Now that I can understand. 25 should be reserved for residential streets. When the residentials become arteries, the limit goes to 35. At the 4 lane expressway, it becomes 45.

I just don't have such examples out here of ridiculous limits.

You two seem to equate fighting a ticket with denial of "personal responility," when that is not necessarily the case. Asking the state to prove that you did what they say you did is not denial of personal responsibility, refusing to pay a fine that you are required to is. You are not required to pay a fine until you have been convicted in a court of law. Therefore Mul has not denied that he his responsible for paying the fine merely by asking that the state prove he is required to pay said fine.

If Mul has not been proven guilty, then he is not yet guilty.
If he is not yet guilty, then he is not required to pay the fine.
If he is not required to pay the fine, then not paying the fine does not mean he is denying responsibility.
The logic is not hard to follow.

If, after being convicted he refused to pay the fine that would constitute a denial of responsibility. Have you ever read the writing on a speeding ticket? It is not a requirement to pay a fine, it is a notice to appear in court. "Not guilty" does not mean you didn't do it. Why? Because it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty before you can be said to be guilty. This concept is called presumption of innocence.

Yes, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to prosecute this case, I will concede that point. But you must ask yourself, what is the greater injustice, wasting the money, or denying a citizen their rights?


Moses, I misunderstood your statements, you do seem to be referring only to the number one lane here, but I still stand by my other statements regarding stare decisis, and court rulings. Yes I have been to court, and yes I understand that both sides present arguments, but that quote is taken directly from the courts own ruling.

I proudly fight every ticket. Guilt or innocence has NOTHING to do with whether you did it or not. It's strictly a matter of making the state work for their money and not trample your rights. Once in a while I carry a gun on my belt just for the hell of it. It's my right! I also wait until April 15th to file my taxes if I owe, but file them like today if they owe me. It's my right! I also vote in every school board election, even though I have no kids and wouldn't send them to public school if I did. It's my right!

vangndy, he said he was going 100+ miles an hour, got caught, and wanted to "discredit" the cop in front the judge to get out of it.

This isn't simply justly "fighting a ticket."

Oh BS. What right are they trampling? If you speed and get caught, and then contest the ticket you are just wasting your own taxpayer money. Cut off your nose to spite your face.

Or do you hope to get away with it? Real upstanding of you.
I suppose if you back into a car you don't leave a note.

You seem to miss the point, it doesn't matter whether or not he did it. It doesn't matter if he said he did it. It doesn't matter if he attacks the witnesses credibility, as long as the judge allows such a line of questioning, which is generally the case. It doesn't matter if it is a waste of money. The point is that exercising your rights is not selfish. I am very saddened that I am put in a position where I have to defend someone for exercising their rights. I am not defending the fact that he drove 100+. I don't know whether he did or not, and honestly it is not relevant to the point I am making. I do know that he said so. Or rather I know that someone logged onto username and said so. Do you know if it was the real Mul? Even if it was, do you know if he was telling the truth? Do you even know if he really got a ticket? Have you ever known someone to tell a lie on the internet? How much do you really know about the circumstances of the incident in question?

I don't know how many times I can say it, I don't care if he did it or not, it is none of my business, but I do know that he is doing nothing wrong by contesting the ticket. If you do not like it, feel free to waste your efforts lobbying for a constitutional amendment.

I am hoping to make you see that your position is ridiculous. I will likely not succeed, but i am still within my rights to attempt such a feat. Oh wait...I forgot... exercising my rights is selfish...what was i thinking? I realize this last paragraph sounds mean,I am being facetious. I am just trying to show that there is nothing wrong with excercising one's rights.

*edited to add*
LOL, try Amendments V and VI, "due process of law" and "speedy and public trial."

So your logic is that everyone who fights a ticket must back into cars and not leave notes? LOL! What a joke. Please take a minute to think about what you are saying.

There is a point when exercising one's rights seems childish to me. That point is contesting traffic citations that you know you are guilty of. Selfishness is a predominant factor among children. You waste taxpayer money, and perhaps pull the officer from the street where he is needed, all so you can try and wangle yourself out of a paying a fine.

They aren't trampling any rights. You, knowing you are guilty, just do not exercise them. Get it??

I see your point vangndy, and he can "exercise", even though he's guilty, and waste our tax dollars til the cows come home. But if he's guilty and he's just playing games with the court, then it shows there's not much integrity there.....

How's this for a novel solution instead...don't break the law!

No speeding? Why drive? ;)

Well, I can tell my little lesson on the corruption of the traffic laws for revenue in the country had a major impact :)

I'm starting to think no one ever changes their mind about anything. Ever

"Well, Saddam charged you with defaming his good name, and you admit you did, so why waste our tax money and be childish? Just pay the fine, you broke the law!"

A little extreme perhaps, but that's my view of the traffic court system in this country. It's corrupt, and anything anyone does to make it less profitable will make it less corrupt. So fight fight fight

To compare going 100+ miles (that's reckless behavior that puts others in danger, bud) to Saddam charging people with defaming his "good name..."

C'mon.....

LOL

Then deal with the consequences like a man....

Corruption is corruption, it's only a matter of degree. Either your fight it or you go along. In this case, going along means "pay the fine."

13 years of driving, and I've never been pulled over. I think the CHP is fairly lax about enforcing the speed limits: I break them on a daily basis, so I will not argue if or when I get one.

/ J

I know the speed limit, it's clearly posted. You don't have to go over the speed limit, you know....no one's forcing you to.

If you go over it, then you run the risk.

It's personal responsibility.

I've been ticketed on the 101 going 72. It is all about revenue.

Yeah fight it, but only if your system in your town is corrupt. Your example of 25 in a 4 lane road is worthy to challenge.

This is not. There is no hint of your "corruption problem" here. Don Quixote.

Nonsense. If it was about revenue then we would have ten times the number of CHP on the road.

You were speeding here also, but as that is not too much above the limit you must have attracted his attention some other way.

At least this point makes sense, but your logic is still flawed. I see that you have amended your position to "exercising rights is childish if you know you are guilty," and you have further qualified this statement so that is your opinion, a much more reasonable position than your earlier stance.

Your position takes the form of two conditional statements:
If (you know you are guilty)this statement will be referred to as p
and (you proceed to trial) this statement will be referred to as q,
then (you are childish)this statement will be referred to as r
If (you are childish) this statement is still r
then (you are selfish) this statement wil be referred to as s
Are you with me so far?

Essentially your argument can be broken down to:
If (p and q) then r
If (r) then (s)

The problem is that in order for your argument to be valid, p and q, taken together must be true. However the Bill of Rights is for intended for those who are innocent, as well as those who are guilty. That is where your argument really breaks down.

You are correct in pointing out that they have not trampled his rights yet, but they would be trampling his rights if he were denied the opportunity to go to trial. If he has the right to go trial, what is wrong with him using it? Even if it is a waste of money, who is wasting the money, him, or the prosecutor?

I am glad you see my point, but you are still assuming that excercising one's rights even when they know they are guilty amounts to "not much integrity." I fail to see the correlation. I stand by my statement that the Bill of Rights is intended for both the guilty and the innocent.

Forgive my strong logic background but i rather enjoyed those classes in school.

If it weren't about revenue, police wouldn't have to hide, run speed traps or run radar in unmarked cars. If I saw a cop on the side of the road holding up a radar gun, believe me, I'd slow down. That they have to hide to catch folks means they want money, not to make people slow down.