that was Kurt Russell in 1996.

 

I hate to say it but I've had TOO many friends get illegal bumper height tickets along with seat belt tickets and too loud of music tickets when neither of them were justified. Just like any other profession, there are going to be bad apples. .

Bingo.

 

sounds like something that would happen to me. its funny how whenever you try to say something to the cop or ask a question you are told to shut up, what a joke.

 

Just go to court and !!!!KICK THE BITCH!!!!!!!KICK THE BITCH!!!!!!KICK THE BITCH!!!!!!!KICK THE BITCH!!!!!!!KICK THE BITCH!!!!!!!KICK THE BITCH!!!!!!!KICK THE BITCH!!!!!!!KICK THE BITCH!!!!!!!KICK THE BITCH!!!!!!!KICK THE BITCH!!!!!!!KICK THE BITCH!!!


Oyea, pull inot court with a 1300 harley with straight pipes and rev it a couple times....then !!!!KICK THE BITCH!!!

 

I agree with this to a point. If the officer/deputy is being a a Richard (even I know some are), then all you are doing is making it worse by being one back. Most officers/deputies know the law a lot better then you do, heck many experienced officers/deputies know it better then the lawyers. They also know how far the law can be stretched. As some of the less professional officer's at my last agency would say, "You might beat the charge but you can't beat the ride." The short of it. Do you really want to go through all of the hassle, take time off work, spend the night in jail, because you could control your emotions.

I've seen it plenty of times. You want to really pi$$ someone off just be nice. "yes, sir" "no, sir" "your ight (no typo), sir" if they are really being a dumsnit then after the fact is the time to dispute the issue not on scene. On scene is the worse possible time all that will happen is you will receive more tickets or go to jail. My wife had an issue with a local Sgt, but she kept her mouth shut on scene and filed a complaint later. It turns out the Sgt was on the short list for the number of complaints for unprofessional conduct and wound up being placed on unpaid suspension and had the ticket thrown out. If she chose to argue the point when she received the citation she would have received more and been taken to jail and lost all credibility with the agency.

I arrested a prominent lawyer one time because he refused to sign a citation. If he would have signed it and went his way he probably could have beat the ticket. Instead he went to jail, lost both charges, paid a big fine, and received 45 hours community service (neither immediately affected him). The biggest issue was he has had several criminal charges in the past. Eventually the judge will see how many criminal issues he has been guilty of and he will be disbarred.


To the OP what statute were you written under? It'll be near the bottom on the right side of the citation.

 

Why would you give the guy a Ticket that could have been beaten? To punish him for being hardheaded? There are alot of hardheaded people out there who when they think they are getting screwed they stand up and dont put up with it. I know alot of cops personally and I think they are all reasonable people. I know sometimes a person just gets on your nerves. I know if I was a cop I would ticket that ***** in the beamer every chance I got. Its human I guess. Well the moral of this is, be an stand up guy with the cops, treat them with respect, and know your rights. The government in general gets away with alot of things just because the majority of people are ignorant of their rights and/or forgot why we put the government and law enforcment there in the first place.

 

You did the right thing by leaving.

 

They was taking plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and
they took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each
one was to be used as evidence against us. Took pictures of the approach,
the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to
mention the aerial photography.

 

I knew he was going to receive a ticket when I pulled him over. He was driving an Expy going 55 in a 35. There were three other cars on the road. Two behind him and one turning. The traffic court was made up of 5 magistrates and a judge. Of the magistrates 3 were anti-law enforcement. One leaned against law enforcement, but gave out harsh punishments, and the judge and last magistrate were the traffic offenders nightmare, but didn't pass out harsh fines unless the offender had a poor attitude. The magistrates were lawyers.

With the three smaller cars on the road, the guy would have been able to make an argument that I clocked someone else. The way the cars were arranged it was impossible to have clocked them and with the supporting requirements for using radar I was positive he was speeding. In addition to all of that he was a lawyer. Lawyers don't like fining or finding other lawyers guilty of anything. So instead of having to prove he was speeding by a preponderance of the evidence I had to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. that is a standard almost impossible to meet on a speeding infraction.

 

Thanks, I understand.