Bad replies

[Jim_bo]

I come on this site every now and then to offer some advice to people, especially those with traffic tickets in CA. I have a bit of experience dealing with them, so I have something to offer. However, it seems that everytime someone posts a plea for help, there are always two types of answers:

1. Go to court and beg for mercy

2. I have no sympathy for you... you broke the law.

What the hell is wrong with people who post like this? Most people who seek advice here have rarely if ever been ticketed and they have little experience with the legal system as it pertains to traffic violations. They are only asking for help. I can't for the life of me understand what makes the pinheads who post one of the above type statements think that they are being helpful. Personally, I think they do nothing but detract from this site and they should just shut the hell up.

Jimbo

 

[CdwJava]

Then, of course, there is the "Go ahead and break the law!" and "Shove it to the man!" responses common among the others.

Personally, I don't advocate anarchy. Darn me to heck for wanting to follow the rules. Bad me.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Then, of course, there is the "Go ahead and break the law!" and "Shove it to the man!" responses common among the others.

Personally, I don't advocate anarchy. Darn me to heck for wanting to follow the rules. Bad me.

- Carl

I can clearly see your bias by the sarcasm in your post. You preach from a high perch when you suggest that people follow the rules. Being a cop, you have obviously issued many citations for people "not following the rules". I am just amazed how your tone always takes this sarcastic pitch when I suggest that the State follows its own rules! In my opinion, the state has the burden to ensure that it is following its own rules before the citizen does. Otherwise, we are not a free nation. I am surprised how a person such as yourself who is dedicated to law enforcement never takes the position that the State abide by the law first.

Jimbo

 

[CdwJava]

I can clearly see your bias by the sarcasm in your post.

As is also demonstrated by yours.

You preach from a high perch when you suggest that people follow the rules.

As do you when you suggest that people should make the state pay for every inch.

Being a cop, you have obviously issued many citations for people "not following the rules".

yeah ... darn those laws.

I am just amazed how your tone always takes this sarcastic pitch when I suggest that the State follows its own rules!

Hey, knock yourself out. The problem is more people follow this route and end up shooting themself in the foot than are actually able to beat the system. Sometimes a little knowledge can be a greater detriment than none.

I have seen people with a great chance at traffic school blow it by standing up and making an Adam Henry of themselves in court. But, hey, to each his own.

In my opinion, the state has the burden to ensure that it is following its own rules before the citizen does.

On the other hand, following the rules instead of thumbing one's nose at them is a less bumpy path to follow. I know that *I* don't have time to spend researching defenses and going to and from traffic court all the time. I'm amazed that some people see it as a badge of honor. Although I see them on message boards, I've never come across one in real life who has done even HALF the stuff that people here sometimes claim.

However, up here in the rural heartland we DO occasionally get the extreme ... the occasional "Constitutionalist" who, when stopped, presents 1851 Supreme Court rulings to support their claim that they do not need a driver's license. If these folks weren't so scary, they'd be laughable.


- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

I think your perspective is pretty jaded. I just don't see how you interpret exercising your constitutional rights as "beating the system".

I have never exagerated about anything I have done in court. As a matter of fact, I am going to court on 26 Feb to defend myself against a ticket I got the day before Christmas. I will be asking for a dismissal because the District Attorney has failed to produce the discovery I have requested. Without the discovery, I am not able to adequately prepare a defense. I guess in your opinion, I am just trying to "beat the system". Maybe, in your opinion, the proper thing for me to do is just plead guilty. Or, should I expect the State to adhere to the rules it has set for itself? I'm sorry if I seem confrontational... but I think your perspective is just a bit hypocritical.

Jimbo

 

[NatalieCallista]

I have to disagree with you Jimbo... CdwJava and others have provided me and many others with some very helpful advice. And it is true, some of the time you just have to throw yourself at the mercy of the court.

And honestly, how much of the time do you read a post and think to yourself... but you are guilty... you DESERVE the citation... Probably more often than you care to admit. I for one speak for the many thousands that have been helped by their PEERS and thank them! I mean, hey we are all equals on forums like this, but some are more knowledgeable than others. The "mainplayers" if you will are law abiding, good citizens, law enforcement officers, lawyers, insurance agents, etc, and they have everyone's best interests at heart.

Remember, some people "shop" for answers until they find one that agrees with them. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view) that isn't the way the justice system works. At least, that wasn't the way it was intended to. Anyway, just my 2 cents...



Food for thought, if I just put my two cents in, and it's a penny for my thoughts, what the heck is happening to the other penny?

 

[garrula lingua]

In most counties in CA, the Dep Dist Atty will have NOTHING to do with traffic infractions.
(In some courts, the DDA will help move the calendar & will appear to reduce/dismiss tickets if a cop requests an assist with a dismissal).

Discovery requests for traffic tickets sent to the DA's Office are garbage.

People should be aware that if they are, obviously, guilty the court will get irritated at the waste of time on a trial without merit. It usually results in the Judge slamming the defendant.

Also, many courts will not allow someone who loses at trial to go to traffic school - an option they had pre-trial (allowable, as it's at the Judge's discretion).

Innocent people and triable cases should go to trial.
Dead-bang losers are crazy to prolong and magnify the agony by going to trial.

 

[The Occultist]

I think your perspective is pretty jaded.

I wouldn't go around boasting about your own perspective. You seem to be under the impression that every citation given is undeserved and nobody should ever be found guilty at court. Once upon a time, the "American Way" meant you owned up to your responsibilities like a man, but you apparently think the "American Way" means weaseling out of responsibilites and avoiding the consequences of your actions. To each his own I suppose...

 

[CdwJava]

As a matter of fact, I am going to court on 26 Feb to defend myself against a ticket I got the day before Christmas.

This is a source of pride for you??

I guess in your opinion, I am just trying to "beat the system". Maybe, in your opinion, the proper thing for me to do is just plead guilty.

Hey, overtime is overtime - by all means, go to court. The officer gets paid ... do you?

Wouldn't it have been oh so much simpler on all involved if you had simply adhered to the speed limit? Then, you wouldn't be rolling the dice in court, and the coty/county/state wouldn't be having to deal with you. Just think of the "real" crimes the cops could be solving if they didn't have to be sitting in court!


- Carl

 

[tranquility]

I think people have a duty to fight the state's awesome powers when they are used improperly. I think most traffic tickets are properly given. And, while I decry the overcriminalization of society, I accept democracy and submit to all the laws, even the very silly ones. I try to argue against the silly ones to change people's opinion on the matter and hope they tell someone and so on until the will of the people will overcome the wants of a motivated minority--which is the source of most of our democracy's silliest laws.

An economic problem with traffic laws is that, while the laws were most probably initiated for good reason, the reality is is that it is now a source of income for government. While a legimate argument is had as to whether this makes the government give incentives to increase the amount of violations caught for revenue (I think it does, Carl feels differently.), no argument can be made that government creates hurdles and streamlines proceedure so that the maximal income can be derived from the recorded violation. Going to court creates the need for additional courts, personnel, attendence of government employees and other costs and reduces the income derived from the enforcement of the law. This cheeses off the government.

Bottom line, if you are innocent, I think you have a duty to fight it as this forces government to adhere to the basic understanding of US citizens that We the People establish the government and must oversee our creation. I understand how some who have this duty feel the hurdles created to increase revenue are so high so as to be not worth the time or effort to do that duty. Cost/benefit is always a calculation of a rational person. For those who are not innocent, the question gets more complex and is beyond the space allotted for me to give my position.

 

[Jim_bo]

And it is true, some of the time you just have to throw yourself at the mercy of the court.

I think you have been watching too much TV. Throw yourself on the mercy of the court??? That's a bit of a dramatic statement for a traffic violation, don't you think?

And honestly, how much of the time do you read a post and think to yourself... but you are guilty... you DESERVE the citation...

What are you... a communist??? What ever happened to the presumption of innocence that our judicial system is founded upon?

Remember, some people "shop" for answers until they find one that agrees with them.

I don't think I have ever "shopped" for an answer as I have yet to seek advice on here. I am just frustrated by people offering everything BUT advice from a legal perspective when that is all that was asked for.

Jimbo

 

[Jim_bo]

In most counties in CA, the Dep Dist Atty will have NOTHING to do with traffic infractions.
(In some courts, the DDA will help move the calendar & will appear to reduce/dismiss tickets if a cop requests an assist with a dismissal).

Discovery requests for traffic tickets sent to the DA's Office are garbage.

The purpose for discovery is to allow the defendant to properly prepare a defense. You think that is garbage? Then why even offer a trial? Why not just shoot the defendant in the head on the side of the road? Geez.... You must have been raised in the USSR or something.

I have helped one person already recieve an acquital because the DA refused to provide discovery. I have a ticket right now in which the DA has refused my discovery request. I'll be using that same defense. I'll let you know how well that GARBAGE works.

People should be aware that if they are, obviously, guilty the court will get irritated at the waste of time on a trial without merit. It usually results in the Judge slamming the defendant.

A judge is merely an interpreter of law. He has no deviine authority that allows his wrath to decend upon you should you raise his ire. What does "slamming the defendant" mean? The most he can do is find you guilty and give you a fine which is exactly what would have been done by the clerk if I chose not to defend myself!!!

Also, many courts will not allow someone who loses at trial to go to traffic school - an option they had pre-trial (allowable, as it's at the Judge's discretion).

There is appelate case law that stipulates a judge give the same consideration for traffic school after conviction as he would before trial. If the judge is simply being arbitrary and capricious in his decesions... fine! It gives me grounds for appeal! Anyway, I'd rather just win the case. It isn't that hard. I'd rather not go to traffic school. I see it as legalized extortion by the state trying to influence a defendant into a payoff rather than loose the case on its merrits. It's been my experience that MOST cases are easily defended as the State usually is violating its own laws.

Innocent people and triable cases should go to trial.
Dead-bang losers are crazy to prolong and magnify the agony by going to trial.

Just what the hell does this mean? I guess we should come here and ask you if we are innocent enough to go to trial? So far, I have defended myself against about five tickets (I am working another one now) and I have helped at least a half dozen more people defend themselves. I am at 100% success rate. These are not hand picked cases. These are just whatever cases come along. The bottom line is: in CA, the laws hold the state to a high standard that it rarely meets. That's why the state offers traffic school... so it doesn't have to meet that high standard.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

the more you respond the more your ignorance of the law is exposed.

I would say quit while you're ahead but that point is long since past.

 

[Jim_bo]

I wouldn't go around boasting about your own perspective. You seem to be under the impression that every citation given is undeserved and nobody should ever be found guilty at court. Once upon a time, the "American Way" meant you owned up to your responsibilities like a man, but you apparently think the "American Way" means weaseling out of responsibilites and avoiding the consequences of your actions. To each his own I suppose...

Nope... I am under the impression that every defendant has the constitutional right to defend himself against any charges brought by the state.

I have been an American all my life. I spent 20 years in the military in pursuit of the preservation of these rights. I don't believe the "American Way" ever involved just pleading guilty to a bogus charge or giving up your rights to due process of the law! I don't understand this pervasive opinion that defending yourself is "weaseling" and "unamerican". Geez... makes me wonder which America I spent 20 years defending... the one where all citizens have the right to their day in court, or the one where you just "take it like a man!"

Jimbo

 

[Jim_bo]

This is a source of pride for you??

I think it IS a source of pride for me that I participate in the greatest judicial system in the world. Is it a source of pride for you when a person is convicted of a violation that he is not guilty of simply because he couldn't afford the time from work to defend himself?

Hey, overtime is overtime - by all means, go to court. The officer gets paid ... do you?

It's been my experience that when a cop does decide to show up in court that he is ill-prepared. That's what makes it so easy.... the cop's attitude that court is just a source of overtime rather than a place to seek justice in accordance with the laws of the state. Considering that if I didn't go to court, I'd be paying a fine of several hundred dollars plus an increased insurance rate, I'd say "yes... I am getting paid!"

Wouldn't it have been oh so much simpler on all involved if you had simply adhered to the speed limit? Then, you wouldn't be rolling the dice in court, and the coty/county/state wouldn't be having to deal with you. Just think of the "real" crimes the cops could be solving if they didn't have to be sitting in court!

Sorry, I don't buy into that "cops could be solving REAL crimes if they weren't giving me a ticket" routine. I didn't tell the cop to pull me over. This was the day before Christmas on Hwy 395 and this guy was simply out "making a presence". If you have ever driven on 395 (or most any other major highway in CA), you'll agree that if you simply drive the speed limit, you will become a hazard as you will be impeding the flow of traffic ( which is a violation of the VC, by the way).

I'll turn the question around. Wouldn't it be easier if the DA simply provided the discovery I requested as is his OBLIGATION under CA law?

Jimbo