Talk about BS !

[RedFeather]

Again, I go zipping through a school zone, the cop doesn't need to radar me, so far as I'm concerned. We're not talking about a police state here. Just common sense. I think someone who is a professional driver (as I am sure a patrolman would qualify) can tell a judge that another was going significantly in excess of the speed limit, in order to charge them with reckless driving. Maybe not nail it down to inches but good enough for that. In many, many cases, it has always come down to your word against the police when other evidence is not available. Remember, the cop is also an eye witness.

Now, in England, when radar was first being used, there was a case of a professor (who's specialty was radio waves) being ticketed for speeding when he knew he was not. Upon examining the equipment, the good doctor determined that it had been calibrated using an iron fence post across the street, which, due to its configuration, gave false returns. He prooved this by writing out the math on a large, rolling chalkboard in the courtroom. To which the judged, upon examining the lines of calculations, said "Case dismissed!" (As if he knew.)  

[North Pack]

School zones aren't the issue here - if a cop is there he should be equipped to do the job he's there for. - We already have the technology to help him do that job - and do it well. Like everything else,  - our financial system, school requirements, one VERY long list - we're "watering down" our society. Now, the police don't have to secure evidence for a conviction??? Hello, - what's wrong with this idea??? - RF my friend - this approach/idea WILL NOT stop at speeding tickets, these things never do.

[Big_Bill]

Well Red,

If we are using "common sense" why did the police need to follow you for 1/4 mile before giving you a ticket, in the old days ?

Common Sense tells us if you let the camel get his nose under the tent, it's gonna be hard to get the camel out !

Today speed, tomorrow disturbing the piece, it will not stop no its own. Ounce you give up your rights to confront your accuser, you have no rights ! And questioning someone concerning their opinion is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt !!!!

The professor was able to disprove the radar due to his education and experience. But you or I would be hard pressed to explain why the machine said that you were speeding, when you know that you were not !

And we would need to hire experts to prove it $$$$$.$$

THE LAW SAYS THAT YOU ARE INOCENT UNTIL proven GULITY ! Opinion is not proof !

Bill

[jay morgan]

DID you even read the lead to this thread RF,no one here is saying someone flat a$$ flying in school zone's or someone just flat flying any where should not get pulled over an gotten for speeding,IT's about a cop being able to give you a ticket on his OPINION if your going 10 or so over the speed limit here in ohio A LAW & no one can judge speed that well at a couple of hundred yard's! NOT even a highly trained sniper can do it with a 20 power scope & I have several friend's who are cop's an guess what, they are just HUMAN,not ONE I know has any super power's & most fall way short of range/speed est. compared even to my old broken down well trained grunt a$$, it is not possible for a human to do this with any acc. at all, I know this for a fact my friend & like everyone here is saying THIS lead's too a grey area that WE as FREEMEN can not allow in a free state or country, way to easy for them to abuse these power's & they will !!!! just stop an look around? you might want to give up your freedom's! NOT ME this is still our land & a OPINION is NOT enough for a court of law & we HERE in ohio better stand UP !!! I know I HAVE already  on this issue.

[RedFeather]

Yes, I am literate and DID read the linked article. It said nothing about the circumstances surrounding the arrest. f you had more information, being from Ohio, you should share it.

[jay morgan]

IT IS A LAWWWW!!!!!!!!! NOT joe blow just getting a ticket for speeding, IT's FOR ALL OF OHIO & if you had read it you would of seen it state that!!! IT passed 5 to 1 in our highest court THAT IF A COP THINK'S YOU ARE SPEEDING IN HIS HONEST(what a joke) 'OPINION', IT WILL STAND UP IN COURT!!!!!!!no need of a speed gun,no need to follow too judge speed NOTHING BUT" HIS" FRIGGEN OPINION on it if your guilty or not!!!DO YOU SEE OUR POINT NOW?

[longislandhunter]

Police officers in New York have been permitted by the courts and the law  to issue speeding tickets based solely on the officers personal estimation of speed for for a long time.  The NY law enforcement training certification standards require that officers receive standardized training in the "personal, unaided estimation of speed of moving vehicles".  During the training the officers are required to estimate the speed of moving vehicles in a variety of situations and the officers speed estimation is then compared against a calibrated, certified radar unit being operated by an officer certified to operate radar units.  In order to pass the training the officers speed estimates must be within + or - 5 mph of the actual speed of the vehicles as per the radar unit.  Written training records are maintained on each officers  accuracy rate.  Those officers that consistently maintain the required + or -  5mph degree of accuracy are then certified to issue speeding summonses based solely on their personal speed estimations.  Those officers that cannot attain the required level of accuracy would not be certified to issue such summons.  When testifying in court for  a summonses issued  solely on your personal estimation of speed a NY officer is required to testify to the court as to his/her academy training  and also required to testify that he/she has continued to practice the skill on a daily basis during routine patrol duties , comparing their speed estimates to the calibrated speedometers in their patrol vehicles and or calibrated radar equipment and that their degree of accuracy has continued to fall within the required  "plus or minus 5 mph" of the verified speed of the vehicles being targeted.   During my 22 year career in NY law enforcement I can honestly say that I only saw perhaps a handful of officers in my department ever issue such a summonses.  The few times that I was present in court when an officer was testifying on such a summons each time the judge took the "plus or minus 5 mph" accuracy rate into consideration and while he did find the motorists guilty he also lowered the speed that the offender was found guilty of thereby lowering the fine.  If the officer were to fail to mention the required training information during his/her court testimony then the judge should, by law, find the motorist "not guilty".  

I'm not trying to be "pro" or "con" on this issue, just adding to the discussion some information regarding the issue that some may find interesting and perhaps useful in court if you should ever receive such a summons  in New York.  

Jeff

[jay morgan]

That is interesting JEFF, can you tell me how many policemen "passed" this testing an if in your time as a patrol cop you think it possible that someone is able to do this with acc.?

[longislandhunter]

Jay,  all the guys/girls in my academy class passed the training.  I know this because we all attended the training classes as a group.  As for all the remaining cops in my department I have no idea who passed and who didn't as I honestly never  asked anyone how they did, I guess I just assumed they all passed.  

As for whether I believe an officer can perform this skill accurately on a routine basis...... my answer would be yes, some officers  are easily capable of doing it.  However I also know that some officers are not capable of doing it as accurately as others officers on a routine basis.  Whether an officer can perform this skill accurately depends greatly on their level of experience with the skill as well as their innate ability, or inability, to judge speed accurately.  Just like any other skill some people will be naturally good at it and some people will not.  Some officers  may increase their accuracy level as they spend more time practicing the skill and some officers may never get any better at it no matter what they do or how long they are on the force.  

During my years in the profession, my last 8 years being at the rank of sergeant and supervising a squad of patrol officers, I observed officers who demonstrated excellent skills when it came to performing traffic control duties, issuing summonses, accident investigation and testifying in court.  I also observed officers whos skills in those areas were not as refined as I thought they should be.  In  those cases I made it a point to increase the officers training in the areas where training enhancement was required.  Some of the officers responded to the increased training very well, others didn't respond as well as I might have wished for.  

Cops are no different than any other profession... you have good ones and you have poor ones.  Sometimes it's just the luck of the draw which one you encounter.  I wish that wasn't so, but it's just the way it is...

Jeff

[jay morgan]

I Thank you JEFF for your fast an thoughtful answer's,I too spent many year's in a field where time est., speed of approach & other matter's came into account in our action's,but other than a man at a distance being able to semi. give a "close" guesstament on real speed(useing known distance marking's & such)I would say I saw very few if any that at say 50 or even 100 yard's could go "yeah" 55 m.p.h.,If I may could you tell me how you where shown how to do this at close range(such thing's  have interest for me)I was married into a cop family & I really do have several friend's who are cop's ,BUT I still do not believe a person's opinion(even trained) should stand in a court of law & I can see how this new law here in ohio can be used to go into that grey area, an be abused way to easy on my right's as a freeman.WE need law's, it's what make's us a free nation, but we can't let opinion's  enter them!! and really I guess I need to find more info, because I did not know other state's have had this" opinion" thing on the book's?

[longislandhunter]

Jay,, I can certainly understand Ohio residents  being concerned and upset over their  states new law, especially concerns that such a law invites potential  "abuse of power"  by the police, however if  you look at it logically a police officer doesn't need this law to abuse his power in order to issue you a summons, he can give you a summons any time he wants for anything he wants with or without this new law.  A police officer in Ohio, or any other state, is given enormous power and authority by the people he serves and all one can do is hope that the police departments carefully screen their candidates to insure that only those individuals who can truly be trusted with such power are hired  to serve the people.  In a perfect world all  police officers  would posses the personal  honor and integrity to negate the public  fear of "abuse of power" , but unfortunately we all know we don't live in a perfect world and if you have a cop that just "has it in for you" and he wants to give you a ticket then you're going to get a ticket with or without this new law.  It's just the way it is.  That being said I still believe that 99% of all cops everywhere are honest, hard working, decent men and women who serve the public to the best of their abilities.  Unfortunately it's that 1%, like any other profession, that cause all the problems and give everyone else a bad name.  Hopefully you'll never run into that 1% but if you do at least you are entitled to your day in court if you decide to take advantage of it.  

Jay, please don't take my comments to mean I'm defending the law because I'm not.  If the people of Ohio do not want this law on the books then I hope they continue the legal fight and work to get the law overturned.  It's up to the people.  


Jeff

[jay morgan]

THANK's again JEFF for your thought's on this matter & I  will continue to fight this and all LAW's I find unfare as I do believe it's not a law unless THE PEOPLE except it as so! we still at this time have a voice in the process(for now)(an THERE are many other law's out that need even more attention)I just wish WE would stand as a country & say ENOUGH!!!sad we have become a nation of sheeppel with only a few old dog's watching out for the other" flocker's".STAY SAFE & LATER!!

[redtank]

You wanna talk about BS? My wife gets pulled over today (her B-day) and given the riot act about wearing her seat belt under her left arm. She's had two mastectomy's  and can't always tolerate the pain of wearing the belt over her chest. A North Richland Hills motor cops says "get a doctors excuse" so she can drive friendly and safe in the future. At least she didn't get a citation; that would have frosted her "nuts" :-)

Cris

[RedFeather]

Jay, what don't YOU know about manners on these forums? Chill, man.

[jay morgan]

Don't even go there "DUDE".my manner's are fine! It would seem to be people spouting off & not fully understanding what they are saying that got me (REMEMBER WHO).DID you miss any point's on this.AN OHHH BIG mean capital letter's ,I'm so FRIGGEN sorry" YEAH RIGHT".