Incorrect Speed on Ticket Question

[Zigner]

Thank you for your input (caslerst, Maestro64, CdwJava).

You're welcome!

 

[JamaalJ]

You're welcome!

Others provided constructive input. At first you provided a good response, but your further posts got off topic and were not useful. Your input was less than constructive implying I am a liar and police officers are never mistaken.

Whether you believe someone or not, you should always assume their view of things in this type of forum. They have no reason to post here. They believe their side of the story is the truth. Even if they do lie, there is no point in assuming they are telling a lie.

I would thank you if you could answer a simple question or provide constructive inputs:
If the officer writes down 95 but can only prove you were going 80, is the ticket voidable?

 

[Zigner]

Others provided constructive input. At first you provided a good response, but your further posts got off topic and were not useful. Your input was less than constructive implying I am a liar and police officers are never mistaken.

Whether you believe someone or not, you should always assume their view of things in this type of forum. They have no reason to post here. They believe their side of the story is the truth. Even if they do lie, there is no point in assuming they are telling a lie.

I would thank you if you could answer a simple question or provide constructive inputs:
If the officer writes down 95 but can only prove you were going 80, is the ticket voidable?

You are being a bit dense about this. The officer has EVIDENCE that you were doing 95. Testimony is EVIDENCE. The ticket is NOT "voidable". You will have to contest it through the proper channels.

And, you're welcome!

 

[JamaalJ]

You are being a bit dense about this. The officer has EVIDENCE that you were doing 95. Testimony is EVIDENCE. The ticket is NOT "voidable". You will have to contest it through the proper channels.

And, you're welcome!

Dense? Seriously, this is what I am talking about when I state "less than constructive". You are the absolute definition of dense. You still fail to answer my question.

What part of "If the officer writes down 95 but can only prove you were going 80, is the ticket voidable?" don't you understand?

This is easy to do with math that I provided in my testimony. On a divided freeway where one person is going 95 mph and the other person is going 70 mph in the opposite direct. The other person has to slow down, exit the freeway cross over the freeway, get on the new freeway onramp and catch up with someone whom he has lost sight of.

You are being very closed minded and stubborn. You can't seem to get a clue.
Clue: "dont reply anything about the officer's testimony as being proof".
I shouldnt have to simplify this so much.
- Assume I can prove the officer did not see me going 95.
- Assume I could have created doubt.
- Assume that the officer can state without a doubt I was going 80.

Based on the above assumptions:
If the officer writes down 95 but can only prove you were going 80, is the ticket voidable?

 

[CdwJava]

I would thank you if you could answer a simple question or provide constructive inputs:
If the officer writes down 95 but can only prove you were going 80, is the ticket voidable?

The officer's testimony is "evidence" - as is yours ... if you want to testify on your behalf - though you might have to admit to how fast you WERE going.

And, as a point of function, a court does not "void" a citation. legally, that is something that can only be done by an officer in the field prior to the citation being issued and subject to policy. After it is issued, it has to be "dismissed" by the court by state law. Unless, of course, the defendant is convicted.

- Carl

 

[Zigner]

If the officer writes down 95 but can only prove you were going 80, is the ticket voidable?

What part of The ticket is NOT "voidable". You will have to contest it through the proper channels. are you having difficulty understanding?

 

[Curt581]

Goshdarn it, Ziggy... he wants the answer to be "Yes" and you're not cooperating!

 

[Zigner]

Goshdarn it, Ziggy... he wants the answer to be "Yes" and you're not cooperating!

I have to keep up my fan-base!

 

[JamaalJ]

What part of The ticket is NOT "voidable". You will have to contest it through the proper channels. are you having difficulty understanding?

By voidable, I meant "cancel" or "dismiss" or "throw out".

You lead the statement stating that the officer is testifying that I was going 95. My question was "If the officer writes down 95 but can only prove you were going 80, is the ticket voidable?" His testimony at most can prove I was going 80. You still failed to answer my question.

You continue to display your lack of understanding how to communicate with others. I understand and appreciate everyone who has answered my post except for you. I appreciate everyone elses input except for yours. Your goal is to be a frictional jackass and your input is not appreciated.

You have proven that you are a dense attention whore whose opinions should be ignored. I will leave it at that. I will no longer arouse you by replying to your unwanted comments.

 

[JamaalJ]

Goshdarn it, Ziggy... he wants the answer to be "Yes" and you're not cooperating!

Incorrect,

I was just looking for a clear yes or no with a reason.

CdwJava has provided valuable insight.

 

[Zigner]

By voidable, I meant "cancel" or "dismiss" or "throw out".

No, by "voidable", you meant "able to be voided". (And you say I have a communication problem )

But, thank you for joining my fan club! I'm working on bumper stickers for every member!

 

[Curt581]

By voidable, I meant "cancel" or "dismiss" or "throw out".

I posted my statement as he posted his. You obviously are not intelligent enough to figure that out.

What YOU aren't intelligent enough to understand is that terms like "void", "cancel", and "dismiss" each have separate and distinct legal definitions. Those terms are NOT legally interchangable.

At it's base, that is the purpose of studying law.... "to distinguish".

 

[JamaalJ]

What YOU aren't intelligent enough to understand is that terms like "void", "cancel", and "dismiss" each have separate and distinct legal definitions. Those terms are NOT legally interchangable.

At it's base, that is the purpose of studying law.... "to distinguish".

True, that was a mistake on my part, but the word "void" has it's common meanings. They may not be "legally" interchangable, but they are "commonly" interchangable. Now that I know, I will use "dismiss" in the future so that I dont confuse people.

 

[Zigner]

True, that was a mistake on my part, but the word "void" has it's common meanings. They may not be "legally" interchangable, but they are "commonly" interchangable. Now that I know, I will use "dismiss" in the future so that I dont confuse people.

See, and THAT'S why you have difficulty communicating. You make assumptions about other people. I would NEVER interchange "dismiss", "cancel" and "void", in any situation. Just because YOU feel it's "common" does not make it so.

 

[JamaalJ]

See, and THAT'S why you have difficulty communicating. You make assumptions about other people. I would NEVER interchange "dismiss", "cancel" and "void", in any situation. Just because YOU feel it's "common" does not make it so.

How is that relevant to our conversation? Are you really that stupid? I think it is clear you are a complete utter moron.

How is "void" even relevant to the answers you provided? It isn't.

Now you are trying to bash me for a term that I used in common language versus legal language? Get a clue. Most people asking for advice will type with common dialect.

I am at least willing to:
1. admit I made a mistake
2. learn from my mistake

My biggest mistake was thinking that I could actually get a clear answer here.