Unbeliviable SG Scam

[Cheshire Figment]

Laws can do anything.

When I was in college (and taking a business law class) I received a ticket for "Speeding in the 4700 block of Fred Wilson Road". When I went to court I was able to prove that (a) the 4700 block of Fred Wilson Road did not legally exist, and (b) even if it did exist, I could not have been speeding in that block.

I never denied that I was speeding. The prosecutor comment that my defense was technicalities; my response is that "the law is a collection of technicalities". Anyway, the judge dismissed the case but suggested to me I may never want to be in his courtroom in the future.

[Big Wallaby]

Laws can do anything.

And that is what makes them downright scary.

And then, of course, the natural progression is into the difference between Big Wallaby (substitute my real name here) and BIG WALLABY (substitute the name on the Social Security Card that is used to represent me).

But that's a rant that I will save for another day, in a forum that is made for that sort of thing. If this is something new to you and you want to know more, look it up. Hours of very interesting reading. Whether it is accurate or not, you will have to draw your own conclusions as I have mine.

[shilohmm]

I never denied that I was speeding. The prosecutor comment that my defense was technicalities; my response is that "the law is a collection of technicalities". Anyway, the judge dismissed the case but suggested to me I may never want to be in his courtroom in the future.

The one time I had to go to court for speeding, they'd close the court for batches of fifty or so people at a time, then go through them alphabetically. I was about last on the list, but I was only the second to plead guilty and the first to not dispute the ticket. The judge promptly waived the $75 fine on the ticket and charged me only the $5 for court costs. :D: He may have been influenced by the fact that I was high enough over the speed limit I could have been charged for reckless driving, without the cop having to defend that charge, and wasn't, but really I think he figured the novelty factor was worth that much. ;)

[5th Dimension]

Simple solution: UO has signs as you go into the park that you may be recorded, and your image may be used for promotional purposes, and you agree to that by entering the park. Have some sort of notice like that, and use the fact that it is the private property of the company who owns the park.

I think Disney has that too, I think it's printed on the back of every park ticket.

[drcorey]

I think Disney has that too, I think it's printed on the back of every park ticket.

they should add to it in these new days here.
big block letters, not fine print,
A Disney property is Not a public area, you are only a Guest,
and this status can be revoked anytime or anywhere without notice.

[Malpass93]

Much like how the 911 operator in Big Wallaby's story has no way of knowing if the voice heard was the owner of the phone or some person who happened to have possession of the phone, a police officer on patrol has no way of knowing who the driver of a vehicle is prior to identifying the driver. The testimony should not assume facts not in evidence. If the officer says:

1. I saw a car
2. The driver did something,
3. I stopped the car,
4. I identified the driver, who is the defendant in this case,
5. I cited the defendant,

that's fine, but if instead (and this is far more common, from what I've seen), he says:

1. I saw the defendant's car,
2. The defendant did something,
3. I stopped the car,
4. I cited the defendant,

then that makes the assumption that the car is that of the defendant, when there has not yet been testimony establishing that fact. My understanding is that if I see a 1996 Honda Accord LX sedan with certain dents and scratches and a certain license plate number, I know it's my friend Harmony's car, and would hypothetically be able to testify to that, but a random cop who does not personally know Harmony or her car can't just straight out say that the car he saw was Harmony's (well... I suppose if he ran the plates, he'd see who the registered owner is, but that's beside the point). And neither one of us would be able to say that it's Harmony driving her car without further evidence.

You don't have to own the car to commit a crime in one...

[DisneyMom]

These are the sort of semantics that the "traffic ticket specialists" exploit in order to get people off on moving violations. Many of the specialists are ex-cops, and they are well aware of all the minor mistakes that an officer can make in giving the ticket, and testifying in court. Plus in many cases the cop does not show up for the trial anyway, so the ticket is thrown out. THats why one thing the specialist does, when you plead not guilty and request a trial, is he waits till the last possible minute and requests a date or venue change for the trial. Since it defeats the plan to have all Officer Krupkys' trials on the same day, it greatly increases the odds of the officer being a no show.

Is this thinking why the last time I was on jury duty, the defense lawyer wanted us to consider the possibility that the Defendant had been drinking and driving, but was not actually "drunk" and that the officer had just administered the test incorrectly ? Based on the preliminary jury interviews,the Defendant changed his plea to "guilty" ;)

[hobie16]

We had a case here where the perp snatched a purse out of a car at a popular tourist spot. The defense attorney tried to convenience the jury that it was the owner's fault that his client had stolen the purse. Result? Guilty.

[delsdad]

Is this thinking why the last time I was on jury duty, the defense lawyer wanted us to consider the possibility that the Defendant had been drinking and driving, but was not actually "drunk" and that the officer had just administered the test incorrectly ? Based on the preliminary jury interviews,the Defendant changed his plea to "guilty" ;)

At least here, they always question the officers qualifications with the radar gun or the Breathalyzer. And that is sometimes enough to get the ticket thrown out, if the officer was not absolutely current in his training with said technology.
It allows a lot of guilty people to walk too ! I have co-workers who got off that way, especially on speeding charges.

[DisneyMom]

At least here, they always question the officers qualifications with the radar gun or the Breathalyzer. And that is sometimes enough to get the ticket thrown out, if the officer was not absolutely current in his training with said technology.
It allows a lot of guilty people to walk too ! I have co-workers who got off that way, especially on speeding charges.

Don't remember all the circumstances,but thinking whatever it was he did was pretty grievous to need a jury trial.....or do you get a trial anytime you have a lawyer involved in your case? Only speeding ticket I've received was in 1986 for going 70 downhill in my '76 Subaru....