From: richard on 3 Jun 2010 00:41 On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:36:32 -0500, 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... I think maybe some have misread the ruling here. While in court, the officer did not have available the radar unit he used to check the defendant's speed with. So the defendant was questioning the validity of the officer's speed determination. I do not think the court is going to allow an officer to stand on the side of the road and just point his finger at a car and say that one is speeding. Nobody can accurately determine the speed of any vehicle by sight. -- I learned my lesson well. You can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself. - Ricky Nelson from "Garden Party"
From: Brent on 3 Jun 2010 00:45 On 2010-06-03, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > "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? You mean why are they just not rolling over and paying? > (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.) Some people get pissed off enough at highwaymen to fight. Simple as that. Plus maybe they already paid off the first time or two and no longer have a 'pay them off and they go away' option.
From: Brent on 3 Jun 2010 00:50 On 2010-06-03, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:36:32 -0500, 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... > > I think maybe some have misread the ruling here. > While in court, the officer did not have available the radar unit he used > to check the defendant's speed with. So the defendant was questioning the > validity of the officer's speed determination. > > I do not think the court is going to allow an officer to stand on the side > of the road and just point his finger at a car and say that one is > speeding. > > Nobody can accurately determine the speed of any vehicle by sight. Except a cop in traffic court (according to the court). By entering a court building one enters a very different reality where logic and the laws of the universe as we know them do not apply.
From: richard on 3 Jun 2010 01:35 On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 22:13:41 -0700, Evan Platt wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:36:17 -0600, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > >>No dumbass. > > You of all people should refrain from calling anyone a dumbass. You've > proven yourself to be a dumbass about a dozen times in the past week > alone. > >>What they do is called "pacing". They just get behind you, >>match your speed, and that's good enough for the courts. > > Umm no dumbass, officers in California can use any of a number of > different methods to measure speed, including a visual estimation of > speed - for example, by measuring the time it takes a vehicle to get > from (known) point A to (known) point B, they can calculate the speed > based on the time. > > Thanks for playing, go crawl back under your bridge, troll. What you've just described is called VASCAR. Which, unlike radar, is unbeatable. -- I learned my lesson well. You can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself. - Ricky Nelson from "Garden Party"
From: T.J. Higgins on 3 Jun 2010 09:52 In article <1ccxn6slkhj3s$.149m15p2zhwry.dlg(a)40tude.net>, richard wrote: >On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:36:32 -0500, 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... > >I think maybe some have misread the ruling here. >While in court, the officer did not have available the radar unit he used >to check the defendant's speed with. So the defendant was questioning the >validity of the officer's speed determination. > >I do not think the court is going to allow an officer to stand on the side >of the road and just point his finger at a car and say that one is >speeding. "The court's 5-1 decision said independent verification of a driver's speed is not necessary." >Nobody can accurately determine the speed of any vehicle by sight. I am in complete agreement with you on this point, but the ruling of the Ohio Supreme Court says it is legal for police to do exactly that. -- TJH tjhiggin.at.hiwaay.dot.net
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: California State Route 154 video (NEW!) Next: Three more questions added to WWTL Trivia |