Unreasonable Smoke

[JohnnyP636]

The cop that writes me the ticket gets embarassed, the subpeonaed witness gets their time wasted. That should be clear if you read the entire series of posts.

I read your post, and what u said is about the cop writing u the ticket, and wasting his time. And so is what I posted...Your not wasting their time because they are working and getting paid, possibly even overtime. I did not comment on the subpoena

[OpenGambit]

I read your post, and what u said is about the cop writing u the ticket, and wasting his time. And so is what I posted...Your not wasting their time because they are working and getting paid, possibly even overtime. I did not comment on the subpoena

Read in context of discussion.

[bolly]

smoke em if ya got em Delboy!!!!

[mxs]

It has nothing to do with it
It was simply a question from the JP indicating to the OP he knows Bikes and is familiar with the Model in question

... to me he demonstrated the opposite. The ticket was for excessive smoking, not excessive heating ...

[Brian P]

Those of us who are not lawyers and are not familiar with the intimate details of the legal system are missing some critical detail (which I don't know what is).

Cop wrote the smoke ticket, cop IS the witness, you take it to court (and request that the cop be present) but don't call him up (he's in court and getting paid anyway), you get it postponed etc but the cop/witness (one and the same person) still has to show up and is still getting paid, etc.

The cop IS the ticket-writer and IS the witness. If he has to show up in court then he's getting paid and doesn't care if he has to do nothing.

I get the point about the cop possibly getting embarrassed if I took the trouble of paying someone to do an inspection of my vehicle and come to court and give an explanation of how a two-stroke engine works but given that (A) this cost me money and (B) the cop is getting paid to be in court anyway and (C) the time for ME to be in court is costing ME money, I don't get it.

What is the critical piece of this that I (and JohnnyP) am missing?

[Hachi-Roku]

... to me he demonstrated the opposite. The ticket was for excessive smoking, not excessive heating ...

The heating question is MOOT since they both Smoke on start up and WOT

again *the JP indicating to the OP he knows Bikes and is familiar with the Model in question

Either answer would have resulted in a thrown out ticket

[Hachi-Roku]

Those of us who are not lawyers and are not familiar with the intimate details of the legal system are missing some critical detail (which I don't know what is).

Cop wrote the smoke ticket, cop IS the witness, you take it to court (and request that the cop be present) but don't call him up (he's in court and getting paid anyway), you get it postponed etc but the cop/witness (one and the same person) still has to show up and is still getting paid, etc.

The cop IS the ticket-writer and IS the witness. If he has to show up in court then he's getting paid and doesn't care if he has to do nothing.

I get the point about the cop possibly getting embarrassed if I took the trouble of paying someone to do an inspection of my vehicle and come to court and give an explanation of how a two-stroke engine works but given that (A) this cost me money and (B) the cop is getting paid to be in court anyway and (C) the time for ME to be in court is costing ME money, I don't get it.

What is the critical piece of this that I (and JohnnyP) am missing?

I don't think he was referring to this situation

I have a feeling he was saying wasted the time of a 3rd party witness (Other driver,pedestrian ect)

[caboose483]

I'm confused.

Cop B gets called as a witness to events that happened while he was doing on-duty cop stuff.

I assume he would be getting paid.

[OpenGambit]

I am talking about this guy - original post

"A male cop came over and advised me to take the ticket and I could be in real serious trouble for arguing with a police officer, up to and including having by license suspended for 7 days and Bike towed. He was very threatening, clearly trying to impress her."

The last time I did something like this, They were not paid to attend if they were called to show up. Things might have changed since then.

[OpenGambit]

Those of us who are not lawyers and are not familiar with the intimate details of the legal system are missing some critical detail (which I don't know what is).

Cop wrote the smoke ticket, cop IS the witness, you take it to court (and request that the cop be present) but don't call him up (he's in court and getting paid anyway), you get it postponed etc but the cop/witness (one and the same person) still has to show up and is still getting paid, etc.

The cop IS the ticket-writer and IS the witness. If he has to show up in court then he's getting paid and doesn't care if he has to do nothing.

I get the point about the cop possibly getting embarrassed if I took the trouble of paying someone to do an inspection of my vehicle and come to court and give an explanation of how a two-stroke engine works but given that (A) this cost me money and (B) the cop is getting paid to be in court anyway and (C) the time for ME to be in court is costing ME money, I don't get it.

What is the critical piece of this that I (and JohnnyP) am missing?

The ticket writer is the crown witness, there is no need for me to call him because he has to be called by the crown to prove his case. So I get the cross. Partially i get satisfaction out of crossing because hell, its fun, and i have been pulled over by 2 cops that I have previously met in court, and both times they just let me go the 2nd time.

Cops are going to be in court no matter what, they are going to get paid overtime no matter what, there is no shortage of legit tickets out there that cops can easily write. So whether you personally dispute it or not is really not going to make a difference in their wallet ( unless you happen to be the only person on that day... unlikely).

But if I were the cop and I got yelled at in court every time i wrote a ticket that was stupid, I would probably not write them as much.

[caboose483]

The ticket writer is the crown witness, there is no need for me to call him because he has to be called by the crown to prove his case. So I get the cross. Partially i get satisfaction out of crossing because hell, its fun, and i have been pulled over by 2 cops that I have previously met in court, and both times they just let me go the 2nd time.

Cops are going to be in court no matter what, they are going to get paid overtime no matter what, there is no shortage of legit tickets out there that cops can easily write. So whether you personally dispute it or not is really not going to make a difference in their wallet ( unless you happen to be the only person on that day... unlikely).

But if I were the cop and I got yelled at in court every time i wrote a ticket that was stupid, I would probably not write them as much.

The court systems aren't back logged enough as it is? I'm glad you're willing to do your part to waste everyone's time to accomplish nothing other than satisfying your own personal need for revenge.

Ahab has to go hunt his whale.

[OpenGambit]

The court systems aren't back logged enough as it is? I'm glad you're willing to do your part to waste everyone's time to accomplish nothing other than satisfying your own personal need for revenge.

Ahab has to go hunt his whale.

The part I accomplish is beating the ticket that I shouldn't have gotten.

If they don't want a backlogged system, they shouldn't write me dumb tickets.
Like Hell I am going to start paying money for bad tickets just because the system is backlogged.

Are you saying that people should not dispute tickets just because the system is backlogged? Give cops an incentive to write bad tickets?

[Brian P]

I don't think that's the suggestion, it's just that "for the rest of us" this process is far from routine.

[OpenGambit]

I don't think that's the suggestion, it's just that "for the rest of us" this process is far from routine.

The only thing thats really different making a 2nd cop show up. Everything else is completely normal.

That being said. I started this thread with "what I would do in that situation". It isn't meant to be general advice for people fighting tickets nor should it have been taken as such.

[caboose483]

I would have subpeonaed the other cop. Asked for an adjournment. If they granted it I would have done it again, while never calling him to the stand.

The part I accomplish is beating the ticket that I shouldn't have gotten.

If they don't want a backlogged system, they shouldn't write me dumb tickets.
Like Hell I am going to start paying money for bad tickets just because the system is backlogged.

Are you saying that people should not dispute tickets just because the system is backlogged? Give cops an incentive to write bad tickets?

Perhaps you aren't very good at clearly writing what you mean.

What exactly would you have done again?

What you wrote makes it seem as though you wish to beat the ticket, then come back and beat it again just to seek some sort of revenge on the officers involved.

[OpenGambit]

I would subpeona him again.

[caboose483]

I would subpeona him again.

To what end?

You could easily beat the charge without the adjournment. The repeated adjournments are the waste of time to accomplish nothing that I was referring to.

Go get him, Ahab.

[Rob MacLennan]

To what end?

You could easily beat the charge without the adjournment. The repeated adjournments are the waste of time to accomplish nothing that I was referring to.

Go get him, Ahab.

I believe he was saying that he'd do it, just to annoy the other officer, as he's a viable witness but not required for the case to be tossed. In other words if the cop wastes his time, he'll waste the cop's time.

Correct?

[OpenGambit]

To what end?

You could easily beat the charge without the adjournment. The repeated adjournments are the waste of time to accomplish nothing that I was referring to.

Go get him, Ahab.

Obviously I am not there to save 100 bucks.
I can easily pay all the tickets. That isn't the point.

It accomplishes the goal that I want them to show up for a date that isn't just the date that they show up for everything else.

The point is I don't like it when authority figures abuse their authority by lying about their authority and/or giving unjustified offenses. Officers who treat other people like their time is worthless is insulting to the profession. They should know what that feels like.

I was a Crown and my parent is a Cop. Not everything is about economics.

[OpenGambit]

I believe he was saying that he'd do it, just to annoy the other officer, as he's a viable witness but not required for the case to be tossed. In other words if the cop wastes his time, he'll waste the cop's time.

Correct?

Adversarial system.
They aren't going to be that nice to you either. I have seen provincial prosecutors admit to a JP that they got an 11b notification 2 months ago, has it in their file in front of them, but argue that it should be ignored because there was no affidavit of service.

Crowns ask for adjournments instead of just dropping cases when they don't provide disclosure, thats also a waste of someone elses time because of the Crown's mistake.

I play by the rules, and I'll place nicer when they play nicer.