Wtf!!!!!

[Murlo26]

Wow, reminds me of the ticket i got in my RSX...speed faster than prudent or necessary because i fit through two cars that the cop could barely do and it was near a sidewalk by porkys. I wasn't speeding, accelerating too fast, just squeezed in between two cars too fast i guess.

This doesn't surprise me though...the government has to pay for obama's spending some how.

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by Murlo26

Wow, reminds me of the ticket i got in my RSX...speed faster than prudent or necessary because i fit through two cars that the cop could barely do and it was near a sidewalk by porkys. I wasn't speeding, accelerating too fast, just squeezed in between two cars too fast i guess.

This doesn't surprise me though...the government has to pay for obama's spending some how.

did he give you a ticket for Unnecessary Acceleration? Ive gotten one of those too. so whats to say is necessary and not necessary? its a judgment call by the police officer, are you going to jump all over this one too matt?

[Murlo26]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

did he give you a ticket for Unnecessary Acceleration? Ive gotten one of those too. so whats to say is necessary and not necessary? its a judgment call by the police officer, are you going to jump all over this one too matt?

No, the ticket was literally called "speed faster than prudent or necessary" because i didn't slow down enough when i squeezed between two cars.

[FattyBoomBatty]

Originally Posted by Murlo26

the government has to pay for obama's spending some how.

In the article it's obvious that the judge heard the accused speeder try and weasle his way out of a ticket by questioning the ability of a cop to notice a car going faster than it should. He then stuck it right back in the speeder's face by saying 'cops now have the right to ticket you based on their judgement.'

It's not a ploy to get the government some more money (which by the way would be how much? 100 bucks a month - yeah that'll fill the coffers back up in NO time!), it's done to get whiney bitches like the dude caught speeding from wasting the court's time.

At any rate, I hate giving more power like this to cops because they already have enough power, and more importantly, they are not out to protect and serve, but they are in business to get dollars in the sneakiest way possible. I know that sounds like I just reveresed my statement from above, but I didn't. I honestly believe this Ohio law was not intended to bring in more money, even though that's what cops are there to do nowadays. Get my point?

Now let me add to the part about them being sneaky. When they put a plainclothes cop on a bridge with a radar gun that he hides when cars drive by him (yeah, saw that a few nights ago on Plymouth Rd. by Ridgedale), and he radios to a cop sitting on the onramp to come and pull you over, that has to be some kind of entrapment. I don't know if they get bonuses for pulling more people over and ticketing them, but they shouldn't. And there should not be quotas to fill in that regard. Man I am blabbing.

[mdost03]

Originally Posted by FattyBoomBatty

Now let me add to the part about them being sneaky. When they put a plainclothes cop on a bridge with a radar gun that he hides when cars drive by him (yeah, saw that a few nights ago on Plymouth Rd. by Ridgedale), and he radios to a cop sitting on the onramp to come and pull you over, that has to be some kind of entrapment. I don't know if they get bonuses for pulling more people over and ticketing them, but they shouldn't. And there should not be quotas to fill in that regard. Man I am blabbing.

"In criminal law, entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit."

Nope.

[Kracka]

Originally Posted by FattyBoomBatty

God you're retarded. In the article it's obvious that the judge heard the accused speeder try and weasle his way out of a ticket by questioning the ability of a cop to notice a car going faster than it should. He then stuck it right back in the speeder's face by saying 'cops now have the right to ticket you based on their judgement.'

It's not a ploy to get the government some more money (which by the way would be how much? 100 bucks a month - yeah that'll fill the coffers back up in NO time!), it's done to get whiney bitches like the dude caught speeding from wasting the court's time.

Wow. You really need to open your eyes. Do you really think a state's supreme court would pass a judgment like this just to rub it in some guy's face? They made this ruling to give the government more power over the taxpayers; simple as that.

Look at the big picture. How exactly do you figure this will only raise $100/month? This is basically a free pass for cops to hand out speeding tickets to whom ever they feel like. Remember that Toyota Celica with Action Package commercial? Our government is broke and tickets are one of the quickest/easiest ways to raise additional revenue.

[Murlo26]

Originally Posted by Kracka

Wow. You really need to open your eyes. Do you really think a state's supreme court would pass a judgment like this just to rub it in some guy's face? They made this ruling to give the government more power over the taxpayers; simple as that.

Look at the big picture. How exactly do you figure this will only raise $100/month? This is basically a free pass for cops to hand out speeding tickets to whom ever they feel like. Remember that Toyota Celica with Action Package commercial? Our government is broke and tickets are one of the quickest/easiest ways to raise additional revenue.

Thank you