Originally Posted by 7960 BINGO! So it's subjective. This would be a nightmare. There is an element of subjectiveness. Currently there is for speeding at least, a defined objective "safe" and "unsafe" speed. The problem is though it is objective it is also wrong because what is safe changes. if ...
01-04-2007, 12:12 AM
| #21 | ||||
| Baka  Idealist Adelaide, Australia 
| Originally Posted by 7960 There is an element of subjectiveness. Currently there is for speeding at least, a defined objective "safe" and "unsafe" speed. The problem is though it is objective it is also wrong because what is safe changes. if the law does not then it sometimes wrong. 
Originally Posted by 7960 I thought I laid it out previously, but I must not have been clear enough.
1. Issued ticket 2. Dispute ticket 3. Cops then must choose to prosecute, and submit evidence as I previously outlined. Hence you do not have to prove anything, the cop would have to justify his position with evidence which you would have access to as to dispute where appropriate. How is this nay different that a cop ticketing you doing burnouts etc? Still not even sure a "ticket" system is best, it would need some research. | ||||
     |
|
01-04-2007, 07:00 AM
| #22 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by 7960 All the ticket would mean in this system is that a cop accused you of driving unsafely.. It's up to him to prove it should you choose to fight it. If you were truely driving your SUV at 100mph during a snowstorm while tailgating, you BOTH know he should have no trouble winning the case...but if he just pulled you over simply because your vehicle looked like something 50cent would drive...well, then he just wasted a bunch of his own time.
| ||||
| |
|
01-04-2007, 09:49 AM
| #23 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist
| Originally Posted by R-Type You mean like in today's system? If you get a speeding ticket you go to court to fight it...notice the wording... you go to court to fight it. That means you're guilty and have to prove your innocence. With something as subjective as "unsafe driving" it'd be even harder to fight.
Like I said I fought a speeding ticket and won by proving to the judge there was no way I could have been going 50mph at the spot where I was pulled over. I had to prove it...if I went to court and didn't say a word and the cop didn't say a word I would have been guilty. Because I proved it was physically impossible to get to 50mph at that point the judge threw it out. If I had to prove I changed lanes too close to another car and was "driving unsafely"......... how the fuck do you prove that "no I didn't"? | ||||
| |
|
01-04-2007, 05:50 PM
| #24 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by 7960 No more so than it is now. There are unsafe driving laws already.
Originally Posted by 7960 I'm not going to say it there are no potential for abuse - this exists in any system. Under the system I proposed, if it was impossible for you to be speeding the cop would have a hard time proving it.
Originally Posted by 7960 You do not have to prove innocence, the police need evidence such as video footage, or witnesses.
I believe that you can already get in trouble for things such as changing lanes to closes | ||||
| |
|
01-04-2007, 07:30 PM
| #25 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by 7960 no, that's not what I meant. The ticket should be an accusation of guilt, nothing more. Like now, it would mean you have to take some kind of action or agree with the cop's opinion and pay the fine.. yes, in today's system a ticket means you're guilty and that's part of the problem with it. It leads to lots of nuisance tickets written by bored cops who have to meet quotas. If they had to defend each and every nuisance ticket they wrote with physical evidence instead of "you did it 'cause I say so", they'd think twice about writing them. In lieu of a ticket, he could issue a written or verbal warning which will keep most honest drivers in line. Those who aren't honest usually end up being repeat offenders and that makes it easier to obtain evidence on them. A ticket is not proof of anything. It's just a cop's opinion basically...and opinions are motivated by lots more than just the objective facts of the situation.
Originally Posted by 7960 Well, I think if you both went to court and said nothing, the judge should throw it out...possibly in contempt on the cop's part for wasting everyone's time.
Originally Posted by 7960 It should be the cop's job to prove beyond a doubt that your action was unsafe or it should get thrown out, period. If someone's swerving around intentionally or because they're incapacitated in some way, it shouldn't be that hard to get footage of it with a car or radar gun mounted camera.. If the driver only did it once and the cop couldn't get the shot as a result, then it's probably not worth hassling the driver and wasting tax dollars on prosecution. The cop should be focused on real safety concerns instead of nit picking (or worse, profiling stereotypes he hates). I think with the proper tools, a cop could prove rather obviously whether someone was being objectively unsafe enough to warrant the attention of the judicial/corrections system.
Last edited by R-Type; 01-04-2007 at 07:37 PM.. | ||||
| |
|
01-05-2007, 11:03 AM
| #26 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by R-Type They don't have quotas...at least the ones I know don't.
 that's rich!!Most people don't speed because of the fear of having to pay a fine. If all anyone got was a warning they'd quickly be useless.
 )
What are you going to say when your city says they need to put up cameras every few hundred feet to more efficiently record illegal acts? | ||||
| |
|
01-06-2007, 01:47 AM
| #27 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by 7960 In crime 'dead' towns like mine, they're common because the cops often don't bother doing much of anything. Unfortunately, the quotas just make them nuisances. They harass teenagers who really are doing nothing wrong (standing outside starbucks drinking the coffees they just bought), ticketing 5-over speeding and god help you if you do'nt stop precisely 2 seconds at a particular stop sign in a parking lot (yes, a parking lot, avg speed 2-5mph). The worst ones are the bike cops (bicycle) who hassle you if you skid a bit while stopping on your bike (wtf?). It's a complete waste of tax dollars.
Originally Posted by 7960 A warning would be used when the cop thinks the driver was out of line, but doesn't think the offense was big enough that the court would find in his favor (or he just doesn't think it's worth it to defend his position in court for this circumstance). If the driver's a repeat offender, then he is more likely to be ticketed next time because the cop will be watching for him. If the driver was acting stupidly in a way that was seriously jeopardizing others' safety, then the evidence needed to ticket him is easily obtained the first time. As i said most HONEST drivers will take the warning seriously.. Dishonest ones won't and will eventually end up ticketed. If the complaint is legitimate, the jury will find in his favor and the driver is punished. If the cop was simply harassing/profiling and thus has weak/no evidence, then the driver is let go. No one's really getting away with anything here. I'm saying that without burden of proof, arbitrary rules like speed limits are like tossing banana peels out and seeing how many people will trip on them. They don't really maintain safety which is their supposed purpose.
I DO see your point how this system could be abused, but at least the abuse is now capped at both ends. If either cop or driver gets too audacious, the court shows him the door. This enables common sense to keep both in line when out on the streets. A cop's 'bad day' doesn't ruin someone's life, and a driver doesn't have to choose between obeying the laundry list of arbitrarily defined limits under threat of legal action, and being run off the road by the hordes of drivers who choose to ignore them. Originally Posted by 7960 That might be what the law says, but that's what we're debating here. No, what is written on the ticket is whatever the cop WANTS it to say. 'Sworn testimony' without any evidence is pure bullshit and should be thrown right out of court.
Originally Posted by 7960 The cop's the one making the accusation. The burden of proof should be on his shoulders, not mine. Of course, all cops are so trustworthy, upstanding, honest individuals right?. .they never stereotype, inflate their 'testimonies,' or otherwise use their badges as means to harass people they don't like the looks of? That's the problem when someone is given too much unchecked power over others.. They abuse it. This system would prevent much of that while still allowing cops to carry out their true duty: safety of the citizenry. Cops can still take action, but they must be prepared to defend it later if they tread too heavily on an individual's liberties.
Originally Posted by 7960 if you were doing those things in sequence like that, I'm sure a cop WOULD catch and ticket you if there were any around at the time. Most people don't run red lights because it runs against self-interest, not because they might get caught.
Originally Posted by 7960 No, just on the cruisers. For traffic duty, that along with radar guns should be sufficient. Most of them already have both anyway. Also, many cities have traffic lights with cameras that take pics of your plates if you run the light.
-- The whole concept here is to remove the rampant emotionalism from the legal process and replace it with objectivity, while also promoting a sense of responsibility towards self and others in the population. The current system promotes the opposites, emphasizing blind obedience, punishment, and vindication, which does nothing but create animosity between citizens and the law. Currently we have a ton of conflicting, unenforceable laws that are simply based on some politicians' preferences and little else. Others are throwbacks to the puritan era but haven't been removed because certain groups think the government should be playing morality police for their beliefs. Cops can do whatever they want pretty much and they get away with it because a citizen can't call them out without making his life even worse. Prosecutors try to win cases at all cost, regardless of truth. Same with defense attorneys. Judges mete out punishment based on emotion instead of what will solve the cause of the behavioral problem, often turning small time offenders into big ones. Jurors are purposely chosen because they are ignorant about relevant subjects to the case so they can be emotionally manipulated by both sides. Jails focus on punishment instead of correction, so when the prisoner is released, he's usually worse off than when he went in. Felony labels ensure that one can never return to in normal society and excel, prompting the offender to go right back to whatever offenses got him the label in the first place. Since no part of the system is truly interested in the truth of the matter and, most importantly, how it applies to the given situation, it is quite obvious to me why it's so ineffective at stopping crime. What Kytro has described isn't perfect, but it does offer key philosophical advantages over the system we have now. | ||||
| |
|
01-06-2007, 07:03 AM
| #28 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by R-Type You might say that stuff is to ........... (whatever) but in reality what you're saying is "if nobody filmed it, it didn't happen."
| ||||
| |
|
01-06-2007, 05:26 PM
| #29 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by 7960 so? It's still better than a he-said-she-said system like we have now... cops are just as unreliable as anyone else in telling the truth. I think if someone wants to make an accusation, he should back it up with evidence, not just a pretty badge and uniform.
| ||||
| |
|
01-07-2007, 10:06 PM
| #30 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by 7960 Unless there was other overwhelming evidence I see no reason why a cop saying it happened should be enough evidence...shadow of a doubt and all that
| ||||
| |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| punishment, law, justice, fairness |
| ||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| |
| vBulletin 3.7.4 -- Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. | Custom Artwork and Theme (TM) 2006, Liberty Lounge |
