Police officer should be physics teacher since there are good in visual estimation. Physics rule to calculate speed of an object the formula is Avg speed= distance travel/ time of travel. Not based on visual estimate maybe I should used this argument with my high school physics teacher.
A police officer doesn't have to cite an offender based on speed. You mean to say, if a speed limit is 25 mph on a local road, 15 when school is in session, and a car goes through at 55 mph, it's not possible to know using one's vision that the vehicle was speeding? What world did you study physics in? LOL
And how many feet are in a hundred yards?
There's 12 feet in a yard.
So 300 feet?
How many feet are in a yard?
How many feet? There's 12 feet in a yard.
Well, do you know what a yardstick is?
How many inches in a yardstick?
Well, on a yardstick there's 12 inches. Well, it depends on the yard stick that . . . you have.
How did the deputy get through grade school?
actually you can. i did a ride along and i was close with 15 minutes training. radar confirmed plus / minus 2 mph. the officer would say in court he did a visual and it was confirmed with radar. now they have laser units.
I hit an elk one night on a curve in the road. The deputy let me sit in his car while I waited for a tow truck. When a car would come around the curve he called out the speed to me. Then he pointed the gun. He was exactly right in every instance but one. I told him he was just showing off. He agreed that he was. He said there is no need to turn on the radar gun until he observed a speeding violation. Remember, this was at night.
Not everyone is the same. An officer still needs verification by an measuring device.
and, taking all the details of the testimony into account, I can see why the appeals court overturned it. The officer couldn't even verify how many feet in a yard.
Visuals are always affected by the circumstances.
Sometimes it concerns me that the only court system I have had experience with is the one where you can be convicted based upon the unsubstantiated word of the police officer. I got a ticket once for passing a stopped school bus and I did not. The officer further lied by saying it was in a residential area. The area he noted on the ticket had only busnesses. But there is nothing you can do, the officer is presumed to be telling the truth and you are not. In a criminal court, there is no way anybody gets convicted of anything just because of an officers testimony.
Other times I just remember all the things I should have gotten a ticket for and was not "caught".
I'm glad they threw out that ticket. While I understand that an officer can calibrate themselves with the radar and get very close it adds too much subjectivity for them to claim they know your speed very precisely. If you are driving a "fast" car, they may judge your speed a little high. If you are the "wrong" race they may judge your speed a little high. If they think they saw you do something else wrong but are unsure, they may judge your speed a little high. Letting officers just say they saw you speeding is going too far IMHO. I'd let them issue a reckless if they thought you were 20 mph over or something - there are things that are obvious - but not for 5 mph as in this case. I think there is a serious chance another factor was involved and/or they were just not as calibrated as usual. Around here they almost never ticket for 5 mph anyway suggesting they had other reasons for the stop.
imho an officer can merely write a citation for reckless driving, or speed not reasonable and prudent. I can't for the life of me understand why people want to continue to break the law, and try to justify it. I think a person is of a better character if they simply own up to their actions. If you can drive 10-30 mph over the limit, and you are not caught, that's ok. But if you are caught, why not be a man and own up to it? Don't be a John Edwards. So what if you get off on a technicality, don't you have any inkling that you've done wrong?
You got a ticket for passing a school bus, but you didn't do it? that's nuts. It either happened, or it didn't. If it didn't, and you were summoned to court, that's one corrupt place you were driving through.
I've been caught a handful of times by police, and wouldn't you know, every time, I actually did what they said? And 4/5 times, I did not get any fine nor summons. The last time it was too much, 52 in a 25. I have my reasons for driving that fast, but it in no way makes it ok or justified.
It's quite amazing how many people have been wrongfully accused for something they didn't do. That's not bad luck, that's just plain wrong.
I can believe a person can get very good at visually estimating speed. In court, for my taste, it would be a lot more credible if there are documentation of a violation vs just a statement.
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2019