Traffic Court, in my experience, is like Kangaroo court. In Traffic court, it is your word against the Policeman's. Who are they going to believe? THe City of Columbia has gone on record proving that the lights on my car, which worked fine the day I was stopped, worked fine the next day, worked fine at the mechanic's, passed a state licensed inspection, are defective. So there you have it. Did they believe me? The Mechanic? No they believed the Cop. The standard of reasonable doubt is only, AFAIK, used in death penalty cases and murder cases. I won't touch the other topic with a ten foot pole. -- Lawrence Lile rrc124+@PITT.EDU Sent by: pic microcontroller discussion list 06/24/2004 09:33 AM Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU cc: Subject: Re: [OT:] i need advice... I do not want this to become a rant and get killed. I think this thread has the possibility of not only helping me, but others on the list like me who want real suggestions from a pool of engineers on defending themselves in traffic court. So a few more questions: Does anyone know if traffic court is like criminal court, where the state must PROVE that you are guilty BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT? So, would it be enough to introduce SOME measure of doubt as to the complete guilt of the subject? This would be much easier then lets say a traffic court mentality of the civil courts which if I remember correctly is something like... you just have to show that there is reasable proof of guilt.. or something. My second question is going to be VERY controversial and I will never mention it again at the request of the admins, nor can i stress enough that i do not want this starting fights. Has anyone every built a radar jamming device, perhaps one like: http://www.textfiles.com/anarchy/MISCHIEF/radarjamming.txt The reason I ask this is because I feel like in the end, I will lose this case no matter how much proof I give. I feel like the cards -at least in PA- are stacked against the citizens when it comes to traffic court. Between ignorant judges who automatically side with cops, to speed traps, to the difficulty in arguing physics to judges.. whatever, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that I should give myself some power. If they are unfair in using the law, why can I not play on the same field? Please nobody start arguing the metrits of this idea, I think it was even talked about a week ago or so on OT. All I ask is that if anyone can offer help or advice in making such a device, I would be very thankful. Whether or not this device is legal in whatever location on earth i chose to use it, that should not come into play in my opinion because i take full responsibility for how I use any offered information. Thank you to everyone, and I appologize if this upsets some people. I'm just so frustrated and feel defenseless. --- Begin Orginal Message --- From: "Russell McMahon" To: CC: Date: 6/24/2004 9:59:15 AM This gets closer to a rant than most so far. Be careful when commenting so the thread does not (quite reasonably) die an early death at admins hands. > >In the situation described I don't think it was unreasonable for the > >policeman to jump to the wrong conclusion. The radar buzzed, and he saw > >a sports car driving by a young man and an SUV. If the SUV had seen > >the police and slowed down so that they were both going close to the > >legal speed the policeman had to guess. Which way would you have guessed? This is what's at the heart of what's wrong with the attitude to "justice" in the US amd many places elsewhere in the "free world". The values and rights which were held dear as a matter of principle are being eroded by expediency. No disrespect meant, but the fact that a respectable member of the community is here defending the inexcuseable is a good illustration of this. We get used to the slow changes which erode the basic principles on which the system is built. Some of this is done from greed (revenue etc), some from fear (911 etc). The "cooked frog" principle applies. Heatthe water slowly and you never notice. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. " This may sound strange coming from me, who was seen apparently defending speed restrictions etc. What I support is the observation of arrangements that we have mutually agreed on - until such time as we agree to change them. I can live with people mutually agreeing on new arrangements, even if I don't support what they agree on :-). It's the change by force, stealth and drift that is dangerous. > However, when accusing someone of a crime, even a misdemeanor, we should not be relying on a guess. > Innocent until proven guilty is a very important point. Absolutely. Fundamental and foundational and, apparently, completely lacking in this case. > The theory is that while this may let some guilty go free, they will eventually repeat their crime (or some other thing) and be caught. Regardless of WHY the principle was established, and the above is only part of the reason, the principle is key. RM -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu