give people the opportunity to plead their INNOCENCE before a higher power.

So only innocent people should claim their innocence, and the guilty should just admit they are guilty? If people actually thought that way, we wouldn't need courts in the first place...

[The White Out]

Originally Posted by flip

what about "i was so drunk that i couldn't tell what color the light was"??

finally someone is making sense

[jammies]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It is completely relevant to this situation.

No it isn't. Many people DO pay their tickets when they get them, so you are making a false generalization from a specific case. Also, this is a straw man - my point was that the right to fair trial is crucial to the rule of law, and rule of law is crucial in limiting abuse of the law by authority, which is why the idea of simply not allowing people to contest traffic tickets is a very bad idea. The assertion you made is an attempt to ignore these points and move the question into the realm of personal morality, when it is rather a question of personal rights - not at all the same thing.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

But I want these systems in place for people who need justice, not clogged by people shirking their responsibilities to the rest of society.

Who decides what is justice, if not the courts? The police? Politicians? Public opinion? The Punisher?

We must take the bad with the good, there is no other way the system can work fairly. I much prefer courts clogged with the guilty trying to evade punishment than, for example, a Stalinist court where you were known to be guilty before the trial began, and the only question was if you would make your confession willingly or be forced into it.

Originally Posted by jammies

Who decides what is justice, if not the courts? The police? Politicians? Public opinion? The Punisher?

We must take the bad with the good, there is no other way the system can work fairly. I much prefer courts clogged with the guilty trying to evade punishment than, for example, a Stalinist court where you were known to be guilty before the trial began, and the only question was if you would make your confession willingly or be forced into it.

Wow, you are a man (or woman) of extremes. I also would much prefer to have courts clogged then to live in a Stalinist regime- if you want to talk about relevant issues in this thread, I don't think Stalin should be included. Again, the point people are making is that if you are guilty, there is a consequence. If you are indeed innocent then there is recourse. To suggest the alternative to a smoothly running court system whereby people who believe they are innocent can plead to a higher power is some sort of police state is again, irrelevant.

The Rule of Law? Are you kidding me. All that means is that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law- sure it keeps police, etc, etc in check, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about paying your damn tickets when you are clearly guilty.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by jammies

So only innocent people should claim their innocence, and the guilty should just admit they are guilty? If people actually thought that way, we wouldn't need courts in the first place...

And that is the point we are trying to make. When I get a ticket, and I deserved it, I pay it. If I am not guilty, or there are special circumstances, then I fight it.

I'll let you guys in on a little secret. I find the best time to get out of a ticket is when the blue and red lights are still flashing. When the officer asks why I think he pulled me over, I say "because I'm a dummy" as opposed to "close to quota time." Admit fault, be sincere in your appology, and show respect for the officer and his/her safety. (ie- dark stretch of road have your interior light on and both your hands at the top of the steering wheel.)

When I first read the OP's story, I was thinking it was going to be a case of him waiting at the light for 10 minutes, but the sensor wasn't letting it change. That would be a reason for breaking the law in my mind; and a reason to fight the ticket. However in this case it's an issue of not paying attention enough to see two 75 watt flood lights; which means he may not have also seen anything/anybody else on the road. Nothing teaches me better to pay attention like having to fork over some cash.

Sometimes life lessons cost money.