|
Jonas Albrecht posted:In general, yes. But like you said, you challenged it just to see what would happen. Speeding's a pretty easy case to prove if you were actually doing it. Even if you weren't it takes a massive amount of effort to disprove the word of an officer. A few years ago a teen was pulled over for going 80 mph or some insanely high number in his new mustang. Officer wrote the ticket and the kid was facing some serious poo poo. However, the (rich) parents had a continuous gps device in the car so at any point they could check what speed their son was going and where he was. The device pinged every 6-10 seconds, so the parents called the gps company and got the raw data and showed that the moment that cop claimed the kid was going 80 mph was between two periods at where the speed was recorded around 50 mph, and it would've been near impossible to accelerate to 80 and decelerate to 50 in 4-5 seconds for the cop to have been right. The family still had to engage a lawyer and seriously fight it because the cop refused to change his story even when presented with hard evidence. Cops writing traffic tickets/citations are so used to people forced to pay regardless of the circumstances that when someone challenges them they dig in super hard and refuse to back down or compromise.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
TurboFlamingChicken posted:I actually challenged my last speeding ticket just to see what happens. What happens is the officer actually shows up and presents so much evidence you basically look stupid. Now I understand why everyone takes the plea deal and no one fights them. On a good note, the only thing I got charged more for was the points, they had me pay the same fine as if I had plead guilty. The cop showed up? My mother works for the local court. As I understand it, you won the worst lottery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Mr. Fowl posted:The cop showed up? My mother works for the local court. As I understand it, you won the worst lottery. It depends on the county. Where I live now they never go to court but in other places they're there 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Veskit posted:It depends on the county. Where I live now they never go to court but in other places they're there 100% of the time. It most likely depends on how they're paid for it. A friend of mine who is a cop got paid overtime every time he had to got to court because he was on one of the night shifts. If it was on one of his days off he'd also get paid overtime. When he was on a day shift he just had to go down and testify instead of being on the street. So unless you managed to get your court date scheduled for when he was actually out of town, he was going to be there in uniform, giving testimony. As for the cop refusing to change his story on the 80mph speeding ticket, it's highly likely he doesn't actually remember it. All he has to go on is his notes and what he remembers. Since it's highly unlikely his notes include asides about how he totally hosed over a kid only going 50, he's not going have any reason to doubt that the kid was going 80 when he pulled him over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Sunday night's episode is going to be 45 minutes long! https://twitter.com/lastweektonight/status/584019686674698241 quote:This Sunday night's show will be forty-five minutes long because this week has been overflowing with last week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Chand0X posted:Sunday night's episode is going to be 45 minutes long! Please let this be a trial run for longer LWT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Chand0X posted:Sunday night's episode is going to be 45 minutes long! Good, there's a loving lot to cover. Daily Show being off all week doesn't help either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Veskit posted:It depends on the county. Where I live now they never go to court but in other places they're there 100% of the time. It depends on the county *and* the type of cop. If it's a State Trooper, his rear end *will* be at the courthouse, probably with a stack of citations so thick it'd make a 1995 Tokyo phone book jealous. It still does pay to show up - when Trooper Cocks, sorry, *Cox* of the Virginia State Police (otherwise known as the VAStaPo) snagged me on I-295 outside Richmond for what he claimed was 77 in a 65 (my speedometer was on 71 and was routinely 2-3mph 'fast'), he had that phone book-sized wad of tickets and since it was my first citation, the judge knocked it down to 'Speeding: 0-9.' I still think it's amusing that a cop could give you a speeding ticket for going precisely the limit. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Gyges posted:...he's not going have any reason to doubt that the kid was going 80 when he pulled him over. Except for the hard evidence provided by the parents. Y'know, only proof that he was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Oh man, I hope they stick with 45 minutes from here on out. 30 minutes just isn't enough for a weekly show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
Stayne Falls posted:Except for the hard evidence provided by the parents. Y'know, only proof that he was wrong. It's not exactly hard evidence. It's sampled speeds from around the time that it happened, the speeds were not verified by a police radar gun, and I'm sure traffic court is not the venue for an expert witness to come by and educate the judge on the accuracy of the data. It's unreliable evidence and it makes sense for the word of the officer to hold more credibility than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:It's not exactly hard evidence. It's sampled speeds from around the time that it happened, the speeds were not verified by a police radar gun, and I'm sure traffic court is not the venue for an expert witness to come by and educate the judge on the accuracy of the data. It's unreliable evidence and it makes sense for the word of the officer to hold more credibility than that. GPS data kinda is pretty hard evidence. Especially considering it was a GPS device to keep your kid from speeding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:It's not exactly hard evidence. It's sampled speeds from around the time that it happened, the speeds were not verified by a police radar gun, and I'm sure traffic court is not the venue for an expert witness to come by and educate the judge on the accuracy of the data. It's unreliable evidence and it makes sense for the word of the officer to hold more credibility than that. It's one of those things that a reasonable person would look at, call the company to verify the data, and then dismiss the ticket because it's a cop's word against incontrovertible data. Instead the system just digs in and forces the ticketed party to have to get a lawyer and spend a lot of money on an actual legal challenge. It probably cost more then the original ticket to fight it, and that seems to be how the police want the system to work. Even if a cop did gently caress up, it'll cost you way more to prove it and take months in the process. Some guy fought a traffic ticket all the way to the state Supreme Court and won. I can't remember the exact details, but it was something along the lines of he was on an interstate ramp and reversed his car to give a dead car a jump, a cop saw him and wrote him a ticket for something along the lines of "driving the wrong way on an interstate" or something weird. The guy, who was a practicing lawyer, knew that he did not break any laws and had 2 other witnesses to back him up and he still had to fight it all the way. He was interviewed about it, and said that had he not handled all the paperwork himself it would cost a normal person $10-15k. Bottom line, the US jurisprudence system is a nightmare for anyone not financially secure enough to afford legal representation or has enough excess income to easily pay hundreds in fines. Also, let's not pretend that "the word of an officer" is somehow sacrosanct. Cops lie all the loving time; to cover their rear end, to back up a "brother in blue", etc. and the second anyone can produce some sort of physical evidence that a cop was "mistaken" it should be seriously regarded. Look at that rear end in a top hat cop who punched that biker and claimed the biker was speeding at him, only for someone's cellphone camera to catch the actual incident, said cop just strolling out and grabbing a random biker minding his own business. The semi-epidemic of cops trying to seize peoples' cellphones and arresting people who try to record police should be some indication that many police don't want people to be able to prove them wrong and will aggressively harass anyone attempting to do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Right, the Judge should have absolutely just thrown out that ticket. However in that instance the cop is just giving his testimony. Just because you provide clear evidence that he's wrong doesn't mean you get a Matlock/Perry Mason style breakdown on the stand as he explains in detail how and why he framed the kid. It's quite possible his equipment was inaccurate, and he's there to give the facts as he knows them. How does GPS data change his data? It's wrong data and the court should see that, but there's no reason for his testimony to change. Unless, which is also quite possible, he was just bullshitting the whole time and knew the kid was only doing the speed limit. In which case the Cop is an rear end, but it's still the responsibility of the court to look at the GPS evidence and throw out the case. In the case, as presented, it seems like the Judge was being the biggest dick for not just throwing out the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:
Thanks for the info Humbug, good on you for calling them out on that bullshit. It's a shame they kept you in jail for that weekend. It's too bad that most county officials and whoever else is coming up with these laws and regulations aren't as stupid as the guys who tried to screw you over, I have to imagine crap like this happens all the time but they're just smarter and less greedy about it ($100 crazy fine instead of $1.5k, for instance). I really gotta get a lawyer friend or two, lord knows they're good to have in a pinch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 21:42
|
|
regarding triumph over hosed up town policies.
|
TurboFlamingChicken posted:I actually challenged my last speeding ticket just to see what happens. What happens is the officer actually shows up and presents so much evidence you basically look stupid. Now I understand why everyone takes the plea deal and no one fights them. On a good note, the only thing I got charged more for was the points, they had me pay the same fine as if I had plead guilty. Yeah but if the cop doesn't show up you win by default. It's pretty easy to fight a speeding ticket if you make sure the cop doesn't specifically wanna gently caress you over. Best way of doing that is being completely ordinary and non-memorable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Does this still not hit hbogo until the morning?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
They've been a little quicker about it this season in my experience but yes it still wont hit until tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Well, this was unexpected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
This interview is amazing. Clever move advertising an extended episode even though they haven't touched the Indiana law yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
This Snowden interview  Especially explaining how your data can go overseas so easily.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
what the hell I thought we were off this week. great news!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
blue squares posted:what the hell I thought we were off this week. great news! The episode makes it pretty clear why they "took a week off." If you haven't spoiled yourself on this yet, I recommend watching the episode without reading anything else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
That interview with
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Of all the reasons to go 45 minutes I did not think "an interview with Edward Snowden" would be one of them. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
It's quite sad to see some of those videos of the complete disconnect from world news by the American population. It's another episode of Oliver teetering between raw journalism and arguing for democratic social movements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
No hyperbole that might be one of the most important 45 minutes in TV history
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Edward Snowden saying "No, keep sending dick pics. If you change your behavior and actions because of a concern of what the government will do you sacrifice your freedom and liberty" was worth an Emmy just for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
gently caress., just...gently caress. The goddamned dedication John Oliver had to go to Russia not just to interview Edward Snowden, but to make fun of him and break his spirit some, makes him simultaneously the best and worst person there is. I thought this issue was old hat, but I guess they found a new angle to present it with. If this show managed to find a way to make the public care about government violation of privacy in a way that they haven't for the last decade, then John Oliver is a loving champion. It's unlikely, but I'm hopeful for the first time in a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:No hyperbole that might be one of the most important 45 minutes in TV history Dammit, I need to see this. Why isn't this on YouTube yet?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Gotta hand it to Oliver, he knows how to communicate with Americans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:gently caress., just...gently caress. The goddamned dedication John Oliver had to go to Russia not just to interview Edward Snowden, but to make fun of him and break his spirit some, makes him simultaneously the best and worst person there is. It was really good. From crushing disappointment to hope by way of dick pics  Shadoer posted:Dammit, I need to see this. Why isn't this on YouTube yet?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
That was absolutely fantastic. Good god. I still can't believe he actually played those clips to crush Snowden's spirit, but the ensuing discussion made it all the better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Thank you 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:It was really good. From crushing disappointment to hope by way of dick pics "All I'm saying is. A ten hour flight for an empty chair. I'm gonna lose my poo poo." God drat, I love John Oliver.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
It makes me exceedingly uncomfortable that the discussion about dickpics is the most in-depth explanation of this stuff I've ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Thumbtacks posted:It makes me exceedingly uncomfortable that the discussion about dickpics is the most in-depth explanation of this stuff I've ever heard. But it does put it in more concrete terms. They don't just have your phone activity, they have potentially everything you've sent over the internet or phone. Including your dick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Man, he knocked that one outta the park.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
That was pure genius.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
That was absolutely inspired television
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 09:09
|
|
