Quote:
Originally Posted by EMB135Driver
Do you think the defense..."it's not that I haven't committed an armed robbery in a while, it's that I've never committed one before" would hold up?
43 mph over the limit isn't much different than 55 over the limit in the eyes of an insurance company....there's lots of people they can insure who don't have high speed violations and as such are less of a risk.
|
Please don't compare what I did to an armed robbery. but to address your idiotic comparison. Yes, i do think a prosecutor would treat a repeat armed robber different than a first time offender
I didn't state that was my defense, I was correcting him from taking what previously said out of context. He spoke similar to you as "its been awhile" rather than "this is a first offense"
You're right, a specific insurance agency doesn't have to insure me. And I don't have to be their customer.
I'm sure there is an insurance company that would be happy to take my money.
And your wrong about the 43 vs 55. Every attorney I've spoken with has said...good thing they didn't get you at 100 or higher, cause that's a whole other level and it's looked at much worse. So 1, 2, 5 and certainly 12 moh does matter