I was arrested at lunch..

Jarod said:
I never denied this, I merely think its a waste of judical resources and police resources and a waste of good will in the community for the police to be doing this.
Click to expand...
I think it keeps people safer when he cites people for not wearing their eye-crutches. Not everybody has had the surgery done.
 
Damocles said:
I think it keeps people safer when he cites people for not wearing their eye-crutches. Not everybody has had the surgery done.
Click to expand...

I bet 100% of those he cites have had surgery, before the surgery I would not have been able to find my car without my eye crutches.

Plus, if he simply asked the driver to read his badge from 20 feet he would know!
 
Jarod said:
I never denied this, I merely think its a waste of judical resources and police resources and a waste of good will in the community for the police to be doing this.
Click to expand...
It would have caused far less waste for you to have refreshed your license as needed, and to simply pay the fine for the infraction of which you are guilty.

YOU are the source of waste here.
 
Jarod said:
I bet 100% of those he cites have had surgery, before the surgery I would not have been able to find my car without my eye crutches.

Plus, if he simply asked the driver to read his badge from 20 feet he would know!
Click to expand...
People who are far-sighted could do that without eye-crutches.

The cop is not trained nor is he in the correct circumstances to make such judgment accurately. Imagine his guilt if he let that one go who kills a family.

It makes the streets safer, but you want him to stop because you have been slightly inconvenienced.
 
Jarod said:
I bet 100% of those he cites have had surgery, before the surgery I would not have been able to find my car without my eye crutches.

Plus, if he simply asked the driver to read his badge from 20 feet he would know!
Click to expand...

I will gladly take that bet. Not everyone required to use corrective lenses is at the stage that they are blind as a bat.
 
Damocles said:
People who are far-sighted could do that without eye-crutches.

The cop is not trained nor is he in the correct circumstances to make such judgment accurately. Imagine his guilt if he let that one go who kills a family.

It makes the streets safer, but you want him to stop because you have been slightly inconvenienced.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he had to send his lawyer friend to his judge friend to get the issue settled.... but wait... he was likely going to do that for the speeding ticket anyway.

The true inconvenience is to the cop given that precious filed a complaint with another AG friend of his and plans to call the cops Chief of police to bitch some more afterwards. All because the law shouldn't have been applied to precious.
 
Jarod said:
I dont really know much about the pay. I belive it is about average, but I am not sure. THere are some very good police, but we also have more than our share of the local bully who never got respect in High School so he is taking it out on people now.
Click to expand...

If they have their bully quota full then I've got no hope. I'll stay here. :cof1:
 
Jarod said:
I would not, its not a legal argument. Sure the cop should not have enforced a law that he caught me with, on a loophole. But I agree, technically, I was in violation of the law, and thus would not make such an argument in a courtroom. My argument is a public policy argument.

I might, after the case was over, ask the judge to comment on the stupidity of having arrested me on this charge. I have already had the State Attorneys office make a complaint against the officer. They have called his chief and asked them to take a look at the policy and to be more reasonable with the cases they send in.
Click to expand...

De minimis non curat lex - or doesn't that fly in Fla.???
 
Jarod said:
I bet 100% of those he cites have had surgery, before the surgery I would not have been able to find my car without my eye crutches.

Plus, if he simply asked the driver to read his badge from 20 feet he would know!
Click to expand...


Again, you are expecting a police officer to play "judge" and evaluate evidence, that isn't his/her job. The law says you are required to have a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle, and your license was issued with a restriction. This means, it is only valid if you adhere to the restriction. The officer is in no position to evaluate your eyesight, and it's not his job to do that, and even if he did do that, it doesn't negate the fact you violated the law and operated a motor vehicle without adhering to the restriction of your license.

Now, let me tell ya... IF you suck up your pride, go in there with your hat in hand and admit you were at fault and shouldn't have been driving in violation of the law, the liberal ass idiot on the bench will probably dismiss the charges and send you on your way... BUT, if you sachet into the courtroom with your prissy little swagger, popping off your smart arrogant liberal elitist mouth like you do here, and threatening to report the officer and sue the city, you will probably end up paying a nice little fine.
 
Dixie said:
Again, you are expecting a police officer to play "judge" and evaluate evidence, that isn't his/her job. The law says you are required to have a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle, and your license was issued with a restriction. This means, it is only valid if you adhere to the restriction. The officer is in no position to evaluate your eyesight, and it's not his job to do that, and even if he did do that, it doesn't negate the fact you violated the law and operated a motor vehicle without adhering to the restriction of your license.

Now, let me tell ya... IF you suck up your pride, go in there with your hat in hand and admit you were at fault and shouldn't have been driving in violation of the law, the liberal ass idiot on the bench will probably dismiss the charges and send you on your way... BUT, if you sachet into the courtroom with your prissy little swagger, popping off your smart arrogant liberal elitist mouth like you do here, and threatening to report the officer and sue the city, you will probably end up paying a nice little fine.
Click to expand...

Ive never threatened to sue the city... I would not, legally could not do that! Read the thread before pretending you know what you are talking about. What a joke you, and your kind have become to this naton.
 
Jarod said:
Citing me was not enforcing that law as it was ment to be enforced.
Click to expand...

That right... I forgot... that law only applies to OTHER people. The cop is supposed to be an eye specialist as well. You are an idiot. There is little doubt in my mind why the cop showed you no leniency.
 
Superfreak said:
That right... I forgot... that law only applies to OTHER people. The cop is supposed to be an eye specialist as well. You are an idiot. There is little doubt in my mind why the cop showed you no leniency.
Click to expand...
I am personally stunned that a lawyer gave him all the evidence he needed, even stating he wasn't following the law.
 
Superfreak said:
That right... I forgot... that law only applies to OTHER people. The cop is supposed to be an eye specialist as well. You are an idiot. There is little doubt in my mind why the cop showed you no leniency.
Click to expand...

I never said I want the law applied any differently to me. You keep saying that, but its not true. I know it might help you to try to make yourself or others belive it, but saying it over and over again does not make it true.
 
Jarod said:
I never said I was not following the law.
Click to expand...
You didn't tell him you didn't have lenses on? You told him no when he asked if you had corrective lenses on, did you not?

You certainly did give him every piece of evidence he needed. I wouldn't do that. There's this thing called the 5th Amendment...
 
Damocles said:
You didn't tell him you didn't have lenses on? You told him no when he asked if you had corrective lenses on, did you not?

You certainly did give him every piece of evidence he needed. I wouldn't do that. There's this thing called the 5th Amendment...
Click to expand...

I told him I did not require corrective lenses. I did not tell him I had no lenses on my eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top