So, who do you believe, the scientist or the judge?
It pays to hear all the facts, before making a decision.
In this case of the ticket issued to the physicist for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, I think the judge is correct. The physicist wrote a technical paper to show that the officer misunderstood what the officer believes he saw, that the car did not stop completely. The judge did not rely on the physicist's paper but on testimony that the officer was too far away to be a reliable witness.
I'm not persuaded by the physicist's paper. I don't see in either the article or the paper (there's a link to it in the article) how far away the officer was, so that probably was something the judge asked the officer and the defendant, but I agree with the judge that the officer's distance was more critical to the case than the physics here.
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2019