Wtf!!!!!

**1ViciousGSX** · 06-02-2010

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/...es-741192.html

Matt D. · 06-02-2010

We're in the hand basket to hell already, what's one more travesty to civil rights?

tpunx99GSX · 06-02-2010

Really nothing new. In MN we have had this law for over 8 years. How do i know you ask? Because ive been given a ticket for this. The police officer admittingly said he didnt have time to pull out the radar gun, so he gave me a "General Speed" ticket.
Which was a lot less money than i would have had to pay had he actually clocked me, i was doing around 75-80 in a 45. This was when i still lived in MN and had the red gsx.

**Kracka** · 06-02-2010

You've got to be kidding me...

Matt D. · 06-02-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

Really nothing new. In MN we have had this law for over 8 years. How do i know you ask? Because ive been given a ticket for this. The police officer admittingly said he didnt have time to pull out the radar gun, so he gave me a "General Speed" ticket.
Which was a lot less money than i would have had to pay had he actually clocked me, i was doing around 75-80 in a 45. This was when i still lived in MN and had the red gsx.

That's different, you were blatantly speeding and it was obvious. But when someone gets ticketed because they're doing the speed limit and pass someone who isn't, that's where the issue arises.

tpunx99GSX · 06-02-2010

Not really matt.
Its reserved for times when it looks obvious that your going over the speed limit. So like in a neighborhood if your doing 50 in a 25 the cop can pull you over and give you a ticket for general speed.
Its not like they are going to have officers just handing out tickets saying well i think he was going 65, well i think he was going 75, and totally rule out radar guns. General speed doesnt have a number attached to it, it doesnt go on your record, If i remember correctly it was only like a $45 ticket back then. Considered an infraction. Which if your going fast enough to get tagged with one of these, youll be lucky to get off with that kind of a fine.
its not anything to do with civil rights. If it were really anything to do with civil rights maybe you should whine about the fact you cant get a jury of your peers for a traffic violation.
WAAAAHHhhh

Matt D. · 06-02-2010

Yes, because every cop in this great nation of fail has the willpower to not abuse their power, right? If you say so.

**Murlo26** · 06-02-2010

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.

**Kracka** · 06-02-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt D.

Yes, because every cop in this great nation of fail has the willpower to not abuse their power, right? If you say so.

Tom would be the first to agree with you in any thread but this one.

**1ViciousGSX** · 06-02-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracka

Tom would be the first to agree with you in any thread but this one.

tpunx99GSX · 06-02-2010

I do agree that cops do abuse their power. But when it comes to shit like this where i see people speeding past when im walking on the street with my son, i wish a cop would pull that retard over. But like i said, 99% of the time they will catch you on radar and give you a ticket for that because its a much more spendy ticket. But the other 1%, they are likely justified in their reasoning, because you were driving stupid.
If this were 6 years ago, i would have wholeheartedly agreed with you, but not the case anymore.

tpunx99GSX · 06-02-2010

Quote:

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** · 06-02-2010

Quote:

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.

**Halon** · 06-02-2010

The story lacks detail to come to any real conclusion in my eyes. It could very well have been a total crock of shit, or like Tom the guy could have been doing 80mph in a 30mph zone.

**goodhart** · 06-02-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halon

The story lacks detail to come to any real conclusion in my eyes. It could very well have been a total crock of shit, or like Tom the guy could have been doing 80mph in a 30mph zone.

This.

Plus, this has been around in MN for a while, my fiancee's brother got pulled over like that earlier this spring, was like a $40 ticket. I think this law could be easily abused by officers, OR it could stop a few people from driving like retards just because the cop didn't have time to whip out the laser. Really could go either way.

FattyBoomBatty · 06-02-2010

Quote:

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.

**1ViciousGSX** · 06-02-2010

Louisiana used to have ticket quotas, but they dropped it about 10 yrs ago.

**Halon** · 06-02-2010

I wonder if our police officers have ticket quotas here? I wouldn't doubt it I guess.

mdost03 · 06-02-2010

Quote:

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** · 06-02-2010

Quote:

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.