ajaxguy
Well-known member
Interesting... the best thing to do would be to actually recreate the scene exactly with pictures, like from car window into car window. That would clearly show how difficult it would be to pin point what exactly it is.
|
|
|
cellphone ticket?
- Thread starter ajaxguy
- Start date
Interesting... the best thing to do would be to actually recreate the scene exactly with pictures, like from car window into car window. That would clearly show how difficult it would be to pin point what exactly it is.
So the police should "pick and choose what laws to enforce? Can you do that with your job? Pick and choose what work you will do. Now you just added an additional piece of info. That being you NOW say you were stopped at a red light doing this. So now it is even MORE likely your not going to win as you can say I was moving the sun was shining and my windshield was dirty. Have little doubt the officer will testify that you were sitting at a light when he observed you, (meaning he had more than a few seconds to observe you). The crown WILL highlight this, during the officers testimony as it will cement in the JP's mind the officer had ample opportunity to observe you.
In YOUR opinion it does not deserve a ticket, again if someone injured someone you know I bet your attitude would change. You don't like THIS law. I get it, BUT you KNEW the law before YOU choose to break it. so suck it up take the punishment. Holding an electronic device IS a safety issue, you no longer have BOTH hands on the wheel in the event a kid darted out in front of you. I agree MANY regulations and laws are not safety related, I guess you would also include speeding as NOT a safety issue? So you can tell me you can stop your cage in the SAME distance at say 60 km/h, (if that was the posted speed), as you can at 80km/h? You can't therefore, again if a kid darts out is it not a safety issue for them whether a car is doing the limit or speeding at 20K over? i bet the kid would disagree if you say it is not a safety issue, as they are laying pinned under the car..
Good luck.
Yes you could "try" this but how can you "recreate" the EXACT condition of your window at the time? You must also be able to recreate the cloud and sun positions, (so make sure you account for this while taking the photos as each day the sun rises early. so you need the sunrise time for the day in question then calculate how long after sunrise the offence took place then do the same on the day your taking the photos. Then position your vehicle in the exact same position of the police cruiser. Then stop at the red light in the SAME position and photo where the officer was parked, (of course you will also need to have any other cars stopped also in the same place to show if any obscured the officer's vision). Now based on your earlier accounts it seemed that you were moving as opposed to being stationary, (at the light) so you also need to account for the light cycle, (to show how long you were stopped for, (how long could the officer observe you). The crown will (unless they are lazy), then also question EVERY detail about your position, the officer's position etc.
But in the end let's remember this is TRAFFIC court not superior court where a Judge may take this all into consideration, a JP is more likely to get annoyed, and tell you as i have seen JP's tell people this isn't the crime of the century, then drop the gavel and say guilty.
ajaxguy
Well-known member
AHAHAHAHAHAhA!! This made me smile.... thank you! I could see you like typing angrily like a cop as if you just caught me in the act!! Dont worry about it man, I will get disclosure, and guilty or not I am still fighting it, if they see it another way then so be it, but I will work every angle and if I dont think I can do it, worst case I hire redline to fight it for me.
ajaxguy
Well-known member
Thats why appeals court are around.... JP's can say whatever they like, but you still have every right to present your case.
Yes it is your right, that is why I have never stated just pay it, I encouraged you to get disclosure and have a "back up plan", (another charge you would be willing to plea out to, if that appears to be the only route to go.
Glad to see along with your inability to accept personal responsibility, you also have the ability to see how I am typing..lol Not at all typing like an agry cop, I moved on from that LONG time ago, not worth the stress. Just trying to provide you some insight from a person who has ACTUAL real world traffic court experience and seen how they operate from both sides. I have fought and won all my tickets save one as I knew I was wrong and I deserved the ticket and the charge. Fortunately being an old guy my insurance doesn't take a hit from the occasional infraction after 35 years driving and riding experience without an "at fault" accident..lol
As I have said good luck hopefully you will post back your success for all to see when you win.
No tinfoill hat needed here, but there is denial on your end...
In your own words you were holding your phone.
DownUnder
Well-known member
So even if you lose your going to continue dragging it through the courts wasting tax payers money? And people wonder why taxes in this province are through the roof...
Please let us know in 6 months time how it all works out for you.
Consider this: If it isn't possible to tell with some degree of certainty whether or not it's a phone with optimal conditions, then what are the chances that it could be determined with something less than optimal conditions?
people are forgetting that, what you admit here is IRRELEVANT!
the court must NOT be biased. your word and officer's word should be treated as EQUAL! which also is not the case, hence it's not a fair treatment of the civilians the law is there to serve. Ajaxguy remember, you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty, that is "our system" (barring HTA 172). so in a fair process, you create doubt, where you maybe did not hold a cell phone, officer's view wasn't as clear as he says it was (i.e. photos taken from officers' position, at a red light and you can't see inside the car's windows) then there is doubt, and ideally (fairly) you should not be charged.
in the end officer's are human. they have egos. they have quotas. they have supervisors they have to impress. these are all motivation as to why officers will/do lie.
also, Officers should/must be held to a higher standard. they are the punishers, and we are the civilians. yes we can lie, we have to deal with insurance, obtuse laws and daily life. they have the power, they don't have the privilege to be hypocritical, they represent something and they must stand for what is right, be the law (no exceptions).
we all know police don't ticket fellow officers, this is FACT, it is known… that right there is more privilege than they deserve. and frankly that's more wrong than them lying to enforce a ticket. small thinking doesn't serve society, it doesn't make it safer; frankly it reminds me of medieval times.
referring to Hedo2002 (former cop) => you made some good points, made reasonable suggestions. but in my experience over past 20 years, i have encountered 20+ traffic officers, and 15 have lied under oath, on the stand with regards to my cars position, lane and speed. so it's not comparable to Hell's Angels 1%. ALSO, officers ARE selective of the laws they enforce: i don't see many Pedestrians jay walking getting tickets, along with all other charges that are available. the only time i've seen officers are when they are hiding on a downhill portion of road where speed limit 60-80kmh and pulling ppl over who are going 20-30kmh over the limit. that's it. i guess that's what MADD wants. even tho the average speeds on our roads are 15-20kmh over the limit on any given road. the only place where i believe more enforcement is need is residential roads with limits 40-50, especially school zones… where ironically i rarely see any cops. i really don't get. then maybe my IQ just isn't high enough to comprehend the truth.
the court must NOT be biased. your word and officer's word should be treated as EQUAL! which also is not the case, hence it's not a fair treatment of the civilians the law is there to serve. Ajaxguy remember, you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty, that is "our system" (barring HTA 172). so in a fair process, you create doubt, where you maybe did not hold a cell phone, officer's view wasn't as clear as he says it was (i.e. photos taken from officers' position, at a red light and you can't see inside the car's windows) then there is doubt, and ideally (fairly) you should not be charged.
in the end officer's are human. they have egos. they have quotas. they have supervisors they have to impress. these are all motivation as to why officers will/do lie.
also, Officers should/must be held to a higher standard. they are the punishers, and we are the civilians. yes we can lie, we have to deal with insurance, obtuse laws and daily life. they have the power, they don't have the privilege to be hypocritical, they represent something and they must stand for what is right, be the law (no exceptions).
we all know police don't ticket fellow officers, this is FACT, it is known… that right there is more privilege than they deserve. and frankly that's more wrong than them lying to enforce a ticket. small thinking doesn't serve society, it doesn't make it safer; frankly it reminds me of medieval times.
referring to Hedo2002 (former cop) => you made some good points, made reasonable suggestions. but in my experience over past 20 years, i have encountered 20+ traffic officers, and 15 have lied under oath, on the stand with regards to my cars position, lane and speed. so it's not comparable to Hell's Angels 1%. ALSO, officers ARE selective of the laws they enforce: i don't see many Pedestrians jay walking getting tickets, along with all other charges that are available. the only time i've seen officers are when they are hiding on a downhill portion of road where speed limit 60-80kmh and pulling ppl over who are going 20-30kmh over the limit. that's it. i guess that's what MADD wants. even tho the average speeds on our roads are 15-20kmh over the limit on any given road. the only place where i believe more enforcement is need is residential roads with limits 40-50, especially school zones… where ironically i rarely see any cops. i really don't get. then maybe my IQ just isn't high enough to comprehend the truth.
I agree with "most" of the above, except the "implication, or suggestion" that police should never lie under oath but that it is ok for "civilians" to do so as we have to deal with laws, insurance and life. I also agree what the OP has admitted to here, (and I gave him credit for doing so), is not relevant in a court of law.
But it does demonstrate his ability to justify in his mind, why he should have not been charged and he is hoping we will all agree with the premise that the law is wrong, (which it very well may be flawed), but the officer did NOTHING more than his job which is to enforce the laws which are put in place by others as Rob said the issue is the politicians not the police officer.
If I don't agree with the law which states that I need a separate class of licence to ride a bike then should I be permitted to ride with only a G class licence? If I did so and got stopped then I knew full well that that was the law then I should be prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. The OP surely knew after all the education campaigns run that holding a cell phone was illegal, he CHOOSE to do so, and got caught doing so.
Now he is seeking advice on what "technicalities" he can use to avoid the consequences of his actions. He admitted here to us, that he did in fact commit the offence as charged, but feels he should not face those consequences. So do we as a community, condone his actions?
As I have stated what if someone had been hit while he was committing the offence? I am sure he would never thought it could happen just as those who have a "couple of beers" never expect it to happen to them. I agree he was likely not at that moment distracted merely by the act of holding the phone, (which he has never told us why he needed to have the phone in his hand), so we are taking his word that he wasn't just finished talking or texting or getting ready to do so, after all as you pointed out his word should carry no more weight than that of the officer. But if a person is holding their phone, then as I have said, there is a greater likelihood that if it rang or beeped with a message that person is going to look at it or answer the call, then if it were holstered. So it IS possible to conclude this law is actually based on the safety of all road users.
In the end if a cager hits me on my bike do I give a crap if he was just "holding the phone" or was texting or talking on it? I am still just as injured.
35 years ago when I started to ride this wasn't an issue as there were NO cell phones...lol, and very little of the "self entitlement" and "avoid responsibility" at ALL costs attitudes, that prevail today.
good points. certainly i don't support cell use while driving, as we have all seen what it can do or cause.
i give you points on being helpful, logical, reasonable, and not getting upset or defensive. there is nothing personal here, just open discussion. nice of you to share your perspective as former officer, and to OP i would recommend he study what you've written as it will provide a good idea of what he will be facing, the Judge's thought process/expecation as well crown and officer.
the Pitcher/rookie example you gave is a great analogy.
Or I guess he could just come on the forum where you admitted in your first post you were holding your phone while driving....
WrothWaith
Well-known member
Really?
The text of this thread can be admitted as evidence, can anyone say Perjury, if an explicit denial is made in court?
While I generally don't consider it to be very smart to make admissions anywhere I have my doubts that anyone would take the time and effort required in order to create a proper chain of evidence, that would stand up in court.
ddusseld
Well-known member
Imo, you were charged for a safety issue. I'm a firm believer in any laws that make cell phones illegal to use while driving. I applaud the cop for giving you this ticket. The fact you had your phone in your hand indicates that you plan on using it at some time. Otherwise why have it in you hand?
That said, I'm all for fighting all tickets. I believe it is mandatory to fight tickets because of the possible insurance ramifications. I'd suspect more people would "man up" and plead guilty to minor offenses if the insurance costs were not so prohibitive...
That said, I'm all for fighting all tickets. I believe it is mandatory to fight tickets because of the possible insurance ramifications. I'd suspect more people would "man up" and plead guilty to minor offenses if the insurance costs were not so prohibitive...
Yeah if this was a manslaughter case THEN and it is only a MAYBE, that the cops, would look for an "admission of guilt online". In a simple case like this they are not going to waste the resources. even if they did how do they link ajaxguy as the offender. They would have to subpoena ISP info, then tie that to him then prove he was the offender etc etc etc. just NOT going to happen as Rob said.
Still not wise to admit anything, but will it bite him not at all, which is why I said what he admits to here is not relevant to court.
Still not wise to admit anything, but will it bite him not at all, which is why I said what he admits to here is not relevant to court.
ajaxguy
Well-known member
Wow alot of replies... some great ones too. As for admitting it, yes I did. Am i worried that they are going to check a motorcycle forum for people admitting guilt to a drive with cellphone ticket hahahahaha NO!!
Some people are loonie on here though huh? Some of you guys have to get out more, seriously!
As for you hedo, alot of great points taken and I do appreciate it, I really do. I am all for being safe( even if I was holding a cellphone in my hand) we are human though, and make little mistakes like this. Not the end of the world and no I didnt kill anyone or was it possible that I could at the pace i was going.
We should however fight all tickets we get( guilty or not) to keep the justice system and its actions on there toes. If nobody fought a ticket tickets would be handed out for everything and anything without ramifications. It is not about the money of the ticket, its about insurance for me... and as we all know here in Ontario that is a joke. Any minor ticket gives them reason to raise our rates even more, so of course I will fight it, or at the very least delay it.
Thanks everyone for the responses.... especially those who I singled out, i will report back with whatever happened.
Some people are loonie on here though huh? Some of you guys have to get out more, seriously!
As for you hedo, alot of great points taken and I do appreciate it, I really do. I am all for being safe( even if I was holding a cellphone in my hand) we are human though, and make little mistakes like this. Not the end of the world and no I didnt kill anyone or was it possible that I could at the pace i was going.
We should however fight all tickets we get( guilty or not) to keep the justice system and its actions on there toes. If nobody fought a ticket tickets would be handed out for everything and anything without ramifications. It is not about the money of the ticket, its about insurance for me... and as we all know here in Ontario that is a joke. Any minor ticket gives them reason to raise our rates even more, so of course I will fight it, or at the very least delay it.
Thanks everyone for the responses.... especially those who I singled out, i will report back with whatever happened.
SweetOnion
Well-known member
Just for that display of over confidence, I'm going to call the courthouse and give them your screen name!!! You're going down, punk!! :lmao:
ajaxguy
Well-known member
You motherbleeper!!! :snorting::snorting::snorting::snorting::snorting:
|
|
|
|
|