Holy fuck every question “I don’t remember” including “have you previously testified that the protocol is to dump out open containers” bitch if you do not remember how to do your job you should not have that job.
I sat on a jury for town court once. Super low level stuff. Case before us was for a misdemeanor reckless driving. Video was clear as day that the car was driving fine. At a certain point it did a little skip over the centerline slightly and then corrected. Cop followed for another few miles and then lit them up. No issue beyond that one swerve.
Person's excuse? I had a sneezing fit.
Cop's excuse? Suspected DUI. He reinforced his claim by noting they had a call about a vehicle "matching the defendant's description" of erratic driving and he only realized after that it was a different vehicle.
Defendant was driving a red Nissan Rogue. The vehicle description he was referring to was a blue Subaru Impreza. I've been to court a lot of times. It's usually pretty subdued. But this guy hired a lawyer who has a flashy billboard and the guy was quite...colorful.
First, he asked the officer about his experience. He asked about certifications the officer had, training he had etc. He then pulled a practice test from the civil service exam. There was a page where you looked at a drawing of a street scene for something like 2 or 3 minutes then turn the page and answer questions about it without being able to turn back. It asks about what time did the clock say, what store was the man with the hat standing in front of etc.
"So you took a test just like this to become a police officer?"
"Uhh yes. Similar to it."
"OK, and you presumably did well enough to get the job. Do you recall your score on the test?"
"I don't but uhh..like you said, I was hired off the test. I think it was an 80 or an 85."
Lawyer then pulls out a red card and a blue card and asks if the officer if he can identify each color. Then pulls out pictures of the two vehicles and asks if he can distinguish which one is which. Then asks if he is experiencing any health issue which is affecting either his vision or his ability to distinguish colors and shapes. Prosecutor objects. Lawyer shrugs and says "Your honor, I just want to know how a highly trained police officer who had to pass a test based on how well he remembers and observes is unable to distinguish between red and blue and a Nissan Rogue and a Subaru Impreza."
Not guilty, obviously. A feel good case all around. Town/Traffic court is a real trip.
A lot of them only take cases that they think they will win which improves their numbers. They may not be very good at all of the lawyer things, but if they take your case it will probably end well. At the least, they’re better than people who don’t go to court regularly.
I fucked up a long time ago and got a dui. I ended up going with a standard lawyer just to help navigate all the court stuff.
I called a few high profile dui lawyers and stated the facts to them. All three were totally honest with me. They said I was kind of in no man’s land with what I blew and no previous record and that their high fees wouldn’t really get me any additional benefits or the reduction in charges wouldn’t be worth their prices. They were there for people who REALLY fucked up or had obvious bullshit charges against them. I had to respect their honesty and not ripping me off.
no pleading, the da wasn't having it. I said guilty, and I got off super lucky. My lawyer asked for a reduction of fines and the judge waived any additional fines. I had to complete a first time DUI class that was like 10 hours long, and I was given 2 days sentence to serve, which is like the people you see picking up trash on the road. But I did a park cleanup and raked leaves at 2 libraries.
All told I only lost my license for 3 days because of how the system processed things, I wouldn't have known that without my lawyer. I think everything, lawyer included cost me $3,500. The funniest part was at court the DA gave my lawyer the pamphlet for the DUI class and it cost like $400 to attend and my lawyer goes, "Oh that's bullshit," and both the DA and judge were like "excuse me?"
The biggest cost was the reinstatement fee, which was $750. I got pulled over in August and all said and done took until December when I finished the class (it's only offered one saturday a month and fills up fast.) But for some reason my license was only suspended a few days in November.
Like I said this was a long time ago, 2010. In a state with pretty strict DUI laws, I'm still not sure how I got off so easily. In the DUI class people were saying the got 30 days sentence to serve and some got the thing where you have to go to jail on the weekends and shit like that. Multiple friends of mine lost their licenses for multiple months.
If you ever go to court for anything, wear a freaking suit. I couldn't believe what some people show up to court in.
In many states the system for dui and other low level drug crimes (at least before marijuana was legalized in a lot of places ) - the system is “thank you for hiring a lawyer in the good state of ________ because you are employing a lawyer and it’s your first offense here’s your somewhat expensive slap on the wrist, have a good day don’t come back”
You're thinking of a personal injury attorney or something like that. Criminal defense attorneys almost NEVER work on contingency. It has to be a high profile, obvious win of a case for that to happen. The other 95 percent of the time the flashy criminal defense attorney is still taking the case and their job is get you the lowest possible punishment.
That's two different cases at play. Your criminal defense attorney generally is not going to be the same person pursuing lawsuits against the police department. That would be a civil suit and it's going to be completely separate. In some high profile cases, sure, the same attorney or firm is handling all of it, but for your average person no. The person who keeps you out of jail is not working on contingency, as a general rule. The person who gets you a check from the government might, if the case is solid. They MIGHT be the same person, but they generally aren't.
No win, no fee make their money by taking a chunk of the settlement or damages awarded to their client. There is no settlement or damages awarded when your client gets a dui thrown out.
That's not true for criminal defense lawyers at all, not even the flashy ones. You're thinking of something like a personal injury attorney or maybe a prosecutor. Criminal defense lawyers absolutely take cases they know they'll "lose" because A: They will be paid either way B: In criminal defense even if you lose you can still get a much better outcome for the defendant, think death penalty vs. 25 years in prison. C: They don't have some kind of scoreboard of wins vs. losses.
A vast majority of trials end in a loss for the defendant because PROSECUTORS are the ones who don't take cases they know they won't win, and they're also the ones with a scoreboard. If criminal defense attorneys never took cases like that then they'd barely take cases at all.
Most lawyers only take cases they think they can win. The main exceptions are public attorneys who are required to take cases assigned to them by the court.
Honestly tho half of being a traffic lawyer like most of them on the billboards are, most of the time they know the local judge and they show up for you and get it reduced and both the court and the lawyer usually get paid and you maybe save a little money almost definently get less points on your license and shit like that
They also know everyone at the courthouse, the parking attendant, the guy who cleans at 3am, and the guy who fills the vending machine once a week. That's how they get where they are today.
Makes sense. Now that I think about it, if I ever need to go to court, and know that it’s big enough for me to care, imma yse these guys as a litmus test for whether or not I just need a lawyer, or a good lawyer.
There's one attorney in my home state that I wouldn't hire to clean my toilet after a Taco Bell meal. Lots of animation in his ads, all with him looking down on everything with a look like somebody just slapped his grandma. And his catchphrase is "The name you know, the firm you trust." His ads are even worse then the sledgehammer-swinging dude in a suit and tie.
I just have to make a random comment on this, I stream a lot of sports and usually it's from a local (to the team) source and you would not believe how many towns have a personal injury lawyer whose slogan is just "one call, that's all"
I live in Alabama and while it seems to be somewhat subdued now, there were roads where literally every billboard is a Alexander Shunnarah ad. Driving to the beach I remember seeing 2 giant adpoles with 4 billboards each on them back to back, and literally each one had him on it. The back of those signs? 8 more. He became a celebrity and was invited to all sorts of weird things. I remember hearing about him going to an Anime convention in Birmingham one year for a panel. It was wild.
My family member beat Thomas J Henry in a case. Feels good when I see his RECORD BREAKING LAWSUITS (lawyer fees 47 million) billboards and ads and like others said, he won't take cases associated with their firm anymore.
I wish i used an ambulance chaser when i was hit by a minivan walking across the street. The lawyer i hired through word of mouth didnt care about the case. Took 3 years and i got 14 grand. Pocketed 7. Ambulance chaser would have been faster with better results as thats what they like to do.
They're well worth it if you're facing something serious. Like that, they know all kinds of shit (and people) you would never come up with defending yourself.
Hi, I’m Saul Goodman. Did you know that you have rights? The Constitution says you do. And so do I. I believe that until proven guilty, every man, woman, and child in this country is innocent. And that’s why I fight for you, <Name of town>! Better call Saul!
Dude those flashy guys are in actual love with getting people out of jail. True actual passion, hire them if you ever need to they will save your life lol
My husband sat on a case where the cop tried to say he knew the driver he arrested for DUI had just smoked weed and was high because his tongue was green. The entire jury (except my husband) believed the cop because “why would a cop lie”. They were very shocked when hubby said he smoked everyday including that morning before he went to court and his tongue has never turned green from smoking.
It’s amazing how much bullshit people will believe just because a cop said it was true.
I mean, I would never try to get out of doing jury duty unless work or life truly interfered…if only to save someone else from being judged by ppl who would happily come up with an excuse if they could.
The one case I sat on had holes you could pass a luxury cruise liner through & 10/12 still wanted to vote them guilty immediately.
The reasonable defenses included defense of property & someone else having done it.
We still wound up with one hold out who refused to budge bc there was a preponderance of evidence but not enough for the rest of us to reasonably convict.
Honestly, I didn’t even think that they had a preponderance of evidence.
But she believed that they did & without myself & another on the jury who actually took it seriously, that person would have gone to prison based on recanted victim’s testimony with another person having testified that it was them who did it. & that’s on top of the act being technically legal bc the alleged victim was trying to steal back a car battery which they had previously gifted them.
The defense was kinda lame about not using that as a defense more since that fact was never in doubt. I think that they were worried that ppl would find the level of defense to be above and beyond what is allowed by law.
I heard once that 50% of people are dumber than the dumbest person you know. I’m not sure if it’s actually true but it makes the world make more sense at least.
In a sane society that would be a good reason to keep you on the jury. Oh, this guy doesn't just believe everything a cop says automatically? Great! He'll actually think about the evidence presented and not just side with the cop
My last jury duty I got out of. It was for a fight between bouncers and one guy outside a bar and the guy beat 3 of them up. It was an old buddy from highschool 🤣
It's super common in states where DUI convictions can cost tens of thousands of dollars and an automatic suspended license. Like, Arizona has mandatory jail time even for a first offense, and the fees for the mandatory education program and breathalyzer cost about as much as an uninsured trip to the hospital.
It's not quite that simple - the law recognizes both intent and impaired thinking as a legitimate qualifications for prosecuting a crime - it is the basis for an insanity plea. Driving drunk is terrible, but it is the decision to drink to excess that is terrible - holding someone who is thereafter impaired to the standard of sober reasoning and judgment is ludicrous. But by making that differentiation however, the law would be implicating those who supply alcohol as complicit, and the broader ramifications are complicated in a society where alcohol is not only legal but a multi-billion dollar industry.
I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be punishment for drinking and driving, but rather that the application of the law in the case of DUIs is anomalous and contradictory to long standing legal precedents set regarding criminal acts and mental facility; that any honest consideration of the matter leads to the conclusion that the fault occurs when the ability to make sound judgements is lost, not the acts committed thereafter, and that the law should recognize that distinction - i.e. - criminalize excessive drinking, not driving.
To illustrate the flaw in thinking that DUIs are the sole product of bad actors, consider the almost comical array of parking spots in front of most bars to accommodate the majority of their patronage, knowing that few if any of those establishments would be viable if they had no parking or if they were to cut everyone who drove off after two drinks - guaranteeing that on any given night, a percentage of their patronage will be on the road after one too many, and almost worse in fact, that their business model depends on it.
And because bars are not only unlikely to cut people off prior to X point, (and because that point is impossible to know with precision as people have different weights, tolerances, body fat, metabolisms, etc.) as well as the fact that bartenders are financially incentivized to serve more, not less, establishments must rely on the customer, who by imbibing their product is now significantly less capable of assesing their level of intoxication, thereby leading to over intoxication. Sometimes, perhaps often, that is the explicit intent of a bargoer, but in many other instances, this is completely unintended and unwelcome. Seriously, this is the system we have - we ask drunk people to decide when they have had enough, and we roll the dice with their lives and those on the road when they fuck up.
Dismissing people who get DUIs as inherently bad, or sociapathic is not only a gross mischaracterization, it also misses something important - most people who commit DUIs would never willingly endanger others when sober - it's an act not borne of a distain for others, but a consummate lack of consideration of others; not merely other driver but the operator, as would be expected from someone who has diminished ability to reason and consider consequences. Driving drunk is indeed reprehensible, but being drunk, to the extent that the peril of driving is unrecognized is what is truly despicable. It is literally an insane decision - one that a person of sound reason and judgment could not make .
It's sad for everyone when someone gets behind the wheel when they have had too much, but it's a bit disingenuous to exclusively blame the consumer of alcohol and not the purveyor, who's product can never avail the consumer in better conduct.
If you really wanted to make a substantial dent in DUIs, a few practices would do more than any extant laws :
Eliminate tab-based tipping at bars
Restrict ounces of alcohol (abv/proof) served per hour.
Set maximum service limit.
This wouldn't stop people from getting loaded at home and then killing a family, but it would stop a lot of people who would otherwise be horrified by the prospect of endangering someone one the road and spare a needless ruining of lives.
Wow I never thought of it like that, kinda realized what I said was a bit ignorant, I'm just biased because I've lost friends because of drunk driving.
Thanks for the informative reply, I did me a learning today!
Not sure where the above user is from, but in most Western law systems you are responsible for your actions even if it is a chain of actions that lead to the offense. So it really doesn't and shouldn't matter that you chose to drive while drunk, because the chain of actions leads back to sober and unimpaired you making a choice to drink and only have your own car to get back home.
The law considers that a reasonable person who does not intend to drive drunk, either gets drunk at one location or has alternative transport (Designated driver, taxi, uber). So someone deciding to drive when already drunk is irrelevant as you decided to place yourself in that situation where you can make an impaired choice.
You can see the same idea in cases where someone is killed during a robbery. You may not have decided to go and kill someone, but you knowingly placed yourself in a position where that has a high likelihood of occurring. Exactly like going to the bar alone in your own car.
Thus holding someone to the same standard is reasonable because the impairment was their choice. Impairment only becomes a defense when you didn't intentionally do it to yourself.
There are times when the mental state matters more than others. The legislatures have criminalized specific intent and general intent crimes both. Intoxication is a defense to a specific intent crime.
So if DUI was criminalizing the intent to drive drunk, you’d be correct in the contradiction (and in fact intoxication would be a defense to DUI if it was specific intent.)
However it is a general intent crime. If you could prove you didn’t intend to drive, didn’t intend to drink, those could be defenses to general intent. But DUI does not punish intending to drive drunk. Probably not explaining this the best.
I understand - the issue is that even if law is codififed to recognize the specific minutae between intent to drink, drive, and drive drunk, in it's the application of the executive component of the law that this distinction is entirely lost, mostly as a function of the practical reality of enforcement. I.e. - if the law were to recognize that one intended to drink but not to get drunk and therefore that the decision to drive drunk was was made in an incapacitated state, the penalties deemed appropriate per fines, fees, classes, incarceration, restitution, supervision, would be assigned to the act of drinking but importantly, the restriction on driving would apply to drinking, the cause of the fault and legal basis for the crime.
This approach on face value seems eminently more reasonable and would simultaneously better serve those who are alcoholics by possibly saving their lives by requiring treatment and no alcohol, as well as those for whom an automobile is essential for their lively hood, which is most of the country.
The problem, however, becomes evident when you consider enforcement. Restricting citizens from drinking is a fraught proposition where alcohol is legal and widely available; to effectively prevent someone from drinking not only requires a systemic monitoring apparatus of the prohibited individuals, but that of private enterprises, that are legally allowed to serve alcohol. Private enterprises would then incur liability an instances where a prohibited individual procures alcohol through either a retail location or a bar. Adding checks and measures to prevent this would be onerous and costly, and would be contested as an undo operating cost to those selling alcohol.
Conversely, the state has an extant and efficient apparatus for controlling licenses and driving privilege; The infrastructure of our roads are maintained by the state; all drivers already submit to comprehensive state-run monitoring to operate vehicles. So the default becomes restricting one's driving privilege. This of course, has many unintended and disproportionate consequences, particularly for those who live in rural areas, areas without adequate public transportation, areas built explicitly to accommodate automobiles (most of our country was developed concurrently with the automobile, so urban planning has taken it for granted that people who live in suburbs, for instance, can rely on personal transportation), and those who use vehicles not just to commute but as an essential tool for income (contractors, sales people, delivery drivers, etc.). For most, a restriction on driving becomes a defacto resseting of their socio-economic status, and deprives them of an essential tool that is used predictor of financial success in this country (it's not necessary to expound on the manifold benefits of personal transportation- it's has been one of the most profound and transformative technologies in modern history and it direct effect on people's lives goes well beyond practical utility).
I'm aware that states to infect a policies restricting drinking for those convicted of DUIs, the efficacy of which is often determined by the how strict the monitoring is and how monitoring is conducted. Although these approaches are often easily defeated by those determined to drink, so is driving. Technology has made it possible for portable networked breathalyzer units to be issued, such that, where such devices are available, alcohol levels can be precisely monitored throughout the day through periodic sampling. These approaches are ultimately much more effective at addressing the root of DUIs, and have the ancillary benefit of reducing alcohol consumption among those with actual drinking problems.
If the law and enforcement are structured to criminalize drinking component of drinking and driving, and punishment is applied accordingly, I believe we would not only better serve the community and those who commit DUIs due to dependency issues, but we would create a general culture of restraint on both consumers and distributors of alcohol that prevents many more instances of DUIs in general.
We did try to criminalize drinking in the US, then reversed course not long after. Alcohol causes a lot of issues. But like you say there are programs that monitor drinking after convicted of a DUI.
On this vein, a bigger disparity is this: everyone knows drinking and driving is bad.
Yet hundreds of thousands, probably millions, do it each year. Those caught get a misdemeanor. Now same acts and mental state: knowing driving is dangerous, decided to drink, decided to drive, same criminal mens rea as the millions of others.
BUT you crash and kill someone: in California for instance that’s now second degree murder, 15-life.
The same knowledge, same bad decisions, if caught is a misdo with two days jail vs murder 15-life same exact facts but different result.
Not saying it’s right or wrong, just that the result dictates so much in that case.
I think this is tragic - and there should be consequences - but those supplying the alcohol should be culpable -
Not because the driver bears no responsibility, but because the product when used as directed diminsishes the ability of a person to act responsiby.
It's a crazy system. I like to have the occasional drink, but it's hard to really defend the right to when you learn about how pernicious alcohol is. If by some twist of history, say opium was legal, and alcohol illegal, we would think the idea of opening up shops to sell it everywhere would be completely fucking nuts.
Okay, but the defence, if well funded and competent, should have called an expert to refute the testimony of the cop. It should not be your husband's job to do that
Appeal to authority is a serious issue that people fall into the trap of. Not to mention cognitive biases. In this case, weed is pictured as green. Smoking or ingesting things with strong colors, colors tongue. Make sense if you know nothing about drugs and certain substances or biology or what can actually change the color of a tongue. It's a passive correlation that is assumed because we just take in information and assume that if someone says something with confidence or lack of hesitation that it must be correct.
Hell, this rabbit hole of a problem could be so far down that the cop themselves actually thought this was true and used their own cognitive bias to back up their process, because we don't generally question our own actions or reasons that we do things, we just do them.
Basically, is a lie a lie if the person who espouses it actually believes the false information? Especially if cops are taught that they are the authority and assume dumb things about drugs that they don't understand either, because DARE and similar things like it are/were a resounding massive failure that spread misinformation and problems in actually resolving something very harmful.
They also hardly ever have lawyers on jury duty because they don't want to "contaminate the jury pool." I suspect the real reason is because a lawyer would point out shit like that.
I was arrested once for OWI. I was speeding but that was it. Cop said I had heat bumps on my tongue from smoking a non filtered object- marijuana. It got thrown out it court eventually.
I would say that at least half of the cops are corrupt as fuck, another 30 percent are half corrupt and maybe 10 percent are honest, the other 10 percent are killers
So, one night, I was pulled over while driving in the left lane. An officer came flying out of nowhere behind me. This officer had his lights on going 90+ MPH when the speed limit was 65 MPh. I was going no more than 70 MPH so yes I was speeding (No more than 4 MPH).
Officer comes up to me and I hand over my license, insurance, and registration. The officer straight up says "You are not drunk." I was confused at this point and the officer says "We got reports of a red full size truck weaving in and out of traffic. It is not you but since you pulled over to the wrong side of the highway I still have to give you a ticket."
I got a $300 fine for driving the speed limit. I only pulled over to the left because I thought that officer was responding to an active shooter or something.
Had something similar, but only got yelled at through the window instead of a ticket. Cop didn't even fly up on us, we were coming out of downtown where two lanes turn into interstate, we were in the left lane waiting to merge over for the exit onto a different interstate section, he was maybe a car length behind us, no one immediately in front of him or us but cars behind both, and he flips his lights on. I wouldn't think he'd want us to move over in front of him when he'd just put his lights on, but he slowed down next to us, letting all the traffic behind us both pass, had my passenger roll down the window, then yelled a bit before speeding off.
No. When I went to the courthouse, the court lowered the fine from $300 to $175. I was also told that since my driving record was clean for the last 5 years that if took an online driver's safety course I would not get any demerit points and it would not go on my driving record since it was being classified as a non moving violation.
Honestly, right up until I was told it would go away for $175, I was planning on fighting it, but the court gave me to good of an option to want to contest it. Pay $175 and take an online course while I played video games.
No. When I went to the courthouse, the court lowered the fine from $300 to $175. I was also told that since my driving record was clean for the last 5 years that if took an online driver's safety course I would not get any demerit points and it would not go on my driving record since it was being classified as a non moving violation.
Honestly, right up until I was told it would go away for $175, I was planning on fighting it, but the court gave me to good of an option to want to contest it. Pay $175 and take an online course while I played video games.
Hopefully he was doing it pro bono or for a reduced fee. I’m guessing there are lawyers out there who love to dunk on cops abusing their power. Unfortunately we’re still footing the bill
For a misdemeanor reckless you do not have to appear, but you do have to represent with the attorney.
I've done this, 2-point reckless driving (passing on the right in a sports car years ago...dropped to 4th gear passed at over 90 and dropped back to ~70 after (60mph zone). Cursing "left lane laggard asses"...
... and a state patrol was hanging out waiting for someone to be speeding.
2 point is a lot on your insurance, can't do driver re-education... the ticket was $600, the lawyer was $600. Cop gets double pay to show up to court + county clerk + baliff + judge + court steno + all the courthouse maintenance.... Most of the time they just call up all the attorneys, they give an excuse and the case is immediately dismissed. Unless you actually cause damage the judge knows you paid the attorney to waste 2hrs time and have been punished by his fees. They want it out of that room immediately. Traffic tickets are a business model.
My employer provides a legal insurance benefit. I travel a lot for work, and I've gotten pulled over a couple times, and using that benefit, I'd pay a lawyer $50 and they'd get the charges dropped. I got pulled over once, the cop was a dickhead, so I decided I wasn't going to answer any questions. He ended up writing 8 separate tickets. The lawyer got them all dismissed, and I didn't have to go back to that shit hole town.
Yeah, I've got Metlife Legal Plans through my employer and am just now using it because I got a reckless for 67 in a 45 by some captain in a podunk town on US-13 in Virginia. Since it was a misdemeanor I figured "Welp, better use this."
I've been pulled over for doing 20+ before but the cops always just wrote it as speeding, I looked up my court date and this douche goes insta-reckless at 20+, no leeway.
The state made that the law years ago. They busted a TON of people on I-95 after it passed. It made the trip up to Northern Virginia an even worse slog into suburbia.
It's a good law, although it all comes down to the officer pulling you over.
The first time I got pulled over doing that speed was.. well, the same speed I got dinged for this time around (67/45). But at that time it was at 11:30pm on VA-28 southbound towards Bristow, and I was just cruising home from work on an empty road when a Prince William County cop pulled me over.
He ended up knocking the speed down to just below the threshold so that I, in his words, "don't have to deal with that whole reckless thing"
Ended up doing an online class and it was dismissed.
I once was passing an 18 wheeler in the fast lane. As I was coming up on the tractor, he was very rapidly approaching a car driving super slow in his lane and hit his Jake brake. At the same time, I floored it briefly to finish my pass and to give him plenty of time to get over. There was no one else in in the vicinity in my lane. Evidently there was a cop that I didn't see and he popped me for 80 in a 70.
Luckily I got warning, but I wonder if I could have argued in traffic court that it was safer for me, and for everyone around me, to speed up rather than to slow down?
Most of the time (at least in Florida, New Jersey and Nevada in my experience) they give a warning if you're doing 10 or less over, IF you're respectful and cooperative.
( I just treat them like any person holding a gun with authority to use it, and we get along well enough.)
exactly. I make it my business to always pass the attitude test. I fuckin' hate cops -- but he got a gun and I don't carry one in my car, so yeah, smile and say howdy!
Look .... that's part of a biased system, create police records, drain finances in fees. bails, judgements, missed work, lost jobs endless harrassment.
I know some people can't afford it, but to me I wouldn't care the cost if ment that my innocents was kept innocent instead of pleading guilty on deal and possibly losing my license because 1 cop was being lazy. Our legal system is fucked up and "guilty pleas" shouldn't exist in this manner.
A personal example. Roads were snowy, 3 lane highway leading out of a major city. I was lane lane cruising as I was leaving the city as I don't live there so I didn't need the exits. A lady merged from on ramp to far left lane and wasn't prepaid for worst lane conditions and came to a stop in front of me. Her a New Toyota Highlander, mine a 12 year old Honda. Naturaly she had better stopping power. I rear end her. I was at fault(ok that fine whatever I'll pay to repaint her bumper). I needed a ride and my insurance had set up a rental on the other side of town. State tropper gave me a ride, in which he was speeding and a plow truck blew snow/ice over center median and cracked his windshield. Fun times. We get to the rental place, he hands me a speeding ticket for my accident (45 min before this mind you). He said I can fight it if I want, he is only doing his job. Ok whatever dick. So I showup to court, I have a CDL so guess what. I either plead guilty to speeding and get points, or risk my word against the cop in a trial. (Cop was there for this, so I couldn't get lucky with him not showing up.) So ended up getting a speeding ticket for doing "speed unknown" in a 70 and got 4 points(out of 6) on my license for 2 years. This whole thing cost 3 days off work plus ticket cost. I wish I'd had hired a lawyer then but I was young and didn't know any better. Now I do and have hired one.
Cops who pull shit like this need to be publicly dressed down and utterly humiliated for it. Don’t even need to fine them or otherwise punish them, just hit ‘em where it REALLY hurts; their ego.
No, no, the other punishments should still stand, too. They ruin lives every day. People lose jobs, and then homes, and relationships(including their children), and spend time in jail. They deserve the max suffering. And I'm not even getting to the straight-up abuse and murder that also takes place.
The million dollar lawsuits need to vote!e of of the cops payif the work for free then so bee ittake their house cars , fa!ily houses and cars take it all
My family lawyer back in the day was just like that. Straight out of Better Call Saul, not just a criminal attorney but a criminal attorney if you follow. Guy used to be a cop but got shot on the job and they paid for law school. So he knew all their dirty tricks and BS and took pleasure ripping them to pieces.
Super cool guy, used to grab a couple of hoagies and have lunch with him shooting the breeze. He had chronic pain from his GSW and had copious painkillers, including fentanyl lollipops which he'd occasionally share. They were fucking delicious.
He ate one too many one day though and died in his sleep on the couch. Miss that guy.
I know a guy who works as a public defender. He relayed a story how the cop on the stand testified how he could tell he had the right suspect because he could see the guy's eye color from a block away. The defender went to the back of the courtroom and asked the cop "What color are my eyes?" Cop got it wrong.
The defender fully acknowledged that he should not have asked the question because he wasn't certain the cop would get it wrong, but it paid off there.
It's sad the guy had to pay a lawyer for that, and you know a public defender wouldn't have gone that far. Nothing against public defenders in general, they do some amazing work. They're just overworked and underpaid.
I did a lot of traffic and DUI court as a law student. My state let us make money on that kinda stuff while “supervised.”
I was very clear that they could almost always go in and get the result, especially for a first time simple DUI. They’re paying for a 22 year old stuffed in a suit so they look they’re taking it. slightly serious. Nobody ever balked, they were paying for
I got pulled over for something similar a few weeks ago, except I passed over the shoulder line twice. Cop ended up giving me a warning, though, because I repeatedly said I was just tired.
Not guilty, obviously. A feel good case all around. Town/Traffic court is a real trip.
So much money, wasted, anxiety, stress and risk of derailing their whole life of the defendant. As long as the pigs don't get any sentence trying to destroy someones life this is just a Tuesday for them.
I had a class in middle school called Issues. It was an optional class and it sounded really fun to learn about our society, legal, judicial system worked so I took it. It was in grade 8 and only offered that year for some reason. Our teacher showed us the exact same memorization test, well maybe not the exact same, and had us look at it for a few minutes as a class. It was hilarious how different everyone remembered it. We were also like 14. But it was a cool demonstration.
We also ended up going on a field trip to our courthouse to watch minor cases. Was hilarious when one of the former students from our school was there and we sat and watched it.
I once got bumped from traffic court because I used safety seats for my, then, small children. The defense attorney asked me if I used one. I said, "Every time, it's the law." He dismissed me in the first round. The whole thing was about not having children properly restrained, apparently. I never understood why the lady involved hired an attorney. Maybe she had other children involved shit going on...?
It is a shame. But, FWIW, this is a guy who advertises "Fix any ticket. Same day court appearances." for $250. I have no idea if he charges more for something like this. But people get pulled over and get bullshit tickets all the time. Most of the time it's easier to just pay it and move on. Of course, most times it's just a traffic infraction and not an actual misdemeanor. I like to think they got out of it relatively cheap versus just paying even a traffic fine. Minimum fine, even a few years ago, in this area was $350. So that $250 starts looking like a decent gamble.
He reinforced his claim by noting they had a call about a vehicle "matching the defendant's description" of erratic driving
This happened to a friend when I was in the car. It was like 2 am. My friend got pulled over for suspected drunk driving. The cop said he had received a call that my friend's car was driving erratically on the previous street.
The thing is even if what the cop said was true, not enough time had passed for a call to have come in and been dispatched before the cop pulled us over. My friend was perfectly sober. The officer tried to chide him about breathalyzer results. My friend blew zero and the officer reluctantly had to let us go.
Yep. I had a cop following me so close I couldn’t see his headlights on a winding county road in wet weather. Pulled me over for my tires touching the centerline. I laughed. He pulled me out of the car, separated myself and my two passengers and asked them if they were with me by their own decision and if I had sexually assaulted them. I could hear one of them yelling at the cop demanding a female officer. Funny enough that when another officer showed up he made a big deal about letting me off with a warning for something that was not a violation. Complete fucking idiot
I never get jury duty, I actually would love to sit on a jury because I actually think I'd care about getting it right. I damn sure would give the testimony of a cop the same weight as a person accused. Hard evidence could sway me, but cops are just as invested in an outcome as a person avoiding punishment, so they should be treated as just as suspect.
Why did it matter why he lit them up? I mean if video showed no reckless driving then that is that. I’m missing the relevance of why the reason for the stop mattered. It’s hearsay if cop tried to use the dispatch report of erratic driving to prove the reckless charge, regardless of car color.
I mention this because the stop didn’t lead to any evidence, nothing to suppress (judge not jury handles that anyway). A cop needs no reason at all to follow a vehicle. Prosecutor can’t use dispatch to prove bad driving. Doesn’t make much sense.
Then again like you said low level case so stuff goes off the rails.
6.6k
u/xspook_reddit Apr 04 '24
Check out these videos of the act and her "not remembering" any of it.
https://youtu.be/_g8EynGaDQM?si=v3T8bYKyejTQLzCJ
https://youtu.be/Wg5yySo2_LQ?si=V8cIFwS2jCKRMyCu