Question about a traffic ticket

Hell yes I would....I would read the law, interpet what it was intended to mean and see how it fit into the case I was serving on, and then render a verdict.

Laws are NOT infallible and most are open to interpetation by the jury.

DD

 

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to DaDakota again.

 

Based on the facts of this case as we know the, how would you rule?

Facts:

If anemergency vehicle (in this case a police car) is on the shoulder with lights flashing, drivers must either move over to a lane not next to the shoulder or slow down 20 mph under the posted speed limit.

The driver knows the law and deicded on his own that it was not a situation where he should have to slow down, because he saw no reason to.

The driver admittedly was ticketed for driving 56 (11 mph more than he should have).

 

Oh. Well, there goes your case.

Thanks for sharing the story though. I always try to make it a courteous point to get out of the closest lane, but good to know now that I actually have to.

 

I would want to know the details of the case, how much room did he have to slow down, was the police car sitting there with their lights on for a reason, or were they just sitting there trying to catch people.

If it was the latter, I would find not guilty, if there was not ample room to slow down once you notice the lights, I would render not guilty.

I would seriously want to know what the entire situation is with the officer before rendering a verdict.

And, at 11mph over the limit, I might render a "Not guilty" verdict anyway....if I feel the law in this case was being abused.

DD

 

So now I will throw in two assumptions:

1. The driver had more than enough time to see the flashing lights and it was completely safe for him to either slow down to 45 or move over a labe.

2. The officer had just completed giving a speeding ticket to some other driver and was finishing up a couple of housekeeping duties before going on his way.

 

I don't fear the officer is going to pull me out of the car and beat me Rodney King style. I really don't care if the officer is rude. But when I see a police car, I shouldn't be sent into a mode where Im worried that he is looking for a reason to pull me over. We all know this is true with certain police forces. Some forces are out there to maintain safety while others are out there enforce the law to the very end.

I fully understand the law and im not disagreeing with it. The police are allowed to use their discretion to enforce the law. If the highway was full and everyone was going 5 over, do you think the officer is literally going to pull everyone over who is not going 20 under and passing next to him? If he was enforcing safety, he would have given him a warning as he was not blatantly endangering anyone. This was purely revenue generation motivated.

 

I would then find the defendent guilty.....

But if it were more than 5 minutes since the officer wrote the last ticket - not guilty.

DD

 

you're given a jury charge...it asks you to answer questions of fact. you do not get to answer questions of law. i'm not sure what sort of jury you served on where you did.

in that case in GA, the only questions you would be asked would be about whether sexual contact occurred..to what extent..and who participated. those would be the questions posed to the jury. you're not asked if you wish to convict or not. not in TX, anyway.

 

Yeah, I know the rules and what you are charged with doing in your duty, I also know a lot of laws are unjust, and a lot of law makers are idiots.

So, I would take all of that into consideration, I don't really care whether or not it is being politically correct, I believe the forefathers set up the system this way so intelligent people can take each case on it's own merits and decide whether or not the person is guilty, or not.

DD

 

Oh, and knowing the law in Georgia could result in a 75 year old sentence, I would rule in the kids favor...regardless of the facts.

DD

 

Where is the citation in this law that gives people an out for a cop allegedly being a prick? If you don't have time to slow down, you are driving to fast.

Sec. 545.157. PASSING AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE. (a) On approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle using visual signals that meet the requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702, an operator, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, shall:
(1) vacate the lane closest to the emergency vehicle when driving on a highway with two or more lanes traveling in the direction of the emergency vehicle; or
(2) slow to a speed not to exceed:
(A) 20 miles per hour less than the posted speed limit when the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour or more; or
(B) five miles per hour when the posted speed limit is less than 25 miles per hour.
(b) A violation of this section is:
(1) a misdemeanor punishable under Section 542.401;
(2) a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $500 if the violation results in property damage; or
(3) a Class B misdemeanor if the violation results in bodily injury.
(c) If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another section of this code or the Penal Code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or under both sections.

 

i understand what you're saying...but just to be clear then...you'd simply be saying you didn't believe he actually had sex with her then....not that you'd "rule in his favor" on the law.

a lot of times, juries have no idea what the punishment is for the crime. my guess is the people on that jury had no idea there was a 75 year sentence to begin with. they were just asked questions about what they believe happened after listening to the facts of the case. the law gets applied to their findings afterwards.

the constitution doesn't provide juries so they can overturn law...that's what the independent judiciary is for. a jury of your peers is about making sure the fact-finder in your case isn't the government. if a law is unconstitutional, we have an independent judiciary to handle that.

 

The billionaire is always right

 

It is not overturning the law, it is ruling in favor of the defendent when the law is being abused.

For instance, in the Illinois case where the guy is being charged with eavesdropping for video taping police.

I would never, NEVER rule in favor of the law, I would find every single person "Not guilty" regardless of the rule of the law.

Sometimes laws are stupid, and I think people on a jury have the right to rule with common sense, regardless of how the law is written.

If that officer in this case was being a prick and had been there for more than 5 minutes, I would rule, NOT GUILTY.

I will not rule for OVER enforcement of any law, and any law that is being misrepresented either.

DD

 

I don't give a crap what the law says.....I would rule in favor of the defendent if the guy was being a prick.

DD

 

That's true but you've also got the opportunity to expose his abuse of power in court and be a hero.

 

Wow. Democracy at work. That's what I call interpretation.

 

Whatever you want to call it, I call it stopping an injustice.

DD