The recent examples of cops being hit had nothing to do with "flinging
their doors open".  They were hit -on the shoulder- and usually
standing by the vehicle.  I am sure you haved seen film clips of cops
getting hit well off the driving lane.

Harry K

Since when did laws ever 'solve' problems ???

Graham

Oregon also.

Harry K

On Feb 4, 11:20 am, necromancer

No, why would you think that?  Of course the good ones are shown
repeatedly but there are plenty of new ones showing up all the time.

Harry K

On Feb 6, 12:26 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:

Wouildn't have much effect on things.  Of all the clips I have seen
over the years I can't recall even one where he got hit getting out of
the car.

Harry K

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in
rec.autos.driving:

That's right. Like that time a cop parked his car in traffic lanes
under a railroad trestle in order to write a speeding ticket. When I
complained that this jerk should have instructed his victim to pull
forward 100 feet and turn off the street into a parking lot, Jaybird
jumped in and defended the cop's action. Clearly the cop mentality is
they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with complete
impunity - all in the name of "police business." And the rest of us
must accommodate.

I meant lawsuits in the above post.  Damn fart fingers!

On Feb 4, 4:05 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Insane indeed!  It's also in WV law that it's illegal to drive at such
a slow speed so as to impede the flow of traffic.  Most stated have a
minimum speed limit on the Interstates (MO is 40) which is higher than
the 25 mph in the parked-cop law.  It's probably why the survey gave
WV a frade of F-.  I can see lawsuits flying on account of the
contradictory traffic laws.

I'm the one who started the speed trap thread.

We decided to pay the ticket issued for not slowing down after passing
a police car by the side of the highway. A policeman friend said we
didn't have much of a defense. He thought it was a mickey mouse
ticket, though.

I still feel that it was a speed trap, especially since it was issued
on the last day of the month.

Allen

While I have not been as good at the game as Arif, I agree that all too
many judges in traffic court will decide against the citizen and actually
be offended that he dared challenge them. The last judge I had to deal
with refused to even READ the law, claiming in a anger manner that he
knew the law.

Somewhere I read/heard something along the lines that the courtroom is their
temple and regular citizens don't have not been initiated and thusly
their attempts to practice law in the temple are not respected. My
experiences confirm this. When I have fought, I was severely penalized to
the maximum possible for doing so. This is consistant with everyone else
who I've seen fight a ticket. Bow down to the judge and plead guilty
means a lesser penalty again, what I've seen.

There are other little things as well that stack the deck, as the citizen
is always the odd-man-out in the courtroom. Everyone else is buddy-buddy.

But then, there are the people who get lawyers. I've seen this less than
a handful of times, but suddenly everything is VERY different. The same
things coming from a hired member of the bar now get respected. Fighting
with a lawyer seems to turn out better than just pleading for mercy. Of
course the lawyer has permission to practice in the temple.

And before some sniping troll pipes up about how much I've been to
traffic court, the majority of it has been as the injured party. Where I
was deliberately run into with a motorvehicle at low speed by a driver
while I was bicycling and when my car has been hit by another driver.
The former required 4 court visits alone as I recall.

I didn't say 'all'.  Here, you got a jerk who still properly beat you
at it.  Unfortunately, most judicial jerks know how to do that.

The proper way to deal with the prosecution's failure to provide
discovery is to move for a continuance (adjournment) so they can
provide it and, if it isn't provided, then move for sanctions
(including dismissal).  You can't start the trial and then say, "Oh;
by the way, they didn't give me that."  You have to keep it from
starting without the discovery you sought or get the issue decided
before starting by asking the court to first consider the missing
information and its importance to your case.  Of course, as a preface
to this, you also need to show that you served the subpoena properly
and on time.

You also need to try not to use legal terms you're not totally
familiar with.  A 'stipulation' is an *agreement* between the parties
- and I'm damn sure the prosecution didn't stipulate that their
witness couldn't estimate speeds.  While you may have offered some
proof of this issue, the judge chose not to find it as reliable as the
officer's training and experience (usually recited as rote at the
beginning of their testimony).  Not that I agree, but this is to show
you how he got away with it without an appealable issue left for you.

An experienced lawyer would not have made these mistakes, but that
still doesn't mean you would have won.  I once had a municipal judge
refuse to record a proceeding where Ohio law *mandated it* upon my
request.  You know how the municipality finally won the case on
appeal?  *There was no recorded record* to prove I'd asked for the
recording!  I would have had to *hire a court reporter* to prove I'd
made a record of something that is supposed to be recorded anyway.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)