Unreasonable Smoke

[caboose483]

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.

Does the witness cop get paid to be there or not?

[OpenGambit]

Does the witness cop get paid to be there or not?

Post 49

[caboose483]

Post 49

I didn't ask how it worked last time.

Once upon a time they were not paid to show up and defend the tickets they wrote.

[Rob MacLennan]

I didn't ask how it worked last time.

Once upon a time they were not paid to show up and defend the tickets they wrote.

These days they generally try to schedule police to show up when they are already scheduled to work, so that they don't end up paying overtime. Cost cutting measure.

[caboose483]

These days they generally try to schedule police to show up when they are already scheduled to work, so that they don't end up paying overtime. Cost cutting measure.

Even if it's not overtime, they're still on the clock when they're in the courtroom.

[Brian P]

I think the situation here is that the things that are realistically possible for a lawyer to do to give the cops and prosecutors etc a hard time, aren't things that are practical for the rest of us.

[OpenGambit]

I think the situation here is that the things that are realistically possible for a lawyer to do to give the cops and prosecutors etc a hard time, aren't things that are practical for the rest of us.

Maybe, but I don't take that as a reason for me to not do them personally.
The way I see it, if someone is willing to write me a dumb ticket or threaten me with something that they can't legally do, they have definately done it to someone else. If no one calls it out, it will continue.

[Brian P]

Keep on doing that, I heartily endorse it just can't do it myself ...

[Lyndsay]

Gambit, I'm a little confused. I understand your point of making the knob cop come under subpoena to annoy him, and the fact that the stupid cop has to come as they wrote the ticket. Then you request an adjournment just to further piss them off. Your plan is they learn from this and don't do it any more. While you are playing these games, you are also tying up the courts and wasting their time. This seems contrary to your post in the puking thread where you hope the guy who intentionally clogs up the court system gets a heavier fine for doing that. It seems to me that if you actually were to implement your plan, it would be poetic justice if your ticket got tossed, but the JP or Judge was aware of your plan (remember, this is a public forum ) and they slapped you with a contempt of court (or whatever could stick).

[Rob MacLennan]

Perhaps the difference between a law being applied, as intended, and one being completely misapplied?

[Lyndsay]

Perhaps you're right Rob. The extra delay for spite however is just tying up the courts same as in the case of the legitimate ticket (puking). If he hadn't said he would get the officer there under subpeona and then ask for an adjournment just to teach him a lesson, I would say it was warranted. I'll await Gambit's reply for his slant. L

[Rob MacLennan]

Oh, and then there's the additional threat of misapplying another statute, by that second officer, because of the OP arguing against the misapplication of the first statute. I'm not big on wasting the courts' time but that might also get my goat up enough, that I'd also want to see that officer humiliated before his peers and superiors.

[Lyndsay]

I don't disagree Rob. I just think that Gambit was a bit hypocritical in his posts. If he didn't say he would apply for an adjournment to a later date, I wouldn't have written anything in this thread.

[OpenGambit]

I don't see how it is hypocritical at all

situation 1. Guy does something, gets a ticket, his behaviour is the exact type of behaviour the offence is trying to target, he has no defence, he disputes it just to waste time.

situation 2. Guy does nothing, gets a ticket, his behaviour is not an offence. The "experienced traffic officer" gives it to him anyway and her assuming as "experienced" buddy threatens the guy with a penalty that doesn't apply. They go run off into lala land and do it to the next guy.

A court is a legitimate forum for me or anyone else to air their legitmate greivances against the police, thats why you hear charter applications at the same time.

I didn't clog up the court, they did by giving handing out a stupid ticket. The fact that you turn it around and say the person who got the stupid ticket and is now insisting on every procedural right to be the bad guy is ridiculous.

[Lyndsay]

I hear you Gambit. The part I don't agree with is you using a "procedural right" to delay things for no other reason than to deliver more pain. If you don't actually need the delay, just go ahead with the trial or hearing or whatever. If you actually need the adjournment for a legitimate reason, that's different; but your post sounded like you would ask for that out of spite. I agree with the rest of your plan, but that part seems to have the side consequence of wasting the court's time, which is what you took offence to in the puking thread.

[OpenGambit]

I hear you Gambit. The part I don't agree with is you using a "procedural right" to delay things for no other reason than to deliver more pain. If you don't actually need the delay, just go ahead with the trial or hearing or whatever. If you actually need the adjournment for a legitimate reason, that's different; but your post sounded like you would ask for that out of spite. I agree with the rest of your plan, but that part seems to have the side consequence of wasting the court's time, which is what you took offence to in the puking thread.

The legitimate reason is to make someone show up on a day where they have nothing else to do, rather than a day where they are scheduled with a bunch of other tickets.

And the only wasting of the court's time, happened because they gave a dumb ticket.

In this situation, I dont' really care about "the court's time". I am not trying to waste their time, but its completely incidental to the main point.

I see no good reason to show any type of retraint when it comes to persons of authority abusing their color of right. If all they get is some choice words to and waste an afternoon, they got off easy.

[Lyndsay]

Gambit. I won't bother arguing as I agree with you 99%. The 1% just relates to you making the JP, Court Clerk, Baillif etc. waste their time on the second day.

[caboose483]

Not to mention if the cop is being paid to show up as a witness it makes the whole thing quite stupid.

[AGAVE]

Stupidity is the foundation for the whole process.
Most of the time, the cop doesn't even show up in court, but i'd bet my bottom dollar they still get paid.

[Rob MacLennan]

Stupidity is the foundation for the whole process.
Most of the time, the cop doesn't even show up in court, but i'd bet my bottom dollar they still get paid.

No show, no pay, and a rather embarrassing question as to why he wasn't there.