In NY state, can a cop ticket you for a traffic violation he/she did not witness?

[justalayman]

Well if a good sized section of the New York State Penal Law (as well as a host of other laws) is unconstitutional then no one seems to be noticing.

It's probably not and that is because the violations of law listed within are in fact crimes. The fact New York uses a different term for a low level criminal act, it does not change the fact it is still a crime.

 

[tranquility]

It's probably not and that is because the violations of law listed within are in fact crimes. The fact New York uses a different term for a low level criminal act, it does not change the fact it is still a crime.

What is an "arrest"? What is a "detention"? Words can have many meanings depending on the facts and context. Your argument seems a bit aggressive for what it seems you are saying. In the context of this thread, I have to go with HighwayMan. What is your point exactly?

 

[justalayman]

What is an "arrest"? What is a "detention"? Words can have many meanings depending on the facts and context. Your argument seems a bit aggressive for what it seems you are saying. In the context of this thread, I have to go with HighwayMan. What is your point exactly?

The same thing I said long ago;


Most crimes are not witnessed by the police yet people are charged with committing crimes every single day. If the evidence at hand allows the cop to make a determination there was a violation of the law, he can issue a ticket. In some cases, the lack of his personal observation may make it difficult to prosecute said ticket but that is an issue for the courts to deal with.


And highway started in arguing that if a person commits a violation or infraction or whatever they have not committed a crime. Using the simple definition of the word crime, he is simply incorrect. You can call the actions whatever you wish but when it comes down to it, they are crimes. I've posted the definition of the word crime severel times and each of them support my position.

 

[Bali Hai]

The same thing I said long ago;


Most crimes are not witnessed by the police yet people are charged with committing crimes every single day. If the evidence at hand allows the cop to make a determination there was a violation of the law, he can issue a ticket. In some cases, the lack of his personal observation may make it difficult to prosecute said ticket but that is an issue for the courts to deal with.


And highway started in arguing that if a person commits a violation or infraction or whatever they have not committed a crime. Using the simple definition of the word crime, he is simply incorrect. You can call the actions whatever you wish but when it comes down to it, they are crimes. I've posted the definition of the word crime severel times and each of them support my position.

There are many jackass laws passed by idiots. Police are obligated to enforce them. If the law says you must salute Trump and you don't, the cops are obligated to arrest you because you are a criminal.

I fail to see what you think matters here.

 

[HighwayMan]

You can call the actions whatever you wish...

Okay - the New York State Criminal Procedure Law and Penal Law call certain things "petty offenses" and certain other things "crimes".

 

[justalayman]

Okay - the New York State Criminal Procedure Law and Penal Law call certain things "petty offenses" and certain other things "crimes".

Yet they are all crimes by definition whether New York call them crimes or not.

 

[CdwJava]

Yet they are all crimes by definition whether New York call them crimes or not.

They are crimes as defined by Webster, not by the CPL.

The LEGAL definition may have a very different meaning from the common definition. For instance, if I use the term "assault" in the phrase, "He committed an assault on the bartender." Common usage would imply that he struck the bartender, and in many states that would mean that he struck the bartender in violation of the law. In MY state it would mean that he swung and MISSED the bartender. Some terms have different meanings under the law than they might have in the common vernacular.

 

[justalayman]

=

CdwJava;3420326They are crimes as defined by Webster, not by the CPL.

thank you. That's exactly what I've been saying all along.

The LEGAL definition may have a very different meaning from the common definition.

ok so here's the legal definition (I believe it is from Black's):


What is CRIME?
A crime is an act committed or omitted, in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it; a breach or violation of some public right or duty due to a whole community, considered as a community. In its social aggregate capacity, as distinguished from a civil injury. Wilkins v. U. S


Well, looky there. Just like I was saying as well as in agreement with Mr Webster.

 

[CdwJava]

But, the definition has a further meaning under a state's penal law. It's why out here we tend to avoid using the term "assault" to describe a fight, since a fight with blows landing tends to be "battery" here. Under state law, an "assault" is an attempted battery. Using the improper definition under state law can get a case tossed. Yes, it is semantics, but THESE semantics have specific meaning under the law. The wrong term changes the meaning and the end result.

In essence, you are BOTH correct ... and, depending upon the context and usage, the term "crime" has different meanings.

 

[Bali Hai]

But, the definition has a further meaning under a state's penal law. It's why out here we tend to avoid using the term "assault" to describe a fight, since a fight with blows landing tends to be "battery" here. Under state law, an "assault" is an attempted battery. Using the improper definition under state law can get a case tossed. Yes, it is semantics, but THESE semantics have specific meaning under the law. The wrong term changes the meaning and the end result.

In essence, you are BOTH correct ... and, depending upon the context and usage, the term "crime" has different meanings.

If you keep your nose clean, you should not need to worry about anything talked about in this thread. But even then I've seen people with clean noses get hooked by the system.

 

[justalayman]

But, the definition has a further meaning under a state's penal law. It's why out here we tend to avoid using the term "assault" to describe a fight, since a fight with blows landing tends to be "battery" here. Under state law, an "assault" is an attempted battery. Using the improper definition under state law can get a case tossed. Yes, it is semantics, but THESE semantics have specific meaning under the law. The wrong term changes the meaning and the end result.

In essence, you are BOTH correct ... and, depending upon the context and usage, the term "crime" has different meanings.

But I did not use the New York definition but the general definition; if there is a law (and to avoid further needless discussion; not a civil law where there is no "record" maintained on a persons criminal record (which does include infractions and violations in most any state I am aware of)) and a person violates that law, they have committed a crime. Simple enough?

Taking what I said and attempting to translate it into some other language where a particular word has a different meaning does not make them correct or me incorrect.

 

[justalayman]

But, the definition has a further meaning under a state's penal law. It's why out here we tend to avoid using the term "assault" to describe a fight, since a fight with blows landing tends to be "battery" here. Under state law, an "assault" is an attempted battery. Using the improper definition under state law can get a case tossed. Yes, it is semantics, but THESE semantics have specific meaning under the law. The wrong term changes the meaning and the end result.

In essence, you are BOTH correct ... and, depending upon the context and usage, the term "crime" has different meanings.

Yes we are both correct in our statements but since somebody wanted to translate what I said to mean something I didn't say, one of us (the other guy if there is any doubt) is also incorrect. My original statement is what was being called incorrect but as you all have hopefully realized, my statement was absolutely correct. Due to that, highwyays incessant arguing was meaningless.

 

[HighwayMan]

I am going strictly by New York State law which governs me, my official actions, and the prosecution of offenses. Period.

 

[justalayman]

I am going strictly by New York State law which governs me, my official actions, and the prosecution of offenses. Period.

And there is your problem. It isn't a matter of law. It is a matter of definition of a word.

 

[Bali Hai]

And there is your problem. It isn't a matter of law. It is a matter of definition of a word.

Jesus H Christ...if you need help don't call 911, look up help in the dictionary.