Last I remember I live in a "Innocent till Proven Guilty" society, but...

[Kalahee]

As far as I know, you may be arrested and there would be charges against you. Unless the plaintiff or prosecutor proves that you are guilty and you are declared as such by the jury, you are innocent.

Oddly it ain't the same on the street, polices are like Judge Dread. They give you a ticket without actually figuring if you are guilty and tells you you have 30 days to prove your innocence.

Someone been scratching her ear... and got a ticket for speaking on cellphone while driving a car, and she doesn't even own a cellphone or had one in her car.

Yes, being a police officer is an ingrate job, but how would I be supposed to prove that I wasn't driving under the influence of drug, driving with my feet while gettinga blowjob from my girlfriend's sister?

Guess we should be lucky not to be charged for drunk driving first and then have to go to court within an hour to prove we are just bad drivers.

---
DISCLAIMER: I may sound dickhead or any other word Yathzee would use in his videos, that's just me watching too much of his good stuff.

 

[Shivarage]

sdrawkcab si gnihtyrevE

 

[Squarez]

Police Officers, or traffic officers in this case must have "reasonable grounds to believe [whatever they charge you with]" if your friend wasn't talking on the phone, she can appeal the ticket and have it repealed.

The system works.

 

[thethain]

You are innocent until proven guilty. If you pay the ticket you admit guilt. Your option is to go to court and try to prove your innocence (which will almost certainly incur court costs equal to the ticket). Its a catch 22, personally I think if you are found innocent the plaintiff should have to pay court costs, but thats not the way it is.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Police Officers, or traffic officers in this case must have "reasonable grounds to believe [whatever they charge you with]" if your friend wasn't talking on the phone, she can appeal the ticket and have it repealed.

The system works.

But the appeal won't necesarily succeed will it? She can't prove she wasn't and in a case like this they may well just take the policemans word for it. I do get what OP is saying. It might work but it's quite possible it won't either. Maybe if she has a good lawyer and protests that policeman never actually found a phone and didn't even bother searching for it...even so, if she had a phone in the car and the cop finds it then she's guilty of having a phone in her car while scratching her ear but do you think the court will take her word for it?

 

[Thaluikhain]

sdrawkcab si gnihtyrevE

Hopefully you're not Zatanna

 

[FallenTraveler]

I'm having a hard time reading this... why would a police officer give a ticket for scratching someones ear?

 

[Valagetti]

Remember the pentalties as well. Its a slap on the hand, 'compared' to other laws forty years ago.
And this is only theortical. Reality has many variables.

 

[Squarez]

Police Officers, or traffic officers in this case must have "reasonable grounds to believe [whatever they charge you with]" if your friend wasn't talking on the phone, she can appeal the ticket and have it repealed.

The system works.

But the appeal won't necesarily succeed will it? She can't prove she wasn't and in a case like this they may well just take the policemans word for it. I do get what OP is saying. It might work but it's quite possible it won't either. Maybe if she has a good lawyer and protests that policeman never actually found a phone and didn't even bother searching for it...

Well OP claimed she doesn't even own a phone. That there should pretty much be the end of it.

 

[emeraldrafael]

well OP you're possibly one of hte most open people I've ever met. XD

I think its cause those are minor things, and its police discretion. You can challenge it, and then get your innocent till proven guilty thing, but if the police followed that rule, then they would have to take you to court just to give you a ticket for speeding. Do inncoent people get screwed over? Sometimes. But more often then not its a fair and just call.

 

[Saltyk]

Police Officers, or traffic officers in this case must have "reasonable grounds to believe [whatever they charge you with]" if your friend wasn't talking on the phone, she can appeal the ticket and have it repealed.

The system works.

That's not always easy. How can she prove that she wasn't talking on a cell phone? A video? If she had a video showing that she wasn't talking on the phone, she would still likely be charged with the same basic offense.

Actually, this is the problem I have with red light camera's that can issue tickets. What if you weren't driving? How can you prove that you weren't driving? Was it your friend? Mother? Maybe you were being rushed to the hospital? Was your car stolen? Worse yet, they can issue tickets if you were for all intents and purposes through the light (A coworker got a ticket from such an offense and it said the light had been red for about 1 second). It's completely unfair. And who do you argue against in court? The picture?

Also, never talk to the police. It literally can't help you.

 

[Kalahee]

You are innocent until proven guilty. If you pay the ticket you admit guilt. Your option is to go to court and try to prove your innocence (which will almost certainly incur court costs equal to the ticket). Its a catch 22, personally I think if you are found innocent the plaintiff should have to pay court costs, but thats not the way it is.

Actually, what you have in hand is your sentence, thereso considered guilty. Yes, you are right, you admit your guilt if you pay, or you have 30 days to appeal to your case. Doesn't change that you have been judged guilty in the first place. But, I'm more concerned on how to prove your innocence without an opposing team bringing in the proof of your guilt.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Police Officers, or traffic officers in this case must have "reasonable grounds to believe [whatever they charge you with]" if your friend wasn't talking on the phone, she can appeal the ticket and have it repealed.

The system works.

But the appeal won't necesarily succeed will it? She can't prove she wasn't and in a case like this they may well just take the policemans word for it. I do get what OP is saying. It might work but it's quite possible it won't either. Maybe if she has a good lawyer and protests that policeman never actually found a phone and didn't even bother searching for it...

Well OP claimed she doesn't even own a phone. That there should pretty much be the end of it.

Oh, right, yeah, I don't have a cellphone registered to my name so there's no way I could own one. That's not going to hold water for a second. The courts expect people to lie to get out of these things.
Maybe if she got a huge list of reputable witnesses to swear she'd never owned a mobile, but even then who's to say she doesn't just use it for calling other people?

No offense (although I doubt you could find this offensive) but you haven't had many dealings with the police have you?

also plz note edit to previous post

 

[Squarez]

Police Officers, or traffic officers in this case must have "reasonable grounds to believe [whatever they charge you with]" if your friend wasn't talking on the phone, she can appeal the ticket and have it repealed.

The system works.

That's not always easy. How can she prove that she wasn't talking on a cell phone? A video? If she had a video showing that she wasn't talking on the phone, she would still likely be charged with the same basic offense.

Actually, this is the problem I have with red light camera's that can issue tickets. What if you weren't driving? How can you prove that you weren't driving? Was it your friend? Mother? Maybe you were being rushed to the hospital? Was your car stolen? Worse yet, they can issue tickets if you were for all intents and purposes through the light (A coworker got a ticket from such an offense and it said the light had been red for about 1 second). It's completely unfair. And who do you argue against in court? The picture?

Also, never talk to the police. It literally can't help you.

As I said in a previous post, OP claimed his friend was scratching her ear and doesn't even own a cell phone. There's your case right there. As for your friend who ran a red light. That's why they have orange lights. If you run a red light, even it's been red for 1 second or 1 hour you get a fine. That's just the law.

Also, there are loads of ways of proving your innocence or at least to argue your case. If you weren't driving? They have a picture of your car. If it was stolen? Police record. Driving to the hospital? Witness and hospital record. Simples.

Police Officers, or traffic officers in this case must have "reasonable grounds to believe [whatever they charge you with]" if your friend wasn't talking on the phone, she can appeal the ticket and have it repealed.

The system works.

But the appeal won't necesarily succeed will it? She can't prove she wasn't and in a case like this they may well just take the policemans word for it. I do get what OP is saying. It might work but it's quite possible it won't either. Maybe if she has a good lawyer and protests that policeman never actually found a phone and didn't even bother searching for it...

Well OP claimed she doesn't even own a phone. That there should pretty much be the end of it.

Oh, right, yeah, I don't have a cellphone registered to my name so there's no way I could own one. That's not going to hold water for a second. The courts expect people to lie to get out of these things.
Maybe if she got a huge list of reputable witnesses to swear she'd never owned a mobile, but even then who's to say she doesn't just use it for calling other people?

No offense (although I doubt you could find this offensive) but you haven't had many dealings with the police have you?

Most will try to lie to get out of a ticket to the officer when being given it; it's to be expected. But I doubt you'd find many people willing to go to take their city council to court to appeal the ticket, go under oath and then lie. Especially when it'd be so easy to find out if you are lying.

And I don't know what you class as a "dealings with the police". I once parked illegally, and I paid the ticket. So I doubt that counts. But I do have quite a bit of knowledge of the law and I do know that the only defence that doesn't "hold water" in court for this kind of offence is "I didn't know it was illegal" or something.

 

[Kortney]

I'm having a hard time reading this... why would a police officer give a ticket for scratching someones ear?

Because they thought she had a mobile phone up to her ear. A similar thing happened to my sister when she was in the USA. She had an ear ache and was driving home covering her ear in intense pain. A copper pulled her over a few metres from where she was staying and went to issue her a ticket for talking on a phone whilst driving. Thankfully he realised his error and believed my sister (probably due to her being in tears from the pain) and let her go but I have no troubles believing that many people have been incorrectly fined.

 

[Thaliur]

As far as I know, you may be arrested and there would be charges against you. Unless the plaintiff or prosecutor proves that you are guilty and you are declared as such by the jury, you are innocent.

Oddly it ain't the same on the street, polices are like Judge Dread. They give you a ticket without actually figuring if you are guilty and tells you you have 30 days to prove your innocence.

This is mainly because police officers on the road usually respond immediately.
You're driving too fast - You get a ticket
You ignore a red light - You get a ticket

And so on. Of course, all these tickets are usually just preliminary. If you pay, that's a kind of confession, and until you do, you can counteract.

 

[Saltyk]

Police Officers, or traffic officers in this case must have "reasonable grounds to believe [whatever they charge you with]" if your friend wasn't talking on the phone, she can appeal the ticket and have it repealed.

The system works.

That's not always easy. How can she prove that she wasn't talking on a cell phone? A video? If she had a video showing that she wasn't talking on the phone, she would still likely be charged with the same basic offense.

Actually, this is the problem I have with red light camera's that can issue tickets. What if you weren't driving? How can you prove that you weren't driving? Was it your friend? Mother? Maybe you were being rushed to the hospital? Was your car stolen? Worse yet, they can issue tickets if you were for all intents and purposes through the light (A coworker got a ticket from such an offense and it said the light had been red for about 1 second). It's completely unfair. And who do you argue against in court? The picture?

Also, never talk to the police. It literally can't help you.

As I said in a previous post, OP claimed his friend was scratching her ear and doesn't even own a cell phone. There's your case right there. As for your friend who ran a red light. That's why they have orange lights. If you run a red light, even it's been red for 1 second or 1 hour you get a fine. That's just the law.

Also, there are loads of ways of proving your innocence or at least to argue your case. If you weren't driving? They have a picture of your car. If it was stolen? Police record. Driving to the hospital? Witness and hospital record. Simples.

The thing is, if a police officer pulled your friend over, they'd get the ticket and there would never be an issue. But the camera automatically sends you the ticket. Then, you have to take the time, probably missing work considering the hours the courts have, to prove that you weren't driving. Also, a police officer can choose to give you a warning. It's up to his discretion whether you get a ticket or a warning.

I've even heard some people advocate cameras to give you speeding tickets on the interstate. I have huge problems with the idea that a soulless machine will be giving me a fine.

Of course there are whole other issues that we can take with the "guilty until proven innocent" concept that the OP brought up. Even I am guilty of thinking that any person that is in court is almost certainly guilty of the crime they are being charged with. It seems less and less like we are innocent in court. More often you have to prove that you are innocent. The burden of proof should be on the prosecution not the defendant.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

sdrawkcab si gnihtyrevE

Hopefully you're not Zatanna

?

In DCUO, she casts spells forward. I bugged that immediately. Then forgave her because of the fishnets.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

The thing is, if a police officer pulled your friend over, they'd get the ticket and there would never be an issue. But the camera automatically sends you the ticket. Then, you have to take the time, probably missing work considering the hours the courts have, to prove that you weren't driving. Also, a police officer can choose to give you a warning. It's up to his discretion whether you get a ticket or a warning.

I've even heard some people advocate cameras to give you speeding tickets on the interstate. I have huge problems with the idea that a soulless machine will be giving me a fine.

Of course there are whole other issues that we can take with the "guilty until proven innocent" concept that the OP brought up. Even I am guilty of thinking that any person that is in court is almost certainly guilty of the crime they are being charged with. It seems less and less like we are innocent in court. More often you have to prove that you are innocent. The burden of proof should be on the prosecution not the defendant.

This probably won't surprise you, but in the UK the static speed cameras take a picture of the front of the car as well so if you weren't driving you will have backup. This is precisely because a lot of people were saying "weren't me drivin guv, prove otherwise" and getting tickets thrown out.

 

[imperialreign]

Police Officers, or traffic officers in this case must have "reasonable grounds to believe [whatever they charge you with]" if your friend wasn't talking on the phone, she can appeal the ticket and have it repealed.

The system works.

Yeah, but you have to waste your time to go into court to fight it, and if the judge doesn't believe you, you have to waste more of your time to go through the appeal process.

I was once ticketed with throwing a lit cigarette from a vehicle - even though I had no cigarettes on me that day (I was driving my father's truck and the smell of cigarette smoke heavily bothers him). It came from the Jeep in front of me, but the officer didn't believe a damn word I said.

Had to go into court to fight it, judge didn't believe me, so he fined me $250 for the offense. I appealed the decision, then had to go back into court 3 months later for the appeal . . . the circuit court judge listened to me, but still didn't 100% believe me - even though my father was there to testify, and the officer couldn't recall the specifics of the incident when I was given the opportunity to question him, or whether there was a vehicle in front of me or not (even though we were sitting at a red light) . . . not to mention, when I asked him what color the cigarette butt was, and he responded "white," and I then explained to the judge that what I've smoked for the last 10 years has a black filter, not white nor brown (and had brought them into court to show him) - I was still judged "guilty" and the judge reduced the fine to $25 . . . although the offense is listed as a misdemeanor in our state, so it goes on my criminal record. During the appeal hearing, I requested representation as well (I figured if I'm fighting a criminal offense, something that will go on my permanent record, I should have a lawyer . . . and I can't afford one) - which, I wasn't given, as the charge must carry the possibility of jail time for a punishment for the court to appoint a lawyer to represent you (which, is absolute BS IMHO).

. . . and I couldn't further appeal the case, either, as I would've needed a lawyer to do so, and again, I couldn't afford it.