“Wasn't Wearing Seatbelt, Was Delivering A Pizza...”

It must be a US term. In Ontario, you can be pulled over for the simple reason of checking that you have a valid licence, permit and insurance card.

rank wrote:Ban Him? LOL. If he was banned then the only regular contributors here would be police and retired police. Both of which appear (from my limited experience) to be biased.

Officers and retired officer provide this board with some of the best resources. Some probably have shied away from posting frequently here because the same users who want them to answer all their technical questions also want to poop all over them. You can't have it both ways. They are here providing information for FREE and giving their own personal time to the boards.

rank wrote:I have read alot of threads here and I can remember very few instances where someone has offered a defence......only criticism and mocking of potential defences.

I don't think this board is here to make up defenses on a whim for people looking to get out of tickets. More so, the better users here aren't throwing out wacky defenses and treating new posters as guinea pigs to prove their "theories". Then when things go south it's "Hey man, I'm not a lawyer. That's your fault".

Most users ASK about a particular defense. Criticizing defenses is part of the game. What do you think happens in court? Users can see what works and what doesn't before wasting their time in court and getting absolutely grilled in the process. I see TONS of people showing up to court and going to trial with NO DEFENSE, zero. What they end up doing is making a 10 minute speech that is just an excuse. At that point that person would have been better off taking whatever plea because they are already guilty. I'd rather tell a person here their defense is an excuse and nothing else. At the very least, that person can take a plea deal rather than telling a JP reasons why they are guilty. It may save them a couple hundred bucks at least.

rank wrote:To wit, when I asked "Is radar infallible....i.e. is there ANY way a radar can be wrong", I got a grand total of ZERO replies from the people who operate(d) them. Nobody said it was infallible, which tells me it isn't perfect.....but nobody is willing to tell you HOW it's imperfect. This speaks volumes to me.

See first response.

bend wrote:See first response.

Below is the first response.

bend wrote:Officers and retired officer provide this board with some of the best resources. Some probably have shied away from posting frequently here because the same users who want them to answer all their technical questions also want to poop all over them. You can't have it both ways. They are here providing information for FREE and giving their own personal time to the boards.

If you are suggesting that I got no replies to "Is radar Infallible" question because I pooped on the officer's here, then I must take issue with that suggestion Mr. Bend. You'll have to show me where I did that because I cannot recall.

As for giving time for free...isn't that what the internet is for? Isn't that what we all do?

It's obvious to me, that the real reason there was no replies to "infallible" is because folks are worried about giving up trade secrets or getting in trouble at work or some such thing. And that's fine. Helping by critiquing defenses, but not helping as much as they could. Again.....not that there's anything wrong with that. It's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

rank wrote:It's obvious to me, that the real reason there was no replies to "infallible" is because folks are worried about giving up trade secrets or getting in trouble at work or some such thing. And that's fine. Helping by critiquing defenses, but not helping as much as they could. Again.....not that there's anything wrong with that. It's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

That silence is simply likely because these are simple devices designed to measure distance and conduct some simple calculations to determine the targets speed. If there was some sort of trade secret it would already have leaked - one officer spilling the beans would have undermined these devices in court and set a precedent that paralegals and self represents would have dog piled.

They are undoubtedly NOT infallible, they are mechanical devices and as such may be subject to malfunction. This is why they have a diagnostic routine that is carried out before and after enforcement to ensure the machine is functioning reliably. Reasonable steps (this testing) are taken to ensure the device IS properly functioning.

tryingtoimprove wrote:So had the trial what do you want me to do or say? ( I already had the early resolution meeting )

I will plead guilty, and then ?...

What happened at your early resolution meeting? Before you trial, they'll try to resolve it again. If there's something to offer, they'll offer it. At that point it'll be your choice whether or not to plead guilty to whatever they are offering. If you need more time to pay the fine, they'll give you more time.

bend wrote:

tryingtoimprove wrote:So had the trial what do you want me to do or say? ( I already had the early resolution meeting )

I will plead guilty, and then ?...

What happened at your early resolution meeting? Before you trial, they'll try to resolve it again. If there's something to offer, they'll offer it. At that point it'll be your choice whether or not to plead guilty to whatever they are offering. If you need more time to pay the fine, they'll give you more time.

I took Jshersks advice and told them I need more time to develop a defence, and the Justice handed me my disclosure, and mentioned it would be sent to trial.

Now I see the officer's notes are good (unfortunately), I would like to plea to a lesser offence with no demerit points.

Thank You.

rank wrote: it's obvious to me, that the real reason there was no replies to "infallible" is because folks are worried about giving up trade secrets or getting in trouble at work or some such thing.

There you go making those assumptions again