I was arrested at lunch..

[Damocles]

I told him I did not require corrective lenses. I did not tell him I had no lenses on my eyes.

LOL. Again. You need "reasonable" doubt. No reasonable person would assume you wore them while you insisted you didn't need them.

Only a lawyer would attempt to use this as a way out of the embarrassing fact that he handed the cop all the evidence he needed to convict.

 

[Jarod]

LOL. Again. You need "reasonable" doubt. No reasonable person would assume you wore them while you insisted you didn't need them.

Only a lawyer would attempt to use this as a way out of the embarrassing fact that he handed the cop all the evidence he needed to convict.

At the time I was not trying to get out of anything. I did not even think about the idea I might get such a silly citation. Doctors make the worse patients. What I said to the cop is not enough evidence to convict me, but it will never get to the evidence phase so I will never get to prove that to you.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

Then tell me....

Are you saying that the law should never be enforced?

That every cop should become qualified to give eye exams?

That this particular cop should have shown leniency because you said so?

What exactly are you saying precious? Because you stated that YOUR case is one that the law was not intended for. Meaning that because you 'claimed to have had surgery the cop should have believed you'. To which many have pointed out.... ANYONE can CLAIM that. whether it was true in your case or not is irrelevant.

 

[Jarod]

Then tell me....

Are you saying that the law should never be enforced?

That every cop should become qualified to give eye exams?

That this particular cop should have shown leniency because you said so?

What exactly are you saying precious? Because you stated that YOUR case is one that the law was not intended for. Meaning that because you 'claimed to have had surgery the cop should have believed you'. To which many have pointed out.... ANYONE can CLAIM that. whether it was true in your case or not is irrelevant.

I am saying police should be reasonable when charging people, not just me, for crimes. They should look at all the evidence they have and make a REASONABLE decision, and err on the side of restraint. It was clear I can see better than any required standard.

 

[Damocles]

At the time I was not trying to get out of anything. I did not even think about the idea I might get such a silly citation. Doctors make the worse patients. What I said to the cop is not enough evidence to convict me, but it will never get to the evidence phase so I will never get to prove that to you.

I always keep that kind of stuff in the front of my mind when speaking to cops. Don't give them the evidence they need. When he asked about that it had to cross your mind. What you said was definitely enough to convict you, if you actually were foolish enough to bring it to trial. Of course, it will be dismissed, like I said in what is probably my first post in the thread.

 

[Jarod]

I always keep that kind of stuff in the front of my mind when speaking to cops. Don't give them the evidence they need. When he asked about that it had to cross your mind. What you said was definitely enough to convict you, if you actually were foolish enough to bring it to trial. Of course, it will be dismissed, like I said in what is probably my first post in the thread.

Yup, I have to learn to have more disrespect for cops upon first encounter.

 

[Damocles]

Yup, I have to learn to have more disrespect for cops upon first encounter.

It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect, it has everything to do with the fact that they seek evidence for crimes. Some of them get stuck in that mode and anything you give them will be used.

I learned this when I had a car accident and the cop asked if I was wearing my belt at the time. And instead of saying "I don't remember" I said "no." He wasn't doing it to be a jerk he was just being a cop in his own style.

 

[Jarod]

It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect, it has everything to do with the fact that they seek evidence for crimes. Some of them get stuck in that mode and anything you give them will be used.

I learned this when I had a car accident and the cop asked if I was wearing my belt at the time. And instead of saying "I don't remember" I said "no." He wasn't doing it to be a jerk he was just being a cop in his own style.

Achually now that I give it more thought, this guy had me legally detained and did not read me my rights before asking questions...

I belive I could get anything I said thrown out!

 

[Jarod]

Why was your belt an issue in your accident?

 

[Damocles]

Achually now that I give it more thought, this guy had me legally detained and did not read me my rights before asking questions...

I belive I could get anything I said thrown out!

Not unless he had already arrested you. During the phase before arrest you can be questioned and offer information. It wasn't until after he handed you the ticket that you were at the phase where your rights would be necessary.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am saying police should be reasonable when charging people, not just me, for crimes. They should look at all the evidence they have and make a REASONABLE decision, and err on the side of restraint. It was clear I can see better than any required standard.

You continue saying that. Despite being told over and over again that your eyesight is NOT clear to another person by simply looking at you. You are projecting a responsibility onto the cop to be an eye examiner. The cop is NOT qualified to do so.

The EVIDENCE was that you had a restricted license and as much admitted to not wearing corrective lenses by saying that you didn't need them. Despite what your license said to the cop.

The cop is NOT to err on the side of restraint of giving a ticket. The cops job is to err on the side of protection of the public. The cop knows that if you did indeed have surgery, all you have to do is show evidence to the DA and the charges will be dropped.

If however you did not have the surgery, then you would be fined for not following the restriction and thus hopefully learn a lesson not to violate the restriction again. Which again errs on the side of public safety.

Again, this does not mean that the cop couldn't have shown leniency. But he is not required to do so and in your case, I would guess leniency was not warranted.

 

[Damocles]

Why was your belt an issue in your accident?

It wasn't. He asked, and I foolishly answered. See how that works? Your eyesight wasn't an issue in your speeding either.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yup, I have to learn to have more disrespect for cops upon first encounter.

My guess is that is the attitude that resulted in a lack of leniency to begin with.

 

[Jarod]

You continue saying that. Despite being told over and over again that your eyesight is NOT clear to another person by simply looking at you. You are projecting a responsibility onto the cop to be an eye examiner. The cop is NOT qualified to do so.

The EVIDENCE was that you had a restricted license and as much admitted to not wearing corrective lenses by saying that you didn't need them. Despite what your license said to the cop.

The cop is NOT to err on the side of restraint of giving a ticket. The cops job is to err on the side of protection of the public. The cop knows that if you did indeed have surgery, all you have to do is show evidence to the DA and the charges will be dropped.

If however you did not have the surgery, then you would be fined for not following the restriction and thus hopefully learn a lesson not to violate the restriction again. Which again errs on the side of public safety.

Again, this does not mean that the cop couldn't have shown leniency. But he is not required to do so and in your case, I would guess leniency was not warranted.

The cop knew I could see perfectly fine, otherwise he would not have allowed me to drive away!

 

[a11n]

 

[Damocles]

apparently you do. You keep choosing to read this thread.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The cop knew I could see perfectly fine, otherwise he would not have allowed me to drive away!

Bullshit... because that is one area they do not typically arrest someone. Like proof of insurance, they typically ticket you and let you drive away. Unless it is clear that you are seriously impaired. But as stated, you do not have to have seriously impaired vision to require the use of corrective lenses.

 

[Jarod]

Bullshit... because that is one area they do not typically arrest someone. Like proof of insurance, they typically ticket you and let you drive away. Unless it is clear that you are seriously impaired. But as stated, you do not have to have seriously impaired vision to require the use of corrective lenses.

He did not have to arrest me, he could have merely told me he would arrest me if I tried to drive away.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

He did not have to arrest me, he could have merely told me he would arrest me if I tried to drive away.

Easy precious. He gave you a ticket, he did not haul you to jail. Deal with it. Your constant need to blame the cop is nothing short of pathetic.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am saying police should be reasonable when charging people, not just me, for crimes. They should look at all the evidence they have and make a REASONABLE decision, and err on the side of restraint. It was clear I can see better than any required standard.

I think you are still missing the point, the police officer's job is merely to enforce the laws on the books, it is up to a judge to evaluate evidence and decide if you intended to break the law, or if you were just a victim of circumstance. Your actual eyesight is not "clear" to anyone other than a professional trained eye examiner. My father drove until we took his keys away, claiming he could see just fine, he was almost legally blind. People are proud when it comes to their sight, and often over-state their ability.

The cop was doing what he is paid to do, he issued you a citation for breaking the law, and you did break the law. The next phase, the court case before a judge, is where consideration of evidence comes into play. Your best bet is to admit you violated the law, but offer the evidence of your corrected vision and give your explanation. It's reasonable, most people can understand it, and most courts would give you the benefit of the doubt. If you go in there all cocky and arrogant, like you are being here, the judge might just decide that you broke the law, regardless of your excuse, and fine you for it.

I think you need to get down off your high horse and humble yourself a little. No one likes a smart ass, especially not judges. Stop blaming the cop who was just doing his job, and accept responsibility for what YOU did wrong. Had you gone and gotten a new driver's license, none of this would have happened, correct? So, it is YOUR fault it happened, not the cops! YOU broke the law and the cop just did what we pay cops to do. We pay judges to evaluate evidence and decide on guilt or innocence.