Roddyr's 22348

[JIMinCA]

Thank you

It must be tough.....

 

[seniorjudge]

So.... are you admiting now that you were WRONG when you told roddy that he "had no case"?

Of course not.

The only defense to speeding is that you were not speeding.

According to roddy, he won because the cop was a lousy witness.

Please feel free to report me if you think anything I say is wrong.

In the speeder's thread, I pointed out that he had no defense since he did in fact admit he was speeding.

I never predicted the outcome of the trial. I never do that.

 

[JIMinCA]

Of course not.

The only defense to speeding is that you were not speeding.

According to roddy, he won because the cop was a lousy witness.

Are you so clueless that you don't know what he was even charged with??

22348 (b) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed
greater than 100 miles per hour is guilty of an infraction
punishable, as follows:

He wasn't charge with simply SPEEDING.... he was charged with exceeding 100MPH!!! According to roddy, he won because he should have never been charged in the first place... since he was NOT driving over 100mph. He also won because he provided enough evidence to show he was not driving over 100mph.

Also, there are a TON of defenses to a speeding charge other than "I wasn't speeding". Haven't you ever read 40800 - 40805??


Zigner, this would be one of the very few opportunities that you could be justified in your trademark response: "seniorjudge, please refrain from speaking about things you know NOTHING about".

 

[Zigner]

Are you so clueless that you don't know what he was even charged with??



He wasn't charge with simply SPEEDING.... he was charged with exceeding 100MPH!!! According to roddy, he won because he should have never been charged in the first place... since he was NOT driving over 100mph. He also won because he provided enough evidence to show he was not driving over 100mph.

Also, there are a TON of defenses to a speeding charge other than "I wasn't speeding". Haven't you ever read 40800 - 40805??


Zigner, this would be one of the very few opportunities that you could be justified in your trademark response: "seniorjudge, please refrain from speaking about things you know NOTHING about".

Hahaha -

The OP did NOT prevail because he proved that he wasn't driving over 100 mph. The OP was successful ONLY because the officer was a lousy witness.

 

[Zigner]

It must be tough.....

Thank you

 

[JIMinCA]

Hahaha -

The OP did NOT prevail because he proved that he wasn't driving over 100 mph. The OP was successful ONLY because the officer was a lousy witness.

You are such an idiot... he won because the cop didn't prove that he was going over 100mph. In this country, there is a presumption of innocence. He doesn't have to PROVE anything... that is the burden of the state!

Roddy stated that he was driving 92. No one here has any reason to doubt him. That makes him not guilty of 22348. Yet you and seniortwit still want to act as if he was guilty, but the cop was just poor witness. Here is a clue... the COP HAD NO CASE!!! It's hard to be a good witness when you have an inappropriate charge.

I know this is hard for you. It is becoming apparent that you serve no useful purpose and I am sure that is a difficult emotional blow do endure. Hang in there, all is not lost. You can still excel at serving as a bad example!!