Legal Help: Police Intimidation

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

So theoretically could he get a ticket for driving each of 70kph, 71, 72, 73, 74,... etc?

Just seems like there should be something explicitly saying that a person couldn't be ticketed for each kph over the limit he was going, instead of our only protection being "the cop would have to be a real A-hole to do that".

Another problem I got here is with the "police can charge you with whatever they want" statement. If I'm charged with some traffic offense, the burden is now on me for some reason, to prove my innocence. Sounds fair. Also it's not cheap or convenient to prove my innocence. So if you've done nothing wrong, the absolute best case scenario is a loss of a days wages. Pretty sketchy.

Yeah, they could write you a ticket for each kph over the speed limit.
But only the highest one would stick, that was my point. In the OPs case, he was given two tickets, one for 20 over and one for 40 over, so if the judge decides he is guilty, then the 20 over won't matter, he'll just have to pay the 40.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yeah, they could write you a ticket for each kph over the speed limit.
But only the highest one would stick, that was my point. In the OPs case, he was given two tickets, one for 20 over and one for 40 over, so if the judge decides he is guilty, then the 20 over won't matter, he'll just have to pay the 40.

So if the cop clocks me at 40 over, then a second down the road he clocks me at 35, he could give me 2 tickets as I was clocked over in 2 seperate incidents.
Then add up on top, the fact he can give me a ticket for each kmph over the limit. And while we are at it, what about a ticket for each second we are over the limit. Oh, and dont forget to multiply each of those readings times how many kmph's over the limit.

I dont think some you guys get how things work.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yeah, they could write you a ticket for each kph over the speed limit.
But only the highest one would stick, that was my point. In the OPs case, he was given two tickets, one for 20 over and one for 40 over, so if the judge decides he is guilty, then the 20 over won't matter, he'll just have to pay the 40.

Man that sucks, I just think such a situation goes against the whole "serve and protect" mantra associated with the police. But then I remember that traffic laws aren't intended to serve nor protect but "to make money", then it makes perfect sense.

Step 1: Put the burden of proof on the defendant(?) and then make the system complex, expensive, and incovenient.
Step 2: Profit.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by Ducay

So if the cop clocks me at 40 over, then a second down the road he clocks me at 35, he could give me 2 tickets as I was clocked over in 2 seperate incidents.
Then add up on top, the fact he can give me a ticket for each kmph over the limit. And while we are at it, what about a ticket for each second we are over the limit. Oh, and dont forget to multiply each of those readings times how many kmph's over the limit.

I dont think some you guys get how things work.

Well that's what I'm asking. If he can in fact, write both tickets, then in the most extreme case, he could write an infinite number of tickets. I would think that there would be explicit protection against that in the TSA because I've heard unwritten rules don't stand up well in court.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Where do you people get your info?!?! There's no dashcams in calgary yet so that's incorrect.

My bad. I didn't think for one second the great CPS was that back-woods red-neck.

Unfortunately, as much as people hate to believe it, a cops word is proof. They go on the stand, swear on the bible, and if they lie, they're perjuring themselves.

Yeah, because a cop has never ever lied on the stand to make quota, or just out of plain nastiness.

If you really think a cops word vs. yours will get your ticket thrown out how does any ticket become legit?! A cop pulls you over after you run a red light...cop is the only witness other than yourself...and you think the ticket won't stand?!

Cop witnessed it, and if he had a dash camera then it wouldn't be an issue now would it?

No offense but know your stuff before you start spouting information in a thread.

No offense, but it would seem to me I was actually giving them too much credit. Now I know there are no dash-cameras and their word is like the Pope's.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

My bad. I didn't think for one second the great CPS was that back-woods red-neck.

Yeah, because a cop has never ever lied on the stand to make quota, or just out of plain nastiness.

Cop witnessed it, and if he had a dash camera then it wouldn't be an issue now would it?

No offense, but it would seem to me I was actually giving them too much credit. Now I know there are no dash-cameras and their word is like the Pope's.

Do you watch a lot of shows like "Destroyed in Seconds" and "America's Greatest Car Chases"?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by 4X4

But inside the city? Are there any roads where going 50 over the limit is ever a good idea? Either you're young and crazy or you're drunk. Either way, your car should be crushed. You're crazy to do it in the daytime because there's traffic on every road. You're crazy to do it at night because you can't see as well.

Crowchild I could see going 130 between 32nd and Nose Hill. Thats about it. 50 over in the city is generally a very dumb idea.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

on your court date, get yourself some suspenders, hook your thumbs under them and explain that you are not a big city lawyer

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you watch a lot of shows like "Destroyed in Seconds" and "America's Greatest Car Chases"?

I don't even know what that means but it made me laugh.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you watch a lot of shows like "Destroyed in Seconds" and "America's Greatest Car Chases"?

I haven't owned a TV in over two years.

They're Asian, after all...

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I haven't owned a TV in over two years.

They're Asian, after all...

commie

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Wow, you guys are really missing the point.
The cop COULD give you all of those extra tickets, but they never will.
WHY because in all of those cases you would only be held to the greatest offence.

Sure you could get charged with going 10, 11, 12 etc over, but if you were going 20 over, that'd be the one that stuck. So why would a cop write 20 tickets he knows aren't going to stick, as they all supercede each other?

In the OPs case the second ticket is more like a correction or revision as each of my hypothetical tickets would be.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Wow, you guys are really missing the point.
The cop COULD give you all of those extra tickets, but they never will.
WHY because in all of those cases you would only be held to the greatest offence.

Sure you could get charged with going 10, 11, 12 etc over, but if you were going 20 over, that'd be the one that stuck. So why would a cop write 20 tickets he knows aren't going to stick, as they all supercede each other?

In the OPs case the second ticket is more like a correction or revision as each of my hypothetical tickets would be.

Back to the OP, nevermind 20 tickets, why would he even issue two tickets if one superceded the other? To keep himself out of court, that much is plainly obvious, people are less likely to fight a lower ticket. The "he was just being a nice guy" theory went out the door as soon as this conversation happened:

"Are you still gonna fight the ticket?"
"Yes"
"Then here's a worse ticket"

He saw his plan to keep himself out of court fail, realized that he was going to court either way, and decided to issue a much more expensive ticket to really eff the OP over if the OP were to lose. The cop gained nothing by issuing the second ticket, he only effed the OP over.

Sounds like abuse of a stupid loophole in the law to me.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

Back to the OP, nevermind 20 tickets, why would he even issue two tickets if one superceded the other? To keep himself out of court, that much is plainly obvious, people are less likely to fight a lower ticket. The "he was just being a nice guy" theory went out the door as soon as this conversation happened:

"Are you still gonna fight the ticket?"
"Yes"
"Then here's a worse ticket"

He saw his plan to keep himself out of court fail, realized that he was going to court either way, and decided to issue a much more expensive ticket to really eff the OP over if the OP were to lose. The cop gained nothing by issuing the second ticket, he only effed the OP over.

Sounds like abuse of a stupid loophole in the law to me.

How?? The offender could have been given a ticket for that amount any how so how is it any kind of a loop hole?

If I am going to be kind enough to give someone a break and they want to turn around and make life more difficult for me, then why the hell wouldn't I give them exactly what they asked for then?

If he didn't commit the offence and he was going to fight it anyhow, then all the power to him, if he is that confident that he didn't break any laws then he shouldn't mind getting the higher ticket now should he?

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

How?? The offender could have been given a ticket for that amount any how so how is it any kind of a loop hole?

If I am going to be kind enough to give someone a break and they want to turn around and make life more difficult for me, they why the hell wouldn't I give them exactly what they asked for then?

If he didn't commit the offence and he was going to fight it anyone, then all the power to him, if he is that confident that he didn't break any laws then he shouldn't mind getting the higher ticket now should he?

Well, because in my opinion (and I made this much clear in my previous post), he wasn't being kind, he was trying to keep himself out of court. We'll never know either way so no point debating that. But the rest of my argument is based on that assumption.

I call it a loophole because I see no legitimate reason for an officer to be able to write two tickets for the same offense. If someone explains a good reason to me, fine, I could be convinced.

However, it doesn't matter anyway, it's just terminology. Loophole or not, the fact is the cop used the two tickets to dissuade (bully) the OP from his right to go to court.

If I am going to be kind enough to give someone a break and they want to turn around and make life more difficult for me, they why the hell wouldn't I give them exactly what they asked for then?

Because it's not a police officer's job to be a vindictive prick. All personal issues should be put aside and his behaviour should be governed by his job description. No question.

if he is that confident that he didn't break any laws then he shouldn't mind getting the higher ticket now should he?

Because as has been outline earlier in this thread, in a case of the cops word versus someone else's, the cops' word is scripture. So yeah, he should mind.

[Madman]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

their word is like the Pope's.

So, the police need to video tape everything just to prove they aren't lying?

What about every other single crime not involving a dash cam?

What if you were robbed, call 911 for help, describe the suspect and a cop goes off your description and arrests the suspect? The cop would bring the suspect back and you verify it is the same person that robbed you. Why couldn't the criminal just go to court and say it didn't happen? Because you said it happened? Why is your word like the Pope's?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

Well, because in my opinion (and I made this much clear in my previous post), he wasn't being kind, he was trying to keep himself out of court. We'll never know either way so no point debating that. But the rest of my argument is based on that assumption.

WTF? You pulled this assumption from where? Is it possible he could have done BOTH? Being kind as well as not wanting to sit in court all day? Because I will tell you something, from my experience, people fight tickets/enforcement action a lot less when they have been given a break.

In most cases it works in everyones best interest if someone gets these kinds of breaks.

1.) The offender feels much better about his experience with the officer if the officer appears to be a human and have some empathy. The offender is less likely to go around and bad mouth the officer and the department he works for, infact, he is more likely to talk positively about the officer. Of course there are always people that think they have done no wrong and everyone is out to get them.

2.) The offender becomes acountable for his/her actions as there is a punishment for breaking the law.

3.) The officer doesn't feel like is a dick wad going around like a robot handing out tickets for every offence at the maximum punishment.

4.) The officer can spend more time policing instead of being tied up in court all day long explaining to a judge that he caught someone speeding.

I call it a loophole because I see no legitimate reason for an officer to be able to write two tickets for the same offense. If someone explains a good reason to me, fine, I could be convinced.

It has been explained numberous times. If it were not like this then police would have to stop EVERYONE going over the speed limit no matter the speed and hand out tickets. Is that what you want? No discretion for police officers?

However, it doesn't matter anyway, it's just terminology. Loophole or not, the fact is the cop used the two tickets to dissuade (bully) the OP from his right to go to court.

That maybe the case and like I said early it is very unprofessional. But it has also been brought up that there is really two sides to this story. I am not picking a side but I know that in almost all cases someone who has been accused of an offence either does not tell the whole truth or they are unaware of some of the truth.

Because it's not a police officer's job to be a vindictive prick. All personal issues should be put aside and his behaviour should be governed by his job description. No question.

I agree, he shouldn't be vindictive, if he was and is then he shouldn't be a police officer. But you better pray that this world never ends up being a place where police do EXACTLY what the law tells them to do. We will all be screwed.

Because as has been outline earlier in this thread, in a case of the cops word versus someone else's, the cops' word is scripture. So yeah, he should mind.

I am pretty sure that no one said that a officers word is scripture. A police officers testimony many times does have more weight as evidence in court as long as the officer can articulate his authority, the event and the violation. A judge will almost never rely completely on a police officers word, or any other persons word for that matter. Part of what the officer testifies include past experiences, training and knowledge of the law.

EDIT: And, if someone is charged with an offence that they did not commit, I agree and encourage them to fight it in court. That is what it is there for. Police are human. They make mistakes, they can be bad officers, they can vindictive, they can be criminals.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

My bad. I didn't think for one second the great CPS was that back-woods red-neck.



Yeah, because a cop has never ever lied on the stand to make quota, or just out of plain nastiness.



Cop witnessed it, and if he had a dash camera then it wouldn't be an issue now would it?



No offense, but it would seem to me I was actually giving them too much credit. Now I know there are no dash-cameras and their word is like the Pope's.

I don't see why your making this an issue? Cops have the lawful authority as given by the criminal code to enforce these laws and arrest based on what they've seen regardless of lack of evidence.

As long as its reasonable and probable under the law the cop can make these decisions.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Madman

So, the police need to video tape everything just to prove they aren't lying?

What about every other single crime not involving a dash cam?

What if you were robbed, call 911 for help, describe the suspect and a cop goes off your description and arrests the suspect? The cop would bring the suspect back and you verify it is the same person that robbed you. Why couldn't the criminal just go to court and say it didn't happen? Because you said it happened? Why is your word like the Pope's?

If I lived on a farm in the middle of nowhere, alone, then this might have made some sense.

Besides, if the robber isn't caught in the first couple hours chances are they're not going to be, provided it was a completely random robbery.

Not to mention the forensic evidence.

Traffic tickets and felonies I think are a stretch to compare. I am simply arguing for more Police accountability as it pertains to traffic tickets.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

WTF? You pulled this assumption from where? Is it possible he could have done BOTH? Being kind as well as not wanting to sit in court all day? Because I will tell you something, from my experience, people fight tickets/enforcement action a lot less when they have been given a break.

It has been explained numberous times. If it were not like this then police would have to stop EVERYONE going over the speed limit no matter the speed and hand out tickets. Is that what you want? No discretion for police officers?

Ok I agree with most of your last post, kept the rest above. I'll also acknowledge that this is all based on one side of the story.

I explained where I got my assumption from two posts ago. As soon as the cop came to the house, asked if the OP was gonna fight it still, and gave him another ticket, any illusion of kindness evaporated. A true act of kindness does not demand a reward. This guy did just that, he had his own interests in mind. And I already acknowledged that "people are less likely to fight a lower ticket", in fact, that statement supports the fact the lower ticket was not kindness, but in the officer's own self-interest.

As for the second paragraph above, I have no idea how it applies to my loophole issue. I guess all I mean is, if we assume an officer is competent, why does he have to write a ticket twice? Maybe I skimmed the thread but I haven't seen an example of two tickets being written like this for a legit reason.

EDIT: And let me point out that yes, an officer giving a lower ticket has many benefits. But if the driver maintains he is innocent and, when he declares his intention to fight, the officer says "fine, deal with this even worse ticket"... that's a dick move, the cop had nothing to gain from that.