Quote:
Originally Posted by adjkageagfldafsgjk
But the guys tail lamps were not OEM. Seriously dude thats what he was trying to say. That guy had a tinted out set of tails that were posted, and the 'stock' set he supposedly replaced them with weren't stock. He had cracked open the lamps, swapped out the lens, put in some LEDs, and painted part of the inside a different color than factory. He did not get ticketed for a set of factory tail lamps. He had modified the set on his vehicle when ticketed. Once he changed one thing that DOT # don't mean crap and he's sol.
Lol the only evidence that MD ruled factory tails are illegal is from a post on the internet by some dude who admitted he had modified his taillights, got caught in a lie, and then proceeded to delete all the evidence he could. What source of information is claiming the judge ruled factory g8gt tails illegal? The dude who admitted to modifying his tails and is whining about being ticketed for it? Typing in bold is fun.
|
He went with the same strategy as people with track-related warranty issues. Of course, those guys are engaging in warranty fraud. This guy did it legally. He deleted evidence that suggested he did anything illegal. He can do this under his 1st and 5th amendment rights.
He may have modified his tail lamps at one time. If you read any of the posts on this thread, you would see that most of us do not dispute this. What we dispute is the ruling on OEM tail lamps. We already know that modified tail lamps are illegal in many states. You don't need to educate us on what we already know. Focus on the court ruling, not the person in court. The ruling affects other people. This guy's behavior regarding his tail lamps does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sax1031
No we don't.
What we also don't have proof of is that he was stopped with factory tail lights installed either.
We have one side of the story. And that side really isn't even their anymore because the guy deleted about anything to do with his tail lights.
|
It doesn't matter what tail lamps he had at the time of the stop. As far as court arguments go, the point that he had OEM lamps on the car was never disputed, meaning that it was never on record that he had any other set of lamps. Even if he did have aftermarket lamps or modified lamps, the court case never mentioned it. Had the court case mentioned custom or aftermarket lamps, this would have never made the press. People get routinely ticketed for having aftermarket lenses, so it would be far too ordinary to make the automotive news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCaptain
Haha good old Jackalope... never gets outta trouble for long enough to get his head above water. He is on CobaltSS net as he used to own one. That guy has problems with the Maryland police on his case like you wouldn't believe...  |
This is starting to sound like a case of bias against him. I'm wondering if he could prove this is some sort of discrimination.