Where do I post about A$$HOLE cops?? I hope here...

[funkfool]

Ok - against my better judjment... but here goes.
I think Stuart was right - in one regard at least - it IS about presentation... and perspective. I believe you should go to court because of this statement:

I decided rather then unsafely veering back onto the freeway possibly causing an accident the safer option was to slowdown...

This IS an UNSAFE area and the more people that speak up about it - maybe because they received a citation - the more likely that it may get changed...
BEFORE someone gets injured or killed.
BTW: Do you think the ticketing officer may be trying to change that very thing and by issuing you a citation - trying to bring about that necessary change?
Just my 0.02¢

[thane]

@BaileyGuns

If you think that someone how fining someone for disobeying a sign or going over the speed limit somehow makes the world a safer place, god bless you.

But here's some food for thought.

A) Many people have gotten multiple speeding tickets. It doesn't stop them from speeding.

B) It doesn't take fear of retribution for people to behave. That's what tyrants do. People don't stop at red lights because they are afraid of tickets. They stop at red lights because its SAFE & COURTEOUS.

C) If These "traffic regulations" are meant to keep us safe, why does Germany, where 50% of all roads have NO SPEED LIMIT, maintain less than HALF the traffic fatality per capita that the United states does?

And if you do get accused of a "traffic violation", how can you be guaranteed a fair and impartial trial?

Almost 50% of the money you pay for that violation goes to the city or county where the ticket was given. That money is generally used for court operations, police or prosecutors.

The traffic violation business generates between 7.5 and 15 BILLION dollars a year.

How can you expect an unbiased accusation, or trial for that matter, when the accuser and judge's payroll hangs in the balance?



Lastly, to the Orignial Poster if you really want to go to court you could refer to section 42-2-101 8 A of the Colorado revised statues....

(8) The conduct of a driver of a motor vehicle which would otherwise constitute a violation of this section is justifiable and not unlawful when:








(a) It is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no conduct of said driver and which is of sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by this section; or


I would argue that the poor signage, provided by the state, led to the rise of situation in which you were forced to make a decision, and you chose the less dangerous of the two conforming to standards of "intelligence and morality".

Good luck.

[jason303]

And just when the lid was about to be put back on the can.

[Irving]

Just because there aren't official quotas, doesn't mean that officers aren't encouraged to write as many tickets as they can.

[AboveNBeyond]

I will make an exception to my earlier post saying it was my last to say thank you.

@BaileyGuns

If you think that someone how fining someone for disobeying a sign or going over the speed limit somehow makes the world a safer place, god bless you.

But here's some food for thought.

A) Many people have gotten multiple speeding tickets. It doesn't stop them from speeding.

B) It doesn't take fear of retribution for people to behave. That's what tyrants do. People don't stop at red lights because they are afraid of tickets. They stop at red lights because its SAFE & COURTEOUS.

C) If These "traffic regulations" are meant to keep us safe, why does Germany, where 50% of all roads have NO SPEED LIMIT, maintain less than HALF the traffic fatality per capita that the United states does?

And if you do get accused of a "traffic violation", how can you be guaranteed a fair and impartial trial?

Almost 50% of the money you pay for that violation goes to the city or county where the ticket was given. That money is generally used for court operations, police or prosecutors.

The traffic violation business generates between 7.5 and 15 BILLION dollars a year.

How can you expect an unbiased accusation, or trial for that matter, when the accuser and judge's payroll hangs in the balance?



Lastly, to the Orignial Poster if you really want to go to court you could refer to section 42-2-101 8 A of the Colorado revised statues....

(8) The conduct of a driver of a motor vehicle which would otherwise constitute a violation of this section is justifiable and not unlawful when:








(a) It is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no conduct of said driver and which is of sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by this section; or


I would argue that the poor signage, provided by the state, led to the rise of situation in which you were forced to make a decision, and you chose the less dangerous of the two conforming to standards of "intelligence and morality".

Good luck.

[glock21]

hey bro im sorry we should have stuck to the first meeting place but no i had to be selfish and change it hahaha, abovenbeyond is a good guy and sometimes bad things happen, im sorry again hahaha but atleast the trade went well

[Bailey Guns]

@BaileyGuns

If you think that someone how fining someone for disobeying a sign or going over the speed limit somehow makes the world a safer place, god bless you.

But here's some food for thought.

Doesn't surprise me that you totally missed the point. DoR regulates motor vehicle licensing, which is instituted by the state legislature, for safety and other reasons. Vehicles must be inspected (commercial vehicles), drivers must be trained and licensed, driving habits must be regulated....for safety. Unfortunately, it's not a foolproof system and some people are idiots when they get behind the wheel.

And, yes...I think the potential of paying a fine and having points assessed against a person's license is a deterrent for some people. I've had people tell me as much many, many times. I also don't make it a habit of committing traffic violations for fear of getting a written reminder of why it's a bad idea.

A) Many people have gotten multiple speeding tickets. It doesn't stop them from speeding.

And it doesn't stop them from getting more tickets if they choose to continue to drive over the posted speed limit. And, of course, every time they get another ticket they'll feel free to piss and moan and blame the cop that gave them the ticket.

B) It doesn't take fear of retribution for people to behave. That's what tyrants do. People don't stop at red lights because they are afraid of tickets. They stop at red lights because its SAFE & COURTEOUS.

I'd say you have no idea why every person stops at stop lights, nor do all people do this for the same reason. Some people do it for safety, some do it because they don't want a ticket, some people do it because it's the law, some people might do it for all the above.

And - "SAFE & COURTEOUS" - that's two good reasons for why we have stoplights and laws regarding obeying traffic signals. Thanks for making my point.

C) If These "traffic regulations" are meant to keep us safe, why does Germany, where 50% of all roads have NO SPEED LIMIT, maintain less than HALF the traffic fatality per capita that the United states does?

Have you ever been to Germany (aside from the fact that, if you checked a map, you'd see Colorado isn't very close to Germany)? I have. I don't know where you get that statistic from (though I can guess) but it's not true. As a matter of fact, the first speed limits on the Autobahn were instituted in the German state of Bremen in early 2008 (75mph/120kph). German traffic regulations overall are very strict. In many cases speed limits and other traffic rules are very strictly enforced by radar and fines (usually very HEAVY fines) are sometimes assessed on the spot.

And if you do get accused of a "traffic violation", how can you be guaranteed a fair and impartial trial?

Go to court and plead your case just like you would for anything else.

Almost 50% of the money you pay for that violation goes to the city or county where the ticket was given. That money is generally used for court operations, police or prosecutors.

The traffic violation business generates between 7.5 and 15 BILLION dollars a year.

If you don't want to contribute to this "business", don't violate traffic laws. How simple is that? It's not the ones who follow the rules that are paying for this. I'm just going to assume your figures are correct.

How can you expect an unbiased accusation, or trial for that matter, when the accuser and judge's payroll hangs in the balance?

That's one of the funniest arguments I've seen from you yet. Are you saying juries are on the payroll, too? If you feel so strongly about your case, request a jury trial. I doubt too many judges or cops or prosecutors are really worried about their next paycheck so they're (in the case of the cop) gonna go bust innocent people or, in the case of the judges/prosecutors are going to encourage cops to write tickets even to innocent people who've done nothing wrong. Again...seems like you're having a really hard time staying focused. The OP admitted the violation.

Lastly, to the Orignial Poster if you really want to go to court you could refer to section 42-2-101 8 A of the Colorado revised statues....

(8) The conduct of a driver of a motor vehicle which would otherwise constitute a violation of this section is justifiable and not unlawful when:

(a) It is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no conduct of said driver and which is of sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by this section; or

There was no emergency. There was no imminent injury to anyone. You could argue this but it doesn't apply.

I would argue that the poor signage, provided by the state, led to the rise of situation in which you were forced to make a decision, and you chose the less dangerous of the two conforming to standards of "intelligence and morality".

Good luck.

You're free to argue what you want. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't.

[Bailey Guns]

Just because there aren't official quotas, doesn't mean that officers aren't encouraged to write as many tickets as they can.

That may be true. But isn't that part of why they're on duty? That whole "law enforcement" thing?

We had an unofficial "quota" system (I hate to use that word but I can't think of any other to use) at one dept where I worked. It had nothing to do with revenue. It had to do with making sure an officer was staying busy and making contacts. I didn't like it. But I always stayed busy and rarely met that goal...I'd average maybe 1 or 2 per shift no matter which shift it was. But I always had very high criminal arrest numbers so no supervisors cared that I didn't write traffic tickets.

I don't recall the exact numbers but for day shift it was 6 per shift (10 hour shifts) because traffic was usually very heavy and that's when the enforcement issues were the most important, swings was 2 (heavy call loads) and graves was 3 or 4. But that was internal and there was no punishment if you didn't write any if the supervisor knew you were busy elsewhere. And it didn't matter what the ticket was for.

[TFOGGER]

I take exception to the "go to court, get a jury, receive a fair trial" school of thought. Traffic "infractions" are often not eligible for a jury trial, and in many cases, the mere fact that the officer in question chose to issue a citation is treated as prima facie evidence that the "infraction" was committed. This jumps all over the presumption of innocence, but is rarely challenged due to the time, effort, and expense required to do so. The system is absolutely rigged against the accused, in order to generate maximum revenue for the government with minimal outlay. No doubt you all have heard many stories of people taking their cases to court, only to be confused by the system, colluded against by the prosecution and the bench, and finding themselves facing grossly inflated fines and costs compared to what they would have paid if they had just submitted to the "system" and plea bargained or settled their citation without complaint.

I'll be the first to say that most, if not all of the "performance awards" I have been issued have been richly deserved (based on the posted speed limits, the appropriateness of which is a whole different thread), but the disparity with which I was treated in court compared to some of the other individuals can't be discounted. Essentially, I was fined $344 for a speeding ticket(17 mph over), while a person that was involved in an accident without insurance, license, or current plates was "continued" until such time as they could provide proof that they had obtained a license, registration, and proof of insurance, NOT at the time of the accident, but currently. The court capitalized on the fact that I had the money to pay, while ignoring some rather serious lapses on the part of someone they had little chance of collecting from, IMO.

[Bailey Guns]

Hey...the system isn't perfect but it's our system and probably one of the best in the world.

If it was perfect, OJ would be in jail for murder.

I have to admit over almost 15 years on the job, I went to court for run of the mill traffic offenses (speeding, stop signs/lights, etc...) maybe 3 or 4 times. I didn't write lots of those kinds of tickets but even 1 or 2 per shift on average adds up over 15 years.

When I was in court I saw most defendants (on my cases and others I happened to see while waiting) were given extreme leniency by the court.

Just my experience.

I've said more than enough...I'm outta this discussion.