Cops & Judges Caught Using Secret Codes On Tickets

reply to post by Rockstar02

Yes, but having a bad attitude, being rude, mouthy, aggressive, or any other type of "socially unacceptable" behavior is in no way, shape or form ILLEGAL....Thats my point, it dosent matter how rude or aggressive or mouthy they are being, as long as they cooperate and take there ticket without directly assaulting the officer, the cop has no right to pass judgement. A persons attitude does not affect whether they are guilty of a crime or not, and therefore has NO PLACE in the courtroom....

Originally posted by SilentBob86
reply to post by Rockstar02

 

Yes, but having a bad attitude, being rude, mouthy, aggressive, or any other type of "socially unacceptable" behavior is in no way, shape or form ILLEGAL....Thats my point, it dosent matter how rude or aggressive or mouthy they are being, as long as they cooperate and take there ticket without directly assaulting the officer, the cop has no right to pass judgement. A persons attitude does not affect whether they are guilty of a crime or not, and therefore has NO PLACE in the courtroom....

You are right, socially unacceptable behavior is, for the most part, not illegal.

However, if you are cited for a violation that you committed, and proceed to act belligerent toward the officer, it is not about that act being illegal.

It is saying that yes, this person committed the offense, and yes, they do deserve to have it stick.

Ever heard the phrase "you catch more flies with honey..."?

Being polite can get you out of situations that you truly should not get out of, such as getting out of a ticket for a violation that you did commit. Being belligerent can make those things stick.

So let me ask this question? Is the fervor about this more geared towards them writing secret codes or the reporting of attitude and demeanor? Because if you get arrested the officer includes in plain language on the report that the judge sees, your attitude, demeanor, belligerence etc.. Could even lead to more charges pertaining to resisting w/out violence.So would writing it out on the ticket be more palatable? Whether you broke a traffic law or a criminal law, your demeanor and attitude on scene comes into play in every case brought before a judge in ALL jurisdictions. THEY DO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT when deciding sentencing. It's fact and has been that way for at least 50 years or better. Do officers sometimes make things up on reports about attitude and his percieved feeling of your behavior? Yes some do abuse it.

reply to post by Grambler


and

reply to post by djvexd



Here is the thing. Me coding a ticket saying someone acted like a complete ahole means nothing except they acted like a child. They STILL COMMITTED THE VIOLATION. Hence they still get the ticket and have to pay the fine. You guys are saying it sways a judge...only in a GOOD way if you look at it.

Example A: Driver runs a stop sign and gets stopped. Driver flips out cussing, refusing to sign, just acting like a fool, so I note on the ticket AH under remarks. What does these mean, it means the driver committed the violation and I noted he's an idiot. Citation cost is $50. You go to court rather than accept the fact you did wrong and the judge finds you guily of running a stop sign. Guess what you pay? $50. Same as before you acted out, so nothing changed. You don't get punished anymore then anyone else, it simply tells those dealing with you, ESPECIALLY me, that you can't act right when you break the law...but regardless you were treated unfairly. Now, lets say the judge decided to not cut you a break because i wrote AH on the ticket, does that mean you DIDN'T still commit the violation? No, it means if anyone was thinking of helping you out, YOU ruined it by being a fool. No one but to blame but yourself. The AH isn't what made you guilty, your running the stop sign did...thats the difference you guys are losing site of.

Example B: Driver runs a stop sign and gets stopped. Driver ADMITS they screwed up, or simply is upset that now they are being given a $50 ticket, but again act like an adult because, well they ran the stop sign, no one else. (now this is saying they even get a ticket and not a warning). Again citation cost is $50. They decide to not pay it and would like to fight it and try to save $50. In court the judge looks and see's you ran a stop sign. On the citation is a smiley face and the judge realizes you know you did wrong, your the type who has no problem with the ticket, but are taking a shot at trying to save some cash. You took it like a man as they say. Well then the judge decides, hey this person seems reasonable and understand the implications of running a stop sign. Tell you what my judgment is $10 fine or hell I will throw the ticket out. So because someone acted right, THE JUDGE decided that this person is guitly but behaving like an adult compared to example A deserves a lighter sentence.

You can disagree with it all day long, but there is nothing about this that is illegal, or immoral. The fact is there is a violation, you were driving the car so YOU committed said violation regardless of my notes.

As far as writing out Aggressive and Hostile on the citation, the reason i don't is I really don't want to arrest you for acting like a kid, but if your acting like that BEFORE I give you the ticket, imagine after you read that. Then i gotta put you in handcuffs, impound your car, take you to jail, AND do paperwork....noooo, much rather stick with a code and SAVE YOU the trouble. YOUR welcome..lol

reply to post by rcwj1975


I was actually trying to support what you were saying rcjw...lost in internet translation. My point was people who are all up in arms about this I don't understand which they are against more, the subtle coding or the fact thier attitude towards the officer being subject to review by a judge. If you are an ass you you put yourself in a position where something the officer could have overlooked and might have given you a break on, i.e. brake light, not using blinker etc. is far more likely to turn a minimal speeding ticket or even a warning into three citations. Even more so when being arrested.Then that fuels thier fire even more becasue thewy think they cop is just being mean and making things up. I would contend to those , arms akimbo, politely and professionally talking to an officer and relaying your disagreement to him in a calm and same manner is far more productive than other means. LEO's are not robots without emotions, although according to some it may be well advised to build LEO versions of Terminators so they don't have to worry about human nature creeping in. Or maybe Johnny 5, he's a tad bit more likable.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by djvexd]

Originally posted by djvexd
I was actually trying to support what you were saying rcjw...lost in internet translation. My point was people who are all up in arms about this I don't understand which they are against more, the subtle coding or the fact thier attitude towards the officer being subject to review by a judge. If you are an ass you you put yourself in a position where something the officer could have overlooked and might have given you a break on, i.e. brake light, not using blinker etc. is far more likely to turn a minimal speeding ticket or even a warning into three citations. Even more so when being arrested.Then that fuels thier fire even more becasue thewy think they cop is just being mean and making things up.

I would contend to those , arms akimbo, politely and professionally talking to an officer and relaying your disagreement to him in a calm and same manner is far more productive than other means. LEO's are not robots without emotions, although according to some it may be well advised to build LEO versions of Terminators so they don't have to worry about human nature creeping in. Or maybe Johnny 5, he's a tad bit more likable.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by djvexd]

I apologize...guess I totally read your post wrong. You are correct and thats on them. Hell if I get pulled over I sure as hell am not going to cause a scene and scream at the officer that i am a cop, WTF are you doing. I'll be polite and professional as I have since I was 16.

Johnny 5...holy crap, that brought back memories, now I gotta go watch Short Circut and remember the good ol days...lol

reply to post by rcwj1975


So you admit that your code can influence a judges decision. As you put it, if you put the code "AH" the judge could decide to "not give a break" to the defendant. Hence the argument that you have been making the whole thread, that your code has no bearing on a judges decision, is not true.

What you don't understand is that it it is not your job to "judge" people, it is your job to enforce the law and arrest and cite people, and then let judges determine if they are innocent or guilty. By introducing extra opinions on behaviors into the case, something that has nothing to do with rather or not a law was broken, you have the potential to influence a judges decision based on more than mere facts, and that is illegitmate.

Your claims that they broke the law anyway are insufficient. As an LEO, you are not a judge, and I know this might be shocking, you can make mistakes. That is why we have a seperate body for judging the crimes.

Look at it this way, I would imagine that of all the people you personally cite and arrest, not all of them have been found guilty (unless your some kind of crazy supercop). But in a crazy Judge Dredd type world were you are a police officer and judge, evryone you arrest you would find guilty. This proves that the courts at least sometimes find your assessment of them being absolutely guilty to be wrong.

Even though you are "100 %" sure that someone commited a violation, they should still have to be found guilty in a court. So your claims that regardless of the codes you write, "they still broke the law" might not be true, and now your code may persuade a judge from looking at just more than the facts making the case more of a popularity contest than an actual fair hearing.

You also didn't answer the point about judges possibly being corrupt or vindictive. Even though you are a good, honest cop, the judge may not be so honest. He may want to teach someone a lesson just for being rude, and use your code as an excuse to overlook the facts of the case and just say guilty.

Also, I'm not sure how it is in Georgia, but here in PA we have varying amounts of fines you can get for traffic violations. In that case, maybe a judge gives someone a maximum fine of like $250 instead of the normal $100 fine they would normally give because your code showed they were a jerk and deserved it.

Either way, you have claimed all through this thread that you are someone who is only finding people guilty on the basis of the law, and so why take the chance of screwing it up? If we look at it from a positive/negative point of view:

Negatives: has the potential to be used to decide cases based on like or dislike of defendants rather than actual guilt, and even worse as the OP video shows could lead to widespread accusations and mistrust of law enforcement

Positives: you have yet to give any other than it somehow pleases you

As someone who clearly is concerned with the sanctity of the law, it seems as though your only moral choice would be to stop using the codes.

You people can argue the laws all you want.

but I highly recommend you just stop arguing what you do not understand.

PURCHASE a Criminal and Traffic Code book... learn the rules...
and then come back.

This conversation will never please anyone because its like arguing God to Atheists and Agnostics To Chrstians and Muslim Faith to the Jewish faith... your just not going to win

Law is created to be feared... So that you dont create chaos in society.

Its simple really.

Dont break the laws and you dont get fined.
Respect your fellow man and you may have less charges

Laws are Man Made, even officers have to follow them. Im my hometown off duty cops travel at the speed limit, not 5 over or 5 under.

Most of you seem to think that cops truely believe that they are ABOVE the law (some do) but you are mistaken. Power does corrupt and there is nothing you can do to fix that except become a cop and learn the reality of the situation. WHEN EVERYONE HATES YOU, When you dont get paid enough, when the chances of you getting a divorce are 70%, when the chances of your wife cheating on you are 75%... and pretty much you see the worst of the worst day in and day out... I mean I could leave a suitcase with 500000 dollars in it, and I bet 60% of your ethics will go out the window. Then try this again when the economy worsens... i bet 90% of your ethics would then go out the windows.

The law is predictable, and so are criminals. If you create a law, they will try to break it. Thank the criminals for your sense of insecurity's with the law.

edit to add

Common Laws?

Whats the difference? They were created by man too.

Laws have multiple purposes. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE is to protect one human from another.

I'm beginning to think the Matrix got it right in the Humans are Like Viruses. I mean look at half of you.

"Well If i break the Law I have the right to complain with the officer, and I wont get a Ticket"- Blah blah. I hope there is God and you try to explain that one to him

But God... Hell isnt FAIR! I dont wanna suffer! Well I told you to Follow the rules! but rules are stupid... Well so are you for not following them. In heaven there are no rules



[edit on 3-3-2010 by rjmelter]

Originally posted by Grambler
So you admit that your code can influence a judges decision. As you put it, if you put the code "AH" the judge could decide to "not give a break" to the defendant. Hence the argument that you have been making the whole thread, that your code has no bearing on a judges decision, is not true.

Only in a good way. Again your blurring the lines between being cut a break or paying full price for YOUR violation. People on here have been trying to say the code is illegal and unfair, its not unfair because you still broke the law and are paying the full cost of the ticket. NOT MORE! People are making it out that my code is taking a Stop Sign ticket and making it more than what it is...and thats simply untrue. They are saying YOUR NOT THE JUDGE...thats right, I am not, and that has NOTHING to do with the code. YOUR STILL GUILTY! Is the real issue that being an ahole makes you pay full price rather then half price? So is the REAL argument people are pissed because nice REASONABLE people who act like grown ups may not get a ticket or pay as much for the same violation?

What you don't understand is that it it is not your job to "judge" people, it is your job to enforce the law and arrest and cite people, and then let judges determine if they are innocent or guilty.

Again i am not deciding guilt or innocense, see that blurry like. I may be deciding if you pay full proce for your violation with my code, but not that your guilty of it.

By introducing extra opinions on behaviors into the case, something that has nothing to do with rather or not a law was broken, you have the potential to influence a judges decision based on more than mere facts, and that is illegitmate.

It may make a judge decide to not make someone pay full price, may make a judge throw it out, but again the violation DID occur. So arguing "innocense" isn't getting you anywhere. Again the blurred line. the person who paid only $5 who was nice, compared to your $50 who was not, is still as guilty.

Your claims that they broke the law anyway are insufficient. As an LEO, you are not a judge, and I know this might be shocking, you can make mistakes. That is why we have a seperate body for judging the crimes.

Again, NOT judging the crime, BLURRY LINE....focus! Nice person is also guilty, just handled it better, meaning better outcome for that GUILTY person.

Look at it this way, I would imagine that of all the people you personally cite and arrest, not all of them have been found guilty (unless your some kind of crazy supercop). But in a crazy Judge Dredd type world were you are a police officer and judge, evryone you arrest you would find guilty. This proves that the courts at least sometimes find your assessment of them being absolutely guilty to be wrong.

If I arrest you, your guitly cause I have proof of such. I am not going to take you to jail and charge you with something I cannot PROVE happened. That is a waste of time. Hell ask all the women who get PISSED when we go to the house because she says he is beating her and she doesn't have a mark on her....ANYWHERE, yet her statement is, he choked me and kicked me...ok, where? Can't show it, I can't arrest...its called probable cause. Make him leave for the night and help he get a TPO, sure, but sorry maam, no jail for him.

Even though you are "100 %" sure that someone commited a violation, they should still have to be found guilty in a court.

Agreed and nowhere have I ever stated differently.

So your claims that regardless of the codes you write, "they still broke the law" might not be true, and now your code may persuade a judge from looking at just more than the facts making the case more of a popularity contest than an actual fair hearing.

Correction...I read that wrong...sorry. I meant, he only looks at the facts. The code has NO bearing on guilt or innocence of the crime, it only has bearing on his decision to fine you for the crime, or how much. No judge I ever went infront of looked at my tickets and said hey, he put AH, hey defendant, your guilty, I don't care about anything else but the AH. They have ALWAYS looked at the facts and detrmined if I had PC.

You also didn't answer the point about judges possibly being corrupt or vindictive. Even though you are a good, honest cop, the judge may not be so honest. He may want to teach someone a lesson just for being rude, and use your code as an excuse to overlook the facts of the case and just say guilty.

I am sure there are some corrupt judges out there...I have been lucky to have not sat before one that i know of...or atleast on my cases. As for overlooking the facts of the case, I agree that would be wrong, but I can't see a judge doing so when he knows it could be his a@@ and a cushy job goes bye bye...of course weirder things have happened.

Also, I'm not sure how it is in Georgia, but here in PA we have varying amounts of fines you can get for traffic violations. In that case, maybe a judge gives someone a maximum fine of like $250 instead of the normal $100 fine they would normally give because your code showed they were a jerk and deserved it.

Exactly...this is the real argument I think most are trying to bring up. They are mad that one person only got the $100 fine. They got the $250 fine...why...LOOK IN THE MIRROR...(not you, the violater...lol) Their behavior got them the full amount, NOT a question of guilt...see the blurry line. GUILTY is still guilty, their piss poor attitude got them the full fine...blame the cop all they want, had they not been children, they would of saved $150. Also, I worked in PA before GA...lol. Reading/Berks County.

Either way, you have claimed all through this thread that you are someone who is only finding people guilty on the basis of the law, and so why take the chance of screwing it up? If we look at it from a positive/negative point of view:

I am not screwing it up. The code isn't in place of probable cause or evidence. It reverts back to the above issue...$$$$$, not guilt.

Negatives: has the potential to be used to decide cases based on like or dislike of defendants rather than actual guilt, and even worse as the OP video shows could lead to widespread accusations and mistrust of law enforcement

I still don't see it deciding cases. Deciding punishments, sure, deciding the guilty part, no. Like I said, the nice guy was still guilty too, the courts decided his behavior earned him a lesser fine, the AH was also guitly, just not cut a break.

Positives: you have yet to give any other than it somehow pleases you

I don't have to give positives, PLENTY of drivers who got cut breaks posted here glad they got the code and acted right. That in a nutshell says it all.

As someone who clearly is concerned with the sanctity of the law, it seems as though your only moral choice would be to stop using the codes.

My feeling on the law are still the same. If you don't run the stop sign you can be the biggest ahole you want. When you violate the law AND be an ahole, your guitly of violating that law...not of being an ahole, but again, the real argument I see is now coming out...those who act out feel hurt because they didn't catch a break like the nicer person or did. By the way, I don't write AH on tickets for those who are upset...its NORMAL to bitch about getting a ticket..its the over the top childish tantrums that WILL and continue to get you the AH code...but remember, the code doesn't make you guilty, YOUR violation did.


[edit on 3/3/2010 by rcwj1975]

[edit on 3/3/2010 by rcwj1975]

I think what I have called for in the past needs to begin in earnest.

If you get a ticket for speeding, request a jury trial. Run a stop sign, jury trial. Failure to yield, jury trial. ETC ETC ETC.

Time to SINK this bull#.

I have already vowed that if I ever get on a jury again, and it seems I get picked every damn year, any and all cases where there is no victim, NOT GUILTY.

Jury nullification folks, use EVERY RIGHT YOU HAVE OR LOSE THEM ALL.

reply to post by endisnighe


Nothing wrong with that, but you gotta get past the magistrate. A good cop with have his ducks in a row and be prepared for court with everything needed, others will not, so I am sure sometimes it is well worth the shot.

SO , our resident officer believes that he ' doesn't have to give positives' !!! Amazing gaul, but totally typical for a cop. Never mind the possible and likley negatives, and no positives needed. Sounds like a plan to me!! Not.

Such logic fails the sound mind...the immoral stand that the police take is sickening. He assumes guilt BEFORE the trial..he is pronouncing all people he targets for arrest GUILTY, so he is in fact judging them...thank God it goes to a trained and real judge, one that has to answer to higher courts..if left to the cops this entire nation would be a police state with them as demi-gods.

This sneaky and until now secret arrangement to underhandedly try and influence a judge against a citizen is worthy of some backwater republic, but not a nation that has millions of patriots dead for our rights.

If a cop has so little respect for the law...and the sacrifice of the fallen heores who died to protect the Constitution, the document that most cops ignore and revile every day with their consent demands and intimidations..and WORSE..then SHAME on them and they should hang their heads at the thought of prejudicing a judge with no chance for refutation and depending totally on the COPS word...as if that has any basis for trust...ha!

Since cops are allowed to lie routinely, and do so with abandon, I do not believe anything any of them say and regard all police testimony with the highest degree of suspicion. To think that anyone would take a cops word for something without proof ( which of course the cop never has concerning attitude), we must just trust the cops...no thanks.

This practice MUST stop, and everyone that gets a ticket should demand the cops copy at trial, examine it, and if ' secret signals ' to the judge are found object and ask for dismissal. Even a subtle attempt to influence a judge might be seen a tampering, and is certainly an attempt to circumvent due process,....maybe the FBI should look into whether or not the cops are guilty of a conspiracy to deprive civil rights by the use of secret signals meant to influence the judge against a derfendant...hmmm.

Seeing a few cops pay dearly and personally would make me smile.

Originally posted by rjmelter
You people can argue the laws all you want.

but I highly recommend you just stop arguing what you do not understand.

PURCHASE a Criminal and Traffic Code book... learn the rules...
and then come back.

I will agree with you that I am no expert on the law, but I'm not quite sure why that doesn't allow me to express my opinion on rather or not I think that these codes are a good idea, regardless if it is legal or not. Please feel free to show me in my posts were I just didn't understand what was going on.

Allow me to use your logic against you; the lawyers in the video the OP posted seemed to think that there was no question that this is against the law. I am sure they have purchased more Criminal and Traffic Code books than you, and know way more about them, so I am going to ignore your opinion. Fun isn't it!

This conversation will never please anyone because its like arguing God to Atheists and Agnostics To Chrstians and Muslim Faith to the Jewish faith... your just not going to win

Law is created to be feared... So that you dont create chaos in society.

I think this pretty much sums up your stance. Jeez, I guess that my lack of knowledge from not purchasing traffic books had me believing that laws were supposed to be created to help protect the public? What a fool I am!

Its simple really.

Dont break the laws and you dont get fined.
Respect your fellow man and you may have less charges

It may come as a shock to you, but sometimes LEO's can make mistakes, or even intentionally abuse people (btw not acussing rcj or anyone on this thread). The ignorance of not challenging the morality of laws or law enforcement because of that mindset is astounding.

Even rcjw admitted in a previous post that he chooses to only enforce a small portion of the laws becuase there are so many little knitt picky ones (which btw I commend him for). You can literally be cited for almost anything now days. So your don't break the law comment holds little water, because almost everyone unintentionally breaks the law everyday.

As far as being polite and respecting everyone, respect is earned not given. If a police officer pulls me over and gives me a ticket and is polite, I would certainly be polite right back, because I know he is just doing his job. To be honest, I would try to be polite even if he was a jerk, because being rude won't get you anywhere. However, that still doesn't justify the problems withe these codes I've mentioned in previous posts.

Laws are Man Made, even officers have to follow them. Im my hometown off duty cops travel at the speed limit, not 5 over or 5 under.

Most of you seem to think that cops truely believe that they are ABOVE the law (some do) but you are mistaken. Power does corrupt and there is nothing you can do to fix that except become a cop and learn the reality of the situation. WHEN EVERYONE HATES YOU, When you dont get paid enough, when the chances of you getting a divorce are 70%, when the chances of your wife cheating on you are 75%... and pretty much you see the worst of the worst day in and day out... I mean I could leave a suitcase with 500000 dollars in it, and I bet 60% of your ethics will go out the window. Then try this again when the economy worsens... i bet 90% of your ethics would then go out the windows.

Sure, its tough to be a cop, but the blame is 50/50. 50% is on average people for disliking a group that primarily is punishing you when you deal with them (i.e. you don't see them when they are protecting you etc.), and 50% is on cops by some of them acting bad and many more covering up for them which causes public distrust. It seems to me however that you are attempting to justify crooked cops based on the fact that its a difficult job. Thats garbage. Quit if you don't like it.

Also on a humorous note, whats up with all the wife cheating stuff? Are you implying that LEO's wifes cheat on them more?

The law is predictable, and so are criminals. If you create a law, they will try to break it. Thank the criminals for your sense of insecurity's with the law.

What? Not sure what your getting at here? I don't think criminals break laws just because the law was created (at least the overwhelming majority). They do things that society (or at least the politicians) deems unacceptable and the laws are created to detter and punish them.

Believe it or not, there have been laws that have been in this country that have been without a question morally repugnant and were rightfully fought against (Jim Crow laws, Segregation laws, etc.) Your entire stance of just shut up and take it would justify never fighting against these absurd laws. Hell, our country was founded on fighting laws from England.

Challenging bad laws and immoral pratices in law enforcement doesn't hurt it, it helps us make it more fair, effective, and respected, which I believe everone on this thread would be for.

Originally posted by richierich
Such logic fails the sound mind...the immoral stand that the police take is sickening. He assumes guilt BEFORE the trial..he is pronouncing all people he targets for arrest GUILTY, so he is in fact judging them...thank God it goes to a trained and real judge, one that has to answer to higher courts..if left to the cops this entire nation would be a police state with them as demi-gods.

You do know what probable cause is right? You do know what law is right? You do know that you can't have one without the other when you arrest right? So to place you in handcuffs and CHARGE you means I am not assuming anything...I don't walk down the street and put a guy in handcuffs and say, hey dude, your under arrest for robbing the back three weeks ago and then hope my case sticks...lol..get a clue man.

Originally posted by Grambler
Challenging bad laws and immoral pratices in law enforcement doesn't hurt it, it helps us make it more fair, effective, and respected, which I believe everone on this thread would be for.

I agree with this 100%....no argument from me. Well except I think my AH code is not immoral..lol

reply to post by FortAnthem


Back in the seventies a small town I used to drive through back and forth to work had a worse scam.
The cops issued me a ticket after I went through a green light . My wife was with me but was not paying attention to the light and the cop was unaffected by my ranting. No matter I took it to court. That night we sat there in the court room while a parade of failing to stop on red ticketswere prosecuted. Folks with lawyers and witnesses against the cops testimony.
Everyone was found guilty. Red light green or yellow no difference all guilty including me.
People were really pissed but were paying the clerk as they left. Me too!
About six month later the cops and the municipal judge were all indicted. The cop would write, the judge and prosecutor would find guilty the clerk would collect the dough and they would share a large portion of it.
They were just to greedy. I never got my fine money back.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Good to see the dirty ones got caught and paid for their BS! Sorry you never got back your money...guess they needed it for new cops..lol

reply to post by rcwj1975


You are misunderstanding my intentions.

What is the average speeding ticket, stop sign infraction etc etc, say about for fun $500 dollars.

How much do you think it costs a court to have a trial? My guess it costs at least $1000. Especially if the offender takes his time during the case and stretches it out as long as possible. Length of time of the trial, not the time to go to trial.

First thing, request a speedy trial, none of this 4 months from now crap. Everyone has a right to a speedy trial. If not given, submit a motion to dismiss for the lack of the court to provide the required trial.

Make it so expensive to operate, this crap will stop.

I know why deals are being struck. The courts are drowning in their own weight of corruption.

Make it sink to the bottom. Make it too damn expensive for the government to continue.

THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING. Maybe the courts and police would be able to exist like the old days, if our government did not to be the nanny state it has become.

ITS ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY PEOPLE.

Make it so they do not make any and they will fall!

reply to post by rcwj1975


I think maybe the our disagreement comes from the fact that you are a far more trusting person than me.

Clearly you will admit that you have arrested people that have then had the charges dropped. As you have said, you would not do so without what you deemed sufficient evidence, yet they were still found innocent. This proves that your judgement of they broke the law anyways is not neccessarily true. Even if you think it is a clear case of running a stop sign and someone is 100% guilty, they still have the right to have an unbiased judge look at the FACTS of the case and then decide.

You feel that all judges are able to totally seperate emotion from the job and despite what they know of how the person acted will on decide guilt based on the facts. I think that judges are human, and like all humans, probably have a tendency to let what they think of a person help influence there decision, rather intentional or not.

If I am getting what your saying, this would be your version of how it would go:

Judge sees cop wrote the person was an AH, so, like you have said, there like "Alright, if I find this person guilty I am going to teach them a lesson by giving them the maximum fine. That will teach them to not be polite! Now, lets see if they are guilty." That seems absurd. If as you say they are interested teaching them a lesson, it is probably likely that they will find them guilty even if there is doubt.

You say they wouldn't do this because it would be there *** if they got caught, but that wouldn't really factor in because first off it would be difficult to prove (which is exactly what the OP video is about which proves this situation is likely) and because the mechanisms for a person to make a reasonable appeal after traffic court are laughable and to my knowledge almost never succeed.

I still think focusing just on the facts at the hearings is the best way to go, but if you must tell the judge how the person acted, why not do it in front of the judge instead of in code, that way the person has a chance to defend themselves. That would take care of your positive of helping nice people out; if you told the judge they were polite, I'm sure not one defendant would complain, while simultaneously lowering public suspicion at the police and judges sharing secret codes.

reply to post by Grambler


On the note yes... it is a fact that LEO's Wives cheat on them much more than the common man. Maybe because they lived with the law so long they want to pull some sheets over on it

I'm hardly being serious, in my posts... i have a really dry... arrogant sense of humor (not really sure that I have a sense of humor). I agree with a lot of what you said... My last post was in regards to all of the dumb comments I've heard on ATS. If I replied to you more directly or one of yours more specifically... ooops. I start replying to one person then go off on a bunch of other routes and sometimes just make it seem like the one poster made all the comments that I disagreed with.

My whole argument though was that... The law is human, because it was made by human minds. People get upset because of Officers doing a bad job (and btw no I hate dirty cops) but they dont really understand what a cop is going through. If you really want a cop to do a great job he needs therapy. He doesn't want to admit it, and probably never will... but he will need a therapist to clear his mind every week for dealing with the dramatic and rediculous events that some cops go through. A couple cops have gone on calls to put kids to sleep... I mean the future criminals in the making they wont even go to bed what the hell .

I'm not a cop, I'm not really sure that Id make a good one because my preference is Investigations. I'm good at researching stuff and connecting the dots... and when dealing one on one with people that is my IDEAL situation. but when it comes to social interaction you yourself know its NOT at all my strong suit.

I still recommend buying a criminal law book. they are like $10 at pocketpress and they are fun to read... you are right we all break laws every day that we do not know about. I myself would not throw the book at someone either unless they were guilty of something unbelieveable... like this one dude who was babysitting a 3 year old and he raped her, when he was done with her he tossed her out into the yard into an ant bed. (Un)Lucky for the little girl she survived and they had to do surgery to seperate her two openings... That sick ####### shouldn't even be alive. When cops are talking to people tha are saying cops suck... they think immediately of people who like that who say to a cop to his face cops suck. When everyones saying you suck... its hard to want to cut them a break when word association is a big deal in the human life.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by rjmelter]