Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grizzly
I agree that the onus is on the Government to prove its case, but remember that whether done in writing or in person on the stand, David will swear under penalty of perjury, to tell the truth about the incident. Several posts in this thread have complained that law enforcement doesn't play fairly in its highway enforcement or during the adjudication process. Somehow, however, we think it's O.K. for David to not play by the rules. David has already told us that he was speeding. We know that to be the truth because he told us it was. In the 986 forum's version of court, the Highway Patrol must come to court, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and accused gets to lie his ass off? Then the onus is on the Government to prove its case? Is that how it works? Apparently I must have slept through some of my classes.
|
Very well said, Griz!
My last speeding ticket was in 1971. I was speeding, I knew it and deserved the ticket. It never ocurred to me that I should fight it, in that I KNEW I was guilty!
It did not even ocur to me that I could beat the rap because MAYBE the cop wasn't PERFECT in the way that he caught me. He caught me AND I was speeding. I paid the ticket and moved on.
Candidly, had I decided to fight that ticket, I would have been a hypocrite. If you believe in the rule of law, don't cry if it bites you in the butt.
Human's are fascinating, they can rationalize anything if it is what they want to believe.
Frankly, I am so tired of these ticket threads.
My advice, if you were speeding, don't post here asking for information about how to beat the ticket. I waill simply delete the thread.
Now, if you were NOT speeding (and you know who you are!) then, ask for help in proving your case. That is an ethical and principled way to act.
To you others, hire a shark lawyer, pay the fees and leave us alone.