Ticket has two speeding descriptions. Which will the court or judge recognize?

[Friendlyone]

Statements about a defective speedometer are an admission that you were knowingly driving with defective equipment.

The other matters would show that you were driving in an emotionally impaired state - one in which you could/should have known your judgment would be affected.

None of these are defenses. They are simply attempts at mitigation.

PS: I'm sorry about both your cat and your sister. I'm not trying to downplay those in any way.

Once I realized my speedometer was not working at random times I had evidence that I was trying to get it repaired. One receipt was from a dealership that found nothing wrong when they plugged in a diagnostic device and told me they would have to tear apart the dash to find anything. The second mechanic found it right away and repaired it. This was all going on just before and after the ticket. So even though I knew it was defective I was in the process of getting it repaired. As for the emotionally impaired part that would have to have been diagnosed by an expert witness which the court would have to supply. There wasn't much time for discovery as this was an informal hearing which I could had appealed to the formal district court and on up to the circuit Court. I chose to end it. Paid the fine from the sale of a piece of furniture I wasn't using.

 

[Zigner]

Once I realized my speedometer was not working at random times I had evidence that I was trying to get it repaired. One receipt was from a dealership that found nothing wrong when they plugged in a diagnostic device and told me they would have to tear apart the dash to find anything. The second mechanic found it right away and repaired it. This was all going on just before and after the ticket. So even though I knew it was defective I was in the process of getting it repaired.

Yet, you continued to drive (before the repair) knowing it was unreliable. That's worse than not saying anything.

As for the emotionally impaired part that would have to have been diagnosed by an expert witness which the court would have to supply.

Again, driving while emotionally impaired is a bad thing. You don't want to try to use it as a defense, only as a mitigation.

 

[cbg]

You're still not explaining why the officer would have any motive to lie at any time, regardless of the atmosphere. He didn't write you a ticket for the fun of it. He didn't pull you over for kicks. He pulled you over and wrote you a ticket because IN HIS BEST JUDGEMENT you were committing a traffic violation.

Can he be mistaken? Sure, that's what you're there to try and prove. But once again, YOU have a vested interested in proving him wrong. He gets paid the same whether you're successful or not. He has no motive to lie about it no matter what the attitude of the court. You, on the other hand, DO.

So when all other things are equal and neither of you has any "forensic evidence", why SHOULD the judge believe you?

 

[Friendlyone]

You're still not explaining why the officer would have any motive to lie at any time, regardless of the atmosphere. He didn't write you a ticket for the fun of it. He didn't pull you over for kicks. He pulled you over and wrote you a ticket because IN HIS BEST JUDGEMENT you were committing a traffic violation.

Can he be mistaken? Sure, that's what you're there to try and prove. But once again, YOU have a vested interested in proving him wrong. He gets paid the same whether you're successful or not. He has no motive to lie about it no matter what the attitude of the court. You, on the other hand, DO.

So when all other things are equal and neither of you has any "forensic evidence", why SHOULD the judge believe you?

I did not say the officer lied. I was trying to prove spurious radar readings. After all it wasn't the officer that alledgedly said I was speeding; it was a machine.

 

[Zigner]

I did not say the officer lied. I was trying to prove spurious radar readings. After all it wasn't the officer that alledgedly said I was speeding; it was a machine.

You can't even testify truthfully and accurately to your own speed because your speedometer was defective.

 

[FlyingRon]

I did not say the officer lied. I was trying to prove spurious radar readings. After all it wasn't the officer that alledgedly said I was speeding; it was a machine.

You're not up against a machine. A machine can't testify. You weren't PROVING anything, you were just making baseless assertions of errors that don't have any foundation.

 

[cbg]

I'm stating that the opinion that all officers tell the truth all the time opens a door for having the ability to lie and being believed by the judge or magistrate. It becomes a scenario of "he said, but cop is always right" instead of "he said/she said".

THIS is what I am responding to. Why would the hypothetical officers who, in your scenario, now have the ability to lie and be believed, do so? What motive would these hypothetical officers have to lie about the hypothetical tickets they write? In other words, since the officers already have more credibility than you (generic you, not specific you) why would the opening of this door you refer to matter one whit?

 

[Friendlyone]

You can't even testify truthfully and accurately to your own speed because your speedometer was defective.

I wasn't there to testify against myself. It was my right to have a hearing and question the officers. I was simply exercising my rights instead instead of pleading guilty. Remember this...Innocent until PROVEN guilty. In my opinion the officers did not prove me guilty. They had no hard evidence. They didn't have a dash cam. They did not present any evidence of their radar training or certification! I don't know why in today's world. Or why don't these radars have some kind of forensic evidence the officers could print out? So it's a matter of the fox (magistrate) guarding the hen house ( police Dept). I have seen officers in my 66 years blatently lie under oath in court and in depositions so you are not going to convince me that they are ALL honest. Just saying. They may have told the truth in this hearing and I praised their dedication to their job and thanked them for their service to the community at the beginning of this informal hearing. I respect police officer in general albeit there are a few bad apples. You will have to admit that at least. At the end of the day the issue was put behind us and we all moved on.

 

[Friendlyone]

You're not up against a machine. A machine can't testify. You weren't PROVING anything, you were just making baseless assertions of errors that don't have any foundation.

I was exercising my right to be PROVEN guilty in a court of law. Seems you forget one I'd Innocent until proven guilty in this country and not the other way around. In my opinion I was not proven guilty. It was case law the magistrate followed that related to moving radar and not stationary radar.

 

[Zigner]

I was exercising my right to be PROVEN guilty in a court of law. Seems you forget one I'd Innocent until proven guilty in this country and not the other way around. In my opinion I was not proven guilty.

There's the rub. The law doesn't provide that your opinion matters one whit. You WERE proven guilty.

 

[Friendlyone]

I've moved on.