WTF? Radar not needed for speeding tickets in Ohio!

[mrvette]

:rofl::rofl:"cop magnets":rofl:

Toy Oat Ah......

:rofl::rofl:

And most of my friend up north have been and are now cops in various departments...they live/like to drive FAST.....they all hotrodders, even John the 22 year veteran BICYCLE COP in Bethesda Md.....he been offered promotions and such, turns them down, not a pencil jockey, loves riding his bike around silly downtown Bethesda Md. on the outskirts of Wash Dc.....knows every pebble and sidewalk mark in the joint by now, I suspect....:lol::wink:

 

[DeeVeeEight]

It's not about doing what is right or good for the public, it's about the money and the power. :sos:

 

[BBShark]

Don't know the specifics of this ruling but 50 in a 25 is what I thought this was about,a no brainer. The guy gets a citation for speeding ,period.

In my post above it was the 4th of July fireworks and there were hundreds of people with kids and lawn chairs,when the cop got back to his posted position people were pissed and under their breath were calling him a moron because he didn't give the guy a ticket. This sounds (and I could be wrong) like a tool that a cop can use his judgment to make a situation right.

I guess the cop never heard of Reckless Driving laws :suspicious:

I'm sure he has , maybe the people were right he was a moron or maybe he felt getting back to his posted position was more important . Maybe trying to get a Reckless Op to stick in this situation with a fancy attorney fighting might have been a waste of time without the radar proof , he was a veteran on the force.I was just offering up the story as it happened for a possible plus to the new law.

I don't think you are going to offer up ANY stories that will make this law a "plus". That's crap. Reckless Driving has been around for years, what you describe is Reckless Driving and the cop was just too lazy to write a ticket. If he needed proof, he could have taken a statement from a few of the people who saw the reckless driver (you said there were a 100)!

This is an abuse of power with a hidden motive of increasing revenue.

 

[DWncchs]

This is an abuse of power with a hidden motive of increasing revenue.

I think your overreacting , it was 1 ruling on 1 case and its not a law.

 

[mrvette]

This is an abuse of power with a hidden motive of increasing revenue.

I think your overreacting , it was 1 ruling on 1 case and its not a law.

WHEN taking Business Law 101 40 years ago....I found out that CASE LAW has a much weight as the stupid legislated law...so don't kid yourself....

anything even CLOSE to the same shituation will be judged the same way on account of judicial PRECEDENT.....

what we need to do is change that part of the law around so that individual 'judgements' have NO bearing on future cases....

in other words....LEGISLATED LAW rules the roost, NOT some damn 'case' law....

NOW, the was I was taught decades ago maybe not the case today, but somehow I don't think the shituation has improved any...BET ME, anyone??

:cussing::skeptic:

 

[Sar Skipper]

This is an abuse of power with a hidden motive of increasing revenue.

I think your overreacting , it was 1 ruling on 1 case and its not a law.

WHEN taking Business Law 101 40 years ago....I found out that CASE LAW has a much weight as the stupid legislated law...so don't kid yourself....

anything even CLOSE to the same shituation will be judged the same way on account of judicial PRECEDENT.....

what we need to do is change that part of the law around so that individual 'judgements' have NO bearing on future cases....

in other words....LEGISLATED LAW rules the roost, NOT some damn 'case' law....

NOW, the was I was taught decades ago maybe not the case today, but somehow I don't think the shituation has improved any...BET ME, anyone??

:cussing::skeptic:

Pretty much SSDD today :wink:

 

[mrvette]

This is an abuse of power with a hidden motive of increasing revenue.

I think your overreacting , it was 1 ruling on 1 case and its not a law.

WHEN taking Business Law 101 40 years ago....I found out that CASE LAW has a much weight as the stupid legislated law...so don't kid yourself....

anything even CLOSE to the same shituation will be judged the same way on account of judicial PRECEDENT.....

what we need to do is change that part of the law around so that individual 'judgements' have NO bearing on future cases....

in other words....LEGISLATED LAW rules the roost, NOT some damn 'case' law....

NOW, the was I was taught decades ago maybe not the case today, but somehow I don't think the shituation has improved any...BET ME, anyone??

:cussing::skeptic:

Pretty much SSDD today :wink:

Figgers, Dewey, Cheatem, and HOWE...win again....fuckers.....:suicide:

 

[BBShark]

This is an abuse of power with a hidden motive of increasing revenue.

I think your overreacting , it was 1 ruling on 1 case and its not a law.

Overreacting???? To your post about the the cop who didn't give a reckless driver a ticket (has nothing to do with this topic) or the post about the "pluses" of allowing cops to estimate your speed?

It isn't a law???? Where do you come up with this stuff. Try the "it isn't a law" excuse in court :bonkers:

 

[DWncchs]

It isn't a law???? Where do you come up with this stuff. Try the "it isn't a law" excuse in court :bonkers:

So your saying if a cop says I'm speeding and doesn't have the radar to prove it ,because of this one ruling I'm screwed ? How does 1 ruling do that ?
Are you guys defense attorneys ?

 

[mrvette]

It isn't a law???? Where do you come up with this stuff. Try the "it isn't a law" excuse in court :bonkers:

So your saying if a cop says I'm speeding and doesn't have the radar to prove it ,because of this one ruling I'm screwed ? How does 1 ruling do that ?
Are you guys defense attorneys ?

Given the precedent ruling in that state, do you REALLY feel like spending mega bux on Dewey/Cheatem/Howe???

didn't think so....:hissyfit:

 

[BBShark]

It isn't a law???? Where do you come up with this stuff. Try the "it isn't a law" excuse in court :bonkers:

So your saying if a cop says I'm speeding and doesn't have the radar to prove it ,because of this one ruling I'm screwed ? How does 1 ruling do that ?
Are you guys defense attorneys ?

Given the precedent ruling in that state, do you REALLY feel like spending mega bux on Dewey/Cheatem/Howe???

didn't think so....:hissyfit:

Go back and read the article. The Ohio Supreme Court ruling makes a visual estimation of speed sufficient evidence for a conviction. That's what Supreme Courts do, rule on law.

And yes.....If a cop says your speeding in Ohio, your screwed.

 

[Sar Skipper]

It isn't a law???? Where do you come up with this stuff. Try the "it isn't a law" excuse in court :bonkers:

So your saying if a cop says I'm speeding and doesn't have the radar to prove it ,because of this one ruling I'm screwed ? How does 1 ruling do that ?
Are you guys defense attorneys ?

Given the precedent ruling in that state, do you REALLY feel like spending mega bux on Dewey/Cheatem/Howe???

didn't think so....:hissyfit:

Go back and read the article. The Ohio Supreme Court ruling makes a visual estimation of speed sufficient evidence for a conviction. That's what Supreme Courts do, rule on law.

And yes.....If a cop says your speeding in Ohio, your screwed.

Pretty much says it all right there:suicide:

This is one of the most fawked up rulings I've heard of in a loooooong time:huh2:

What the hell were they thinking....the opportunity for abuse is tremendous!

I see federal actions somewhere down the road:wink:

 

[DWncchs]

It isn't a law???? Where do you come up with this stuff. Try the "it isn't a law" excuse in court :bonkers:

So your saying if a cop says I'm speeding and doesn't have the radar to prove it ,because of this one ruling I'm screwed ? How does 1 ruling do that ?
Are you guys defense attorneys ?

Given the precedent ruling in that state, do you REALLY feel like spending mega bux on Dewey/Cheatem/Howe???

didn't think so....:hissyfit:

Go back and read the article. The Ohio Supreme Court ruling makes a visual estimation of speed sufficient evidence for a conviction. That's what Supreme Courts do, rule on law.

And yes.....If a cop says your speeding in Ohio, your screwed.

If you are an attorney, by me discussing this I'm probably going to learn something so please be easy on me.
A ticket doesn't mean your guilty,you have your day in court. When the cop is using radar you argue the accuracy of the radar unit and whatever else could effect the reading on the radar unit,environment,the time the cops been running radar and how many times the cop has had his tickets contested and so on.
When you go into court and its just the cops "word" that you were speeding its the COP that you target !!! This will open a very large door into the cops life,(drinks the night before,does he use Viagra?)he will be in court instead of on the street(someone has to cover his shift),even if the cop is good at estimating can you imagine every time they issue a ticket this way they could be in court AND now multiply that by 10 cops issuing tickets this way and the court will be overloaded with contested tickets.
First I doubt any cop will issue a ticket this way unless its absolutely necessary like a 50 in a school zone and I'm just guessing but the city is not going to push this because of the time (money) invested in getting a conviction will far exceed the fine (payoff). JMO

 

[mrvette]

Slohio cop would have a field day with these school buses, when they run down my hill here, they easy doing 50, serious, and it's just a 20' street with cars parked on it....

and it's not the only street they do that shit on, either....

:lol::sos:

 

[BBShark]

If you are an attorney, by me discussing this I'm probably going to learn something so please be easy on me.
A ticket doesn't mean your guilty,you have your day in court. When the cop is using radar you argue the accuracy of the radar unit and whatever else could effect the reading on the radar unit,environment,the time the cops been running radar and how many times the cop has had his tickets contested and so on.
When you go into court and its just the cops "word" that you were speeding its the COP that you target !!! This will open a very large door into the cops life,(drinks the night before,does he use Viagra?)he will be in court instead of on the street(someone has to cover his shift),even if the cop is good at estimating can you imagine every time they issue a ticket this way they could be in court AND now multiply that by 10 cops issuing tickets this way and the court will be overloaded with contested tickets.
First I doubt any cop will issue a ticket this way unless its absolutely necessary like a 50 in a school zone and I'm just guessing but the city is not going to push this because of the time (money) invested in getting a conviction will far exceed the fine (payoff). JMO

Wow. You are a tough sell!

The Ohio supreme cort ruling makes visual estimation of speed AS VALID proof of speeding. Exactly the same as radar evidence. No difference. So people are free to contest the visual evidence, exectly like they are free to contest the radar evidence currently. The courts won't be filled with any more people challanging these tickets than they are now. This is just like the seat belt law. It was a "no fine" warning when it was instituted and now it's a major money maker for Ohio (I think it's a $110 fine).

Lets try this. I should have made this a poll so let's do this:

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a good thing-DWncchs

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a bad thing-Everyone else

 

[DWncchs]

Wow. You are a tough sell!

Tough , yes but not impossible. In my defense I spend most of my day chasing automotive electrical nightmares so I can't take things at face value, as you know bubba has been most everywhere. If I don't allow my brain to go outside the box many of the problems I run into would never actually be diagnosed.

You have issues with the seat belt law ? Can you imagine how much not having that law would cost us taxpayers ?

 

[BBShark]

Let's not turn this into a seatbelt law discussion. However, yes, I have problems with the way the law was sold, the fact that it has just turned into another money grab and finnaly, I don't need the government to protect me from myself.

This, in a state where motorcycle helmets are NOT law but seatbelts are?



Walter Williams

"Click It or Ticket" represents another bold step along the road to serfdom. History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. Nazis used "for the good of the German Volk" and the Soviets used "for the good of the proletariat" as their justification. Health and safety have become the American justification for attacks on liberty.

In a free society, each person owns himself. As such, he has the broad discretion to make his own choices regardless of what others think of the wisdom of his choices. He has the right to take chances with his own health and safety. However, if an American doesn't own himself, and it's Congress that owns him, he doesn't have those rights. Thus, the "Click It or Ticket" program is simply Congress' way of caring for its property, the American people.

Whether seatbelt usage is a good idea is beside the point, for daily exercise, nutritious meals, eight hours sleep, and cultural and intellectual enrichment might also be good ideas. The point is whether government has a right to coerce us into taking care of ourselves.

If eating what we wish is our business and not that of government, then why should we accept government's coercing us to wear seatbelts? America's tyrants might answer, "We just haven't gotten around to dictating diets yet."

Some might argue, but falsely so, that the problem with people exercising their liberty to drive without seatbelts, ride motorcycles without helmets or eat in unhealthy ways is that if they become injured or sick, society will be burdened with higher health-care costs. That's not a problem of liberty but one of socialism.

There's no liberty-based argument for forcing one person to care for the needs of another. Under socialism, one is obliged to care for another. A parent-child relationship emerges between the citizen and the government. That was not the vision of our Founders.

 

[DWncchs]

From a practical standpoint go to the west side of Dayton and sit outside the beer drive inns. These people are wearing their seat belts ,they are drinking , they have no insurance , they are wrecking on a regular basis,with their seatbelts on they don't end up in our local hospitals with me and you paying their hospital bills. Click it or Ticket works.
If my 19 year old daughter didn't fear a ticket she wouldn't buckle up,she has crashed 4 times and totaled 2 cars. ( her dumbass mother thinks its funny )

I think helmets should be a law.

 

[DeeVeeEight]

The moral of the story is.....

So then the moral of the story is "When in Ohio drive BELOW the posted speed limit" like some save the world Prius owner OR "Park the car and take public transportation".:clobbered:

Maybe you should just turn around and drive in reverse, you might get there faster!:nuts:

 

[DWncchs]

Lets try this. I should have made this a poll so let's do this:

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a good thing-DWncchs

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a bad thing-Everyone else

OK I keep looking at this poll comment of yours.
So your saying everyone at VM shares "your" opinion OR everyone "better" share your opinion ?