|
|
| Author |
Message |
scg
|
|
The ticket
| 
Jul 19 03:33 UTC 1994 |
You have just gotten a ticket for something you know you did. You do not,
however, believe that what you did was in any way wrong. You know that if
you take the ticket to court the police officer might not show up, meaning
that you would get off, but if the police officer did show up you would
have to come up with some sort of defence. Do you pay the ticket, or do
you take it to court?
|
| 23 responses total. |
chelsea
|
|
response 1 of 23:
|
Jul 19 03:51 UTC 1994 |
Take it to court. I've done this and won. It was well worth
the effort and felt great.
|
aruba
|
|
response 2 of 23:
|
Jul 19 05:02 UTC 1994 |
I paid it off. I was told I wouldn't have much of a chance, and I wanted
to put the whole thing behind me.
|
omni
|
|
response 3 of 23:
|
Jul 19 07:18 UTC 1994 |
maybe I'm missing something here, steve. Can you give me an example
of what this might be?
If I speed and know I am guilty I will not fight. If I have committed
a crime, and know that I am guilty, I don't see a lot of room for defense,
unless of course I want to make the state prove that I did it. I believe
that I have stated my postion on this in an earlier item.
now if I am doing the limit, or driving in such a way that is
safe by my standards, and still get a ticket, you can bet your ass
that I'll see to it that the cop makes it to the trial and I will spare
no expense in proving my innocence. But the matter must pass the conscience
test. Can I live with myself if I fight it, and win?
|
omni
|
|
response 4 of 23:
|
Jul 19 07:19 UTC 1994 |
I firmly believe that the truth shall set you free.
|
aruba
|
|
response 5 of 23:
|
Jul 19 12:02 UTC 1994 |
Here's my example, omni: I had an accident in which I ran into another
car that was stopped in the middle of the road. I was ticketed for
"Assured Clear Distance", which means that I should have seen the car
before I hit it. But it was raining really hard, and I had just crested a
hill, and anyway I would have stopped in time if there hadn't been so much
water on the road that I simply slid a long way. *I* felt that there was
no way I could have stopped in time, but I didn't feel up to proving it to
someone else.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 6 of 23:
|
Jul 20 01:39 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
omni
|
|
response 7 of 23:
|
Jul 20 03:30 UTC 1994 |
Thank you for clearing that up, aruba. If I would have been the judge
I I would have exonerated you.
I had something like this happen to me in 1982 in Croswell MI. 2 points
plus 100 bucks, just because I didn't have the *&^% gas to get to Sandusky.
Life in the thumb, sucks. ;)
|
aruba
|
|
response 8 of 23:
|
Jul 20 04:48 UTC 1994 |
Thanks, omni. I don't know, maybe I should have tried to contest it.
I would have had to find a way to get to Toledo, since my car was too
smashed up to drive anymore (at least, I was afraid to drive it.)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 9 of 23:
|
Jul 20 12:08 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
srw
|
|
response 10 of 23:
|
Jul 21 06:17 UTC 1994 |
Mark, the charge against you sounds like it claims that you were
driving too fast for the conditions. When it gets rainy you are supposed
to slow down so that your visibility isn't less than your stopping distance.
So you might have lost anyway. Of course I have no familiarity with any
specifics. They don't always charge this, as the conditions may or may
not have been reasonably predicatable.
|
aruba
|
|
response 11 of 23:
|
Jul 23 01:09 UTC 1994 |
Yeah, that's kinda what I was afraid of. I was certainly going no faster
than the traffic around me (it was on both sides, or I would have switched
lanes), and no faster than the speed limit, but I know that's not
necessarily a valid excuse.
|
scg
|
|
response 12 of 23:
|
Jul 27 22:10 UTC 1994 |
I just paid my ticket. I seriously considered taking it to court, knowing
that I could get out of it if the cop didn't show up, but I couldn't think
of any defense to use if he did show up. I know I was going as fast, or
at least almost as fast, as he said I was. I could have tried "admit with
explanation," using that I was going with the flow of traffic and was
really tired and wanted to get home before I fell asleep as an excuse, but
the ticket had already been written for 70 (only five over) when I was going
84 (19 over), and I couldn't imagine a judge giving me more of a break than
that. Besides, "admit with explanation" doesn't require the cop to show
up, so it couldn't have gotten me out of it with that the way I could have
by denying it. If I had thought there was any defense I could have used I
would have contested the ticket, but I wasn't prepared to lie and say I
was going 65.
|
omni
|
|
response 13 of 23:
|
Jul 28 06:10 UTC 1994 |
Do you feel better? You did it, you didn't try to wiggle out of it,
and you suffered your punishment. Nice going, Steve.
|
scg
|
|
response 14 of 23:
|
Jul 28 06:44 UTC 1994 |
I don't particularly feel better, although I'm glad it's over
with. Mostly, I feel $60 poorer, and will probably feel even poorer when
the insurance company notices. I also feel that I should have been more
careful about watching for speed traps.
While I wouldn't lie to get out of the ticket, I still don't
think I did anything wrong. I was going pretty much with the flow of
traffic, in a car that can easily and safely handle that kind of speed,
and I really wasn't sure how much longer I could stay awake. I don't
support having a 65 speed limit on roads that can handle faster traffic
than that, and I also feel very strongly that the Federal government has
no business messing with state speed limits. I refuse to feel guilty
about violating what I consider to be a bad law.
|
davel
|
|
response 15 of 23:
|
Jul 28 10:31 UTC 1994 |
So *your* feelings about the law determine whether you should have to obey
it? And you are, of course, prepared to allow those who disapprove of the
laws *you* like the same lattitude?
|
scg
|
|
response 16 of 23:
|
Jul 28 15:36 UTC 1994 |
I said I refuse to feel guilty about it, not that I refuse to pay the
ticket. I did pay the ticket. I can't force others to feel guilty about
anything.
|
carson
|
|
response 17 of 23:
|
Jul 28 15:42 UTC 1994 |
set parentheses=on
(but you COULD have practiced civil disobedience.)
|
omni
|
|
response 18 of 23:
|
Jul 28 17:57 UTC 1994 |
protest in a quiet way, Do 70 in a 65. No cop on the planet would dare
pull you over for *actually* doing 70 in a 65 and actually make it stick.
Until speedometers get more accurate, there will always be a 5-10 mph
grace, but don't do 10 over, because the risk of the charge sticking goes
dangerously higher as the speed increases.
|
scg
|
|
response 19 of 23:
|
Jul 28 19:21 UTC 1994 |
I'm down to about 75 these days, on roads I don't know. I think I'm still
pretty safe at that, as long as there are people going faster than me
(which there just about always are if I'm at that speed). 14/96 into
Detroit, OTOH, is another story. I know all the speed traps there (and
there aren't that many places for them to hide).
|
davel
|
|
response 20 of 23:
|
Jul 30 14:15 UTC 1994 |
Re 16: Steve, you kind of miss my point. You feel fine about ignoring this
law on the grounds that you think it's a dumb one. Should (say) someone
with toxic waste who thinks environmental laws are dumb feel it's perfectly
OK to dump it down the nearest drain, the only worry being the likelihood
of having to pay some kind of penalty? Or does the fact that a legislature
*you* helped elect passed the law give you any reason at all to obey it,
whether you personally think it's a wise one or not?
|
dang
|
|
response 21 of 23:
|
Jul 31 05:35 UTC 1994 |
well, seeing as federal law requires a speedlimit on the highway,
michigan is doing it's best to get aroung it...
|
ewhisam
|
|
response 22 of 23:
|
Dec 28 00:13 UTC 1995 |
Take it to court and explain it to the judge.
|
diznave
|
|
response 23 of 23:
|
Nov 9 07:29 UTC 1997 |
I would show up to the courtroom in nothing but a wetsuit, and ask the judge
if s(he) wanted to go diving.
|