I've a question for our police officers..

[two_wheel_mayhem]

Which it usually doesn't happen that way, so you go on to this explanation.

Originally Posted by Rayner

If that doesn't happen, then my lawyer will push for any one of the more favorable outcomes that do not include the ticket going on my record.

(Favorable outcomes) Always includes paying the fine on a lessor charge and/or accepting a deferral program or traffic school. That is extra time and money above lawyer fees. Also these are things I am more than capable of negotiating myself with the prosecutor.


And that right there is YOU admitting that just throwing $75 dollars at a mouthpiece is not a sure fire way to get a dismissal, which is how you stated it works for you in your earlier post.


FAIL

[AMCPacer]

Originally Posted by CPanther95

Drive however fast you want, but just don't drive any faster than the speed at which you are willing to pass a cop.

If I'm driving 80 in a 70, I'd much rather deal with the "idiots" driving 65-70, than the tool driving 85 that brakes to 60 whenever he thinks he sees a cop. On a long trip, I set my cruise and relax - hunting for cops around every blind spot and crossover makes it a very stressful trip.

I do the same and set my cruise once I'm at a speed that I feel is "safe" (generally no more than 10 mph over the speed limit). Fortunately, no speeding tickets in the last 16 years.

[Rayner]

Originally Posted by two_wheel_mayhem

Which it usually doesn't happen that way, so you go on to this explanation.

(Favorable outcomes) Always includes paying the fine on a lessor charge and/or accepting a deferral program or traffic school. That is extra time and money above lawyer fees. Also these are things I am more than capable of negotiating myself with the prosecutor.

And that right there is YOU admitting that just throwing $75 dollars at a mouthpiece is not a sure fire way to get a dismissal, which is how you stated it works for you in your earlier post.

FAIL

You need to learn to read, kiddo. I've never said it was a sure-fire way to a dismissal.

My exact words, actually were:

Originally Posted by Rayner

Oh don't misunderstand. I don't say anything to the cop on the side of the road. I just take it to court and get it dismissed......every....single....time. I have no need to play "street lawyer." I have a real lawyer (two actually) who do that for me in the courtroom. One of them *successfully* defended a guy in a jury trial by *proving* that there is no "legal" speed limit in Texas (that is a LONG story/explanation).

And my record is cleeeeeeaaaaaaaaan. The last ticket to show on my record is so long ago, it doesn't even count for insurance purposes...*and*....it was in another state.

So the use of the word dismissal was....how do the politicians say it...a misspeak. What I meant is that I make it so the ticket doesn't appear on my record. In other words, according to my driving record, it's as though the ticket never happened.

In other words, in *this* thread, people were bantering back and forth and I saw no need to repeat the in-depth, lengthy post I'd already made in another thread on the subject. If, however, you'd like to read that post, all you have to do is click here.

I've had more than half of my tickets dismissed outright. Of the remaining tickets, the only reason they weren't dismissed out-right was because I used the wrong lawyer. (One of my lawyers doesn't go to JP court. He instead has the ticket 'transferred' to an appellate court, which means if there is no 'technical' merit for the ticket to be dismissed, it won't be. But with the deferral he gets, the ticket still won't be on my record).

The other lawyer, however, *does* go to JP court and when that happens, I don't even have to show up. He does it for me. Then months later I get a letter in the mail from him saying it's been dismissed and no further action is required from me.

Lastly, dude, I don't really care what you think of what I have to say. You can take it or leave it for all I care. My record speaks for itself. As I said, the last citation to appear on my record was an out-of-state ticket from over 7 years ago. (And it's safe to say I've gotten a ticket or two since then.)

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by Rayner

A think a better question is: Why *is* there a need for it? The only explanation I've ever heard is to protect the cop during a traffic stop. Yet the tint on the rear window can be 'limo style.' If you're approaching from the rear, a bad guy can shoot through the back window same as he can through a side window.

That's why we need atleast the front windows to see something. So you are suggesting no tinted window then I take it?

Originally Posted by Rayner

There's no need for a law on window tint. Many people are sensitive to the sun -- they burn, it hurts their eyes, etc. Even eye doctors will tell you that you need to limit your eyes' exposer to the sun. But if you can't have your side windows tinted, you're doing nothing but ruining your eyes with sunlight.

You can just get a doctors note, it isn't that hard.

Originally Posted by Rayner

Oh goodie. The "victim appreciation" card. I love those. I bet the victim and their family would be happier if the cops were able to prevent the crime to begin with. Or perhaps they'd be happier if California self and home defense laws were like they are in Texas.

That you just "happened" to catch a guy by his front plates isn't really a convincing argument. That's somehow like you're trying to suggest the guy would go un-caught forever were it not for those front plates. I think you just got lucky, honestly. The truly bad guys who flaunt their lack of respect for the laws wouldn't have a front plate for you to see anyway. It's kinda like a person who's messed up enough mentally to do a school shooting doesn't care that there's a sign saying "No guns allowed" on the campus.

Yes I did get lucky. But if the guy had no plate, he would eventually get pulled over for no front plate. It works either way.

Originally Posted by Rayner

Incorrect. Many of these laws were on the books before I was even voting age. So I had no hand in creating them or putting them in place.

Then start a movement if you want. But as of now, society as a whole has spoken to their benefit.

Originally Posted by Rayner

As every state is different, though, it's lame to drive cross-country and be illegal in one state and then legal in another. Are you telling me that my tint or whatever is magically so much more nefarious simply because I crossed a state line? I doubt it.

Don't drive cross country if you don't like the other states laws. Why would you go somewhere if you don't like it there? Just because you have you're own personal opinion on how things should be, it doesn't make it right. The community chooses as a whole what is right, what is wrong. By the sound of it, you should be happy there are different state laws.

[two_wheel_mayhem]

Originally Posted by Rayner

kiddo dude

So now you are gonna insult me personally as well as my intelligence?

Who uses the words "dude" and "kiddo" I get called dude by young guys, and kiddo by senior citizens. When I was born Richard Nixon was president.

So if your daddy fought in WW2 that may give you the right to call me "kiddo"


So Im glad things work out for you with your cheap lawyer. We think alike in some aspects, not playing roadside lawyer, take the ticket and get out of it later.

I don't agree with your socialistic view of wanting national traffic laws, here in the US states rights are very important to us. Here in Indiana we like our guns, our 70 mph speed limit, no front plates, and we don't have smog checks. Don't ever even try to open the door to socialism, you will not like it. When you mentioned coming back stateside, does this mean you spent a lot of time in England?

I responded to your response of my post, coming off like you just pay $75 to some dime store dealmaker and it makes your problems go away so easy.

The rest of your posts not directed at me, I neglected to read fully as they were too long , troll like, and full of innuendos like you feel you have some super secret ticket fighting powers that no one else ever thought of.

[Rayner]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

That's why we need atleast the front windows to see something. So you are suggesting no tinted window then I take it?

Actually, quite the opposite. I'm saying if other states don't care about side window tinting, no state should.

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

You can just get a doctors note, it isn't that hard.

So I have to spend money going to see a doctor just to be able to do something that's common sense to my car? That's ludicrous. *Everyone* knows the sun can damage skin and eyes with prolonged exposure. We should not require the entire populace to get a 'doctor's note' in order to protect themselves from the sun's harmful effects.

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

Then start a movement if you want. But as of now, society as a whole has spoken to their benefit.

Really? I don't recall seeing any stories about a public outcry to limit tinted windows.

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

Don't drive cross country if you don't like the other states laws. Why would you go somewhere if you don't like it there? Just because you have you're own personal opinion on how things should be, it doesn't make it right. The community chooses as a whole what is right, what is wrong. By the sound of it, you should be happy there are different state laws.

Seriously? That's your solution? So you want to restrict people's freedoms rather than agree that a law is un-necessary? Wow.

How long 'til we get to the "papers please?" style of restrictions? How long 'til we need a 'zone pass' to leave our neighborhood. "What's that citizen? No, you have no need to leave your neighborhood, turn around and return to your home at once or be shot. Thank you for your cooperation."

Dude, it's not up to you to determine who should and should not drive across the country. There are dozens of reasons why someone would be driving cross-country. What's legal in one state should be legal in others.

[Rayner]

Originally Posted by two_wheel_mayhem

So now you are gonna insult me personally as well as my intelligence?

Who uses the words "dude" and "kiddo" I get called dude by young guys, and kiddo by senior citizens. When I was born Richard Nixon was president.

So if your daddy fought in WW2 that may give you the right to call me "kiddo"

Awfully sensitive, aren't you? Here in Texas, you're a dude or a chick. Which do you prefer?

Originally Posted by two_wheel_mayhem

So Im glad things work out for you with your cheap lawyer. We think alike in some aspects, not playing roadside lawyer, take the ticket and get out of it later.

We do agree, it seems. Though he's not cheaper than other lawyers. You're just thinking 'full trial' and a court date for a traffic ticket is not a 'full trial.' Seriously, google "speeding ticket defense" or some variation therein if you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by two_wheel_mayhem

I don't agree with your socialistic view of wanting national traffic laws, here in the US states rights are very important to us. Here in Indiana we like our guns, our 70 mph speed limit, no front plates, and we don't have smog checks. Don't ever even try to open the door to socialism, you will not like it.

So it's socialist to want legal tinted windows in every state? Wow. That's a new one on me. You do realize that we had a 'federally mandated max speed limit' for decades....right?

I see nothing wrong with trying to 'educate' the other states' governments on what should be and should not be considered illegal. Why do you think I don't live in Cali? I was stationed there for a time (when I was younger) and said "Man, I want to retire out here." Then I learned how they can turn on you for the simple act of defending your own home and I said "Naaah. I think I'll stick with Texas, thanks. Gotta love that Castle Doctrine."

Originally Posted by two_wheel_mayhem

When you mentioned coming back stateside, does this mean you spent a lot of time in England?

Actually, I was in Hawaii just before I got out of the military. Hawaiians will tell you they are part of the states, but they sure don't act like it. So to me, it's not. Besides, in the military Hawaii is technically both -- "CONUS" *and* "overseas."

Originally Posted by two_wheel_mayhem

I responded to your response of my post, coming off like you just pay $75 to some dime store dealmaker and it makes your problems go away so easy.

It is easy. For me, anyway. I take the ticket to the lawyer the day I get it, and I don't hear from him for 6 months to a year. When I do hear from him, it's either telling me to pay the fine for deferred adjudication, or saying my ticket was dismissed and I don't need to do anything.

Speaking of deferred adjudication -- deferred adjudication is when they say you pay the fine and "so long as you don't get another traffic conviction in X number of months, this citation will not appear on your record." Well guess what. You can get a ticket coming from the court house the day you pay that fine, and you still won't 'get a conviction' before that probationary period is up. I got one about 2 months after I paid one fine, took it to my lawyer and didn't hear a peep from him until 8 months after my 'probation period' was over.

As I said....my record is cleeeaaaan.

Originally Posted by two_wheel_mayhem

The rest of your posts not directed at me, I neglected to read fully as they were too long , troll like, and full of innuendos like you feel you have some super secret ticket fighting powers that no one else ever thought of.

Troll like? That's funny coming from a guy who called me a blow hard and signed his post with "FAIL."

That's...rich. Thank you. I love that.

[two_wheel_mayhem]

Thanks you cleared that all up ever so nicely, I didn't know that about Hawaii, did you like being called a haoli?

I know all about court proceedings pops. Never was the type to just give up without a fight. Except we do traffic court arrainments by mail in Indiana, if you go to court it's trial time, not Jury unless you request it. If you qualify for deferred adjucation, or "safe driver diversion" as they call it here, you don't go in front of a judge its automatically offered to you. Now that sounds like it's really just about money doesn't it?

Now why did Jimmy Carter enact the federally mandated maximum speed limit with the catchy slogan "55 saves lives"?

If you guessed "to save fuel" you are a winner. There was a shortage at the time remember?

[Rayner]

Originally Posted by two_wheel_mayhem

Thanks you cleared that all up ever so nicely, I didn't know that about Hawaii, did you like being called a haoli?

Not even a little bit. But that's a whole other *lengthy* rant. Suffice it to say, it took being stationed there to make me MISS Texas.

Originally Posted by two_wheel_mayhem

I know all about court proceedings pops. Never was the type to just give up without a fight. Except we do traffic court arrainments by mail in Indiana, if you go to court it's trial time, not Jury unless you request it. If you qualify for deferred adjucation, or "safe driver diversion" as they call it here, you don't go in front of a judge its automatically offered to you. Now that sounds like it's really just about money doesn't it?

Well, as you know every court is different. The advantage for using a lawyer is what I've already covered. I give him the ticket and I don't hear about it again for 6 months to a year. In some cases a lawyer can drag out the arraignment portion for so long, the cop involved transfers or retires or whatever and it becomes an automatic dismissal. Any number of things can happen.

The simple truth is a lawyer knows the law and the tricks of the law better than the average joe. As they say, a defendant who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

Originally Posted by two_wheel_mayhem

Now why did Jimmy Carter enact the federally mandated maximum speed limit with the catchy slogan "55 saves lives"?

If you guessed "to save fuel" you are a winner. There was a shortage at the time remember?

Last time I checked, they were saying something about a shortage of fuel in recent years too. And then they went and repealed the national speed limit. Funny how that works, hmm? Guess politicians *do* lie on occasion. Don't they?

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by Rayner

Actually, quite the opposite. I'm saying if other states don't care about side window tinting, no state should.

Every state makes it's own laws. I don't really know what you're crying about here, this shouldn't be news to you. The citizens of California are in support, for the most part, of the law. Otherwise it would get repealed. California (or any other state) does not have to go along with other states laws just because. Every state has it's own people, it's own government. It's a good thing.

Originally Posted by Rayner

So I have to spend money going to see a doctor just to be able to do something that's common sense to my car? That's ludicrous. *Everyone* knows the sun can damage skin and eyes with prolonged exposure. We should not require the entire populace to get a 'doctor's note' in order to protect themselves from the sun's harmful effects.

If you're having that many issues with the sun, then you should already be seeing a doctor. California isn't Texas or Arizona where it gets stupid hot, for the most part. I can see it necessary to allow some tint in some parts of the country (and some pockets of California), but the people have spoken here. There's not much more to it.

Originally Posted by Rayner

Really? I don't recall seeing any stories about a public outcry to limit tinted windows.

I don't remember either so I can't tell you. When did it even go into effect? Maybe it is a law that Californian's might want to look at again. Or maybe not. As of now there is no public outcry to repeal the law.

Originally Posted by Rayner

Seriously? That's your solution? So you want to restrict people's freedoms rather than agree that a law is un-necessary? Wow.

How long 'til we get to the "papers please?" style of restrictions? How long 'til we need a 'zone pass' to leave our neighborhood. "What's that citizen? No, you have no need to leave your neighborhood, turn around and return to your home at once or be shot. Thank you for your cooperation."

Dude, it's not up to you to determine who should and should not drive across the country. There are dozens of reasons why someone would be driving cross-country. What's legal in one state should be legal in others.

It's not up to me to determine who should and shouldn't drive across country. It's just a suggestion based on you complaining about wherever your driving to. Not every state is going to revolve their laws around your opinions. Im sorry if that offends you somehow.

[two_wheel_mayhem]

Originally Posted by Rayner

Well, as you know every court is different. The advantage for using a lawyer is what I've already covered. I give him the ticket and I don't hear about it again for 6 months to a year. In some cases a lawyer can drag out the arraignment portion for so long, the cop involved transfers or retires or whatever and it becomes an automatic dismissal. Any number of things can happen.

The simple truth is a lawyer knows the law and the tricks of the law better than the average joe. As they say, a defendant who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

Well I go to the casino and drop more than 75 bones, so maybe I'll try your advice next time. It is just another form of gambling isn't it?


Bed time, and I was bored tonight so it was nice sharing ideas with you.

Still holding to my original idea, I'd much rather be on the receiving end of the "revenue inducing coupon" than to have to be the cop that writes them.

[import_killa]

Originally Posted by ahart04

ok so last night I got my 3rd speeding ticket since September. 52 in a 40 on clear, dry, and no traffic.

I passed him going the opposite way, but it wasn't until a good minute and a half later until he came hauling ass down the road with his lights on. I actually thought it was an ambulance, so I pulled over probably a quarter of a mile ahead of him before he stopped behind me. I was, just as I have been all 3 times, polite, courteous, and cooperative. He promptly wrote me a ticket and sent me on my way..

I have read many threads here where several officers have said attitude accounts for most issued citations vs warnings. I feel that being 23, and having this car, although I work my ass off tirelessly for it, lands me in a situation where I will always get a ticket. I feel a level of resentment in these officers when the pull me over. I feel as though
they must think I'm some spoiled kid who's daddy bought my car and can thusly pay for the tickets.

Here's my question: do you think it would ever help me to ask an officer for some leniency?

I'm just really upset that no matter how polite or cooperative I am, there's never a break. And technically I would be fine with that, because I am, after all, speeding, but I don't feel as though it's fair when I have heard of SO many instances where ppl are warned and released.

I'm not even sure anymore if this is a thread asking a question or just me venting my frustration at what I feel is me being prejudiced over the car I drive. Sigh.

i use a detector/jammer and it detects and jams everything including the cameras...but jammers are illegal in most if not all states

[Rayner]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

Every state makes it's own laws. I don't really know what you're crying about here, this shouldn't be news to you. The citizens of California are in support, for the most part, of the law. Otherwise it would get repealed. California (or any other state) does not have to go along with other states laws just because.

Really? I remember many residents of California (some on this very forum) complaining about the law. But usually when they do, people like you tell them to suck it up and obey the law. That's not very productive conversation.

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

If you're having that many issues with the sun, then you should already be seeing a doctor. California isn't Texas or Arizona where it gets stupid hot, for the most part. I can see it necessary to allow some tint in some parts of the country (and some pockets of California), but the people have spoken here. There's not much more to it.

It's not just *my* issue. Read an article or talk to a doctor. The sun is harmful. This is not news. Prolonged exposure can do many harmful things to a body up to and including cancer. It's simple common sense that to avoid such harmful things, you avoid the sun; or you protect yourself from it. The current law in California prevents you from protecting yourself.

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

It's not up to me to determine who should and shouldn't drive across country. It's just a suggestion based on you complaining about wherever your driving to. Not every state is going to revolve their laws around your opinions. Im sorry if that offends you somehow.

You're still missing the point. I'm not surprised, though.

[Rayner]

Originally Posted by two_wheel_mayhem

Well I go to the casino and drop more than 75 bones, so maybe I'll try your advice next time. It is just another form of gambling isn't it?

Only if you look at it in terms of dismissal vs. non-dismissal. Not all of mine were dismissed, but NONE of mine are on my record. And that, to me, is worth every penny.