Prev: California State Route 154 video (NEW!)
Next: Three more questions added to WWTL Trivia
From: lorad on 2 Jun 2010 21:38
On Jun 2, 9:31 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"
<josegoldb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:36 pm, ernest.p.worr...(a)vernal.equinox.edu (T.J. Higgins)
> wrote:
>
> > "The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual
> > estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer
> > is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in
> > watching for speeders.
>
> > "The court's 5-1 decision said independent verification of a driver's
> > speed is not necessary."
>
> > <http://www.wlwt.com/news/23767184/detail.html>
>
> > No chance for any abuse there, nosireebob...
>
> Sure, there's a chance for abuse but that applies to everything.  It's
> easy to tell when a nut like you is doing 60 in a school zone.

man.. you are stupid.
future cop says: 'Man you look like a criminal, I am gonna arrest
you'.

From: Nate Nagel on 2 Jun 2010 21:42
On 06/02/2010 09:31 PM, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS
wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:36 pm, ernest.p.worr...(a)vernal.equinox.edu (T.J. Higgins)
> wrote:
>> "The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual
>> estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer
>> is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in
>> watching for speeders.
>>
>> "The court's 5-1 decision said independent verification of a driver's
>> speed is not necessary."
>>
>> <http://www.wlwt.com/news/23767184/detail.html>
>>
>> No chance for any abuse there, nosireebob...
>>
>
> Sure, there's a chance for abuse but that applies to everything. It's
> easy to tell when a nut like you is doing 60 in a school zone.

60, 41, what's the difference? At least you can always kick the cop's
teeth in, ITG.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
From: Kennewick Man; the first, the BEST! on 2 Jun 2010 21:49
On Jun 2, 9:31 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"
<josegoldb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:36 pm, ernest.p.worr...(a)vernal.equinox.edu (T.J. Higgins)
> wrote:
>
> > "The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual
> > estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer
> > is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in
> > watching for speeders.
>
> > "The court's 5-1 decision said independent verification of a driver's
> > speed is not necessary."
>
> > <http://www.wlwt.com/news/23767184/detail.html>
>
> > No chance for any abuse there, nosireebob...
>
> Sure, there's a chance for abuse but that applies to everything.  It's
> easy to tell when a nut like you is doing 60 in a school zone.

DESPERATE for money, aren't they?
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 2 Jun 2010 22:57

"T.J. Higgins" <ernest.p.worrell(a)vernal.equinox.edu> wrote in message
news:_YmdnRvFW7MtOZvRnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d(a)posted.hiwaay2...
> "The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual
> estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer
> is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in
> watching for speeders.
>
> "The court's 5-1 decision said independent verification of a driver's
> speed is not necessary."
>
> <http://www.wlwt.com/news/23767184/detail.html>
>
> No chance for any abuse there, nosireebob...
>

Big chance for abuse but wait... does Ohio not offer the traffic school
option? If they do offer traffic school, why aren't these people being cited
taking traffic school option?

(Yeah, I know, there's probably a "pay off the court" type of administrative
fee for not having the trial as part of the traffic school option, but if
they aren't going to pay the ticket outright and admit the speed violation,
then I would think it's better to take the traffic school option as opposed
to fighting the ticket in a court that now has no obligation to even
consider any speed measuring device except for the officer's visual
estimate.)

From: richard on 3 Jun 2010 00:36
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:54:34 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:36:32 -0500,
> ernest.p.worrell(a)vernal.equinox.edu (T.J. Higgins) wrote:
>
>>"The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual
>>estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer
>>is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in
>>watching for speeders.
>>
>>"The court's 5-1 decision said independent verification of a driver's
>>speed is not necessary."
>>
>><http://www.wlwt.com/news/23767184/detail.html>
>>
>>No chance for any abuse there, nosireebob...
>
> California police have been able to do this for as far back as I can
> remember.

No dumbass. What they do is called "pacing". They just get behind you,
match your speed, and that's good enough for the courts.


--
I learned my lesson well. You can't please everyone, so you got to please
yourself.
- Ricky Nelson from "Garden Party"
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: California State Route 154 video (NEW!)
Next: Three more questions added to WWTL Trivia