Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cops & Judges Caught Using Secret Codes On Tickets

page: 16
52
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by rcwj1975
 


I'm sure you get this all the time where a lot of people get into a heated argument saying how they shouldn't get a ticket stating every reason EXCEPT the actual traffic violation.

I'm actually a certified traffic school instructor [weekends] and most of the people that walk into class complain or rant on how "safely" they did something or how nobody was hurt or no other cars were around, and that's why they shouldn't have gotten a ticket. They play the gender card, the race card, etc. Most of the time, I spend telling them that it doesn't matter about any of that but the actual legality of the issue. Because most of them understand what violation they committed but some have a hard time accepting that the violation is what got them there and not anything else.

All drivers [if not, most] have committed a traffic violation before whether they were caught or not. We should be mature about it and accept it because you get tickets for violating traffic laws. Whether you get a code or no code, the important thing is the traffic violation.

You'd be surprised by how many people come to contest their ticket only to argue how they drove through a stop sign safely so their ticket should be voided.

That's not to say some cops out there aren't corrupted. But it isn't always a conspiracy surrounding every traffic violation officer.




posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rjmelter
reply to post by ..5..
 

I have a feeling still though that the people who committed the crime was either family or friend to one of yours.



It was a crime of opportunity. The guy was a hobo drug addict tht I had never seen before.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj1975

Originally posted by richierich
Such logic fails the sound mind...the immoral stand that the police take is sickening. He assumes guilt BEFORE the trial..he is pronouncing all people he targets for arrest GUILTY, so he is in fact judging them...thank God it goes to a trained and real judge, one that has to answer to higher courts..if left to the cops this entire nation would be a police state with them as demi-gods.


You do know what probable cause is right? You do know what law is right? You do know that you can't have one without the other when you arrest right? So to place you in handcuffs and CHARGE you means I am not assuming anything...I don't walk down the street and put a guy in handcuffs and say, hey dude, your under arrest for robbing the back three weeks ago and then hope my case sticks...lol..get a clue man.


Probable cause does NOT equal GUILT, which you assume and pronounce at every arrest..but unless you have a 100% conviction rate, that means that SOME of the people you arrest are later found NOT guilty, which proves your assumption is wrong.

You put a guy in handcuffs and charge him and then fail to show for court, knwoing that an embarrassing dismissal would occur with you there...better have a dismissal without you facing the shame of an arrest that was bogus and shown to be because of the dismissal...I have seen MANY charges dismissed for LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE, and that means the cops were WRONg in the first place.

WE are NOT talking about a lack of probable cause...and your efforts to take the focus away from the main point is noted...we are talking about the immorality and illegality of making SECRET MESSAGES to a judge that could influence his decisions...and you admitted that is exactly what you want to do....put the screws to anyone that you find did not worship you enough...or that expressed his CONSTITUIONAL rights.

Have you No shame? Is the Constitution just something for you to wipe your ass on? you do it EVERY time you attempt to contravene the system by means of devious and UNOFFICIAL messages that are meant to cause more punishment than someone who did NOT use their constitutional rights....you are punishing true patriots who USE their rights, and that means you are an ENEMy of the law and the Constitution and deserve to be retrained until you adhere to the law and follow the rules.

Is there anyplace in your departments manual that permits the use of these signs? If not, then you simly, along with the other cops, devise and implement your OWN system!! I guess your system is better than the legal one, huh? sick sick sick.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by awakentired

My "license" is my constitutional right to travel.



Really? Quote for me the Article within the Constitution that declares this right, and I will personally take back anything and everything I have said in this thread, because I'm flipping through the Constitution right now (courtesy of the fine folks at Heritage) and I can't seem to find it mentioned anywhere.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Nope. I'm 19.


Got a traffic ticket once on an Air Force Base for turning right on red without coming to a complete stop. I completely deserved it. And guess what, I was nice to the policeman even though he was an ass to me!


Some people are just too stupid about laws that they don't think they did anything.

"What officer?? It's illegal to run a stop sign?"

Yes, there are people like that. A lot of them..



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by rcwj1975
 


You'd think by now everyone would know they are being filmed.

Politeness used to be a common courtesy, now it's almost a rarity....sad.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
The way it actually works in any courtroom, in a non-jury situation, is that the judge knows what they want to find. They just bend case law to make it happen.

Locally, what happens is the local magistrates know who elects them, so the police get what they want. At a higher level, what happens depends as much on the caprice of the judge, the cost of the lawyer, and how pissy the cop acts.

I've seen plenty of times where innocent people were found guilty for being pricks. And, conversely, more than a few where a guilty person acted well enough to get off.

Any system involving men is corrupt. :/ But, one way to prevent this is not to fund stupidity and have a zillion officers protecting communities that don't have real crime issues.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj1975
reply to post by rjmelter
 



He says he has all the answers, ok so 5 tell me this:

Last year in the US there were:

just over 2.5 million burglaries and
just over 2.9 million robberies

Thats totals 5.4 incidents where stuff was taken by bad guys.

There are 800,000 cops total in the US. According to you, we suck and have no idea how to get stuff back or find those responsible. Can you see the sheer issue with just numbers alone (since you like numbers so much)? Not to mention the REALITY in no trace evidence, no witnesses, etc...


So an officer can't solve five cases a year*? It took maybe 100 hours online to find the person who moved out of state and changed his name. and as for no evidence there are always clues and you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see them.

Actually if you solve one case you have probably solved 10 because the criminal probably committed 10 or more crimes. But that would not be in your self interest now would it? No crime=no need for a police force.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by ..5..]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
First of all, RCWJ, you are fighting a losing battle here. I'm a supervisory FED LEO and I've gone round and round with some people here and come to one conclusion; people here have made up their mind about what they think about cops and another cop isn't going to change their mind. They either understand that we're not all the gestapo, or they lump us all together and brand us as jack-booted thugs. I don't think we can ever sway the latter group. But someday they will need a cop to be there and I wonder how full of contempt they will be then.

Anyway, that being said, I have to admit that even I have gotten sideways with a few of my "fellow" LEO's out there. I spent the last six years of my fed life in Texas and I will relate a story to you doubters out there about our so-called "good ole' boy system."

I got pulled over by a state trooper one night because I failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign before making a right turn onto a cross street. I will admit it; I committed a traffic violation; my truck did not come to a "complete" stop. The trooper saw this as he was driving the other direction and pulled a u-turn and lit me up. I signaled to pull over, pulled all the way off the roadway, rolled down all my windows, turned on my interior dome light and placed my hands on the steering wheel. Oh, and then I made my greatest mistake of the night; I tossed my cigarette butt out the window becasue I didn't want to be smoking in his face when he made contact.

As the trooper approached, he told me that he pulled me over for the stop sign violation. I was open and stated to him that I understood, admitting that I realized I had failed to come to a complete stop. He asked for my license. Understand this, I don't badge other cops if they pull me over. If they ask where I work, I will tell them, but I don't go out of my way to make it known. That being said, I do carry my badge and creds in my wallet. I also carry a gun, so it is important to have all those together. He didn't say it, but I'm pretty sure he caught a glimpse of the gold badge in my wallet. He looked at me hard for a minute and said, "I'm going to run your license; if you don't have any priors, I'm going to give you a warning for the stop sign," he then paused and pointed at the ground where I had dropped the cigarette butt, "and give you a ticket for littering." He walked off before I could say anything.

He came back, had me sign the ticket, explained the procedure for dealing with the ticket, asked me if I understood and then just walked back to his car and drove off. Was I wrong to not come to a complete stop at the sign? You bet. And I would have gladly paid that ticket. The cigarette butt, yeah, I that is littering. The fine for that ticket? $350.00. There is a term for that sort of ticket; it is called an "FU Ticket". I would have gladly gotten out of my truck and picked up the cigarette butt. To be honest, I dont' even remember dropping it; I didn't want to be smoking in the troopers face. I was never rude and I didn't make a big show about flashing my badge. But, he had the power to write that ticket and he did. He gave me a pass on the cheaper ticket but nailed me with the heavey hitter.

So what is the point of that long-winded story? My point is that, even being a LEO myself, I admit that there are cops out there who don't know how to leave their attitude at home. But I also understand that not all cops are like that. That is why I will still stop to back them up on the side of the road. I don't make a blanket judgment of all troopers based on one as*holes actions. And neither should any of you.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I do NOT lump ALL cops in one basket....I grew up in a cop family and have seen it all. BUT, if a cop is using secret signals to circumvent a defendants rights that is WRONG, and even YOU, Mr. Fed, failed to condemn this activity, and thats a shame...I have always found the Feds I have dealt with to be pretty cool and calm and much more educated than some deputy with a HS diploma.

Can you imagine what would happen to a Federal case, and the agent, if in court a Fed tried to sway the judge with secret signals? God Almighty the fur would fly!! Attempting to influence a judge might in some ways be considered a conspiracy to deprive civil rights, and if all the cops in a given area do this that is prima facia evidence for a conspiracy or at least a pattern of illegal activity that leads to the due process clause being shredded.

Cops, or at least many, seem to relish the thought that they deserve an exalted status in society and are insulted when anyone dares to question anything they do, as if they are above reproach!! There are WAY TOO MANY cases of police muder, police misconduct, police perjury,. etc. etc., for anyone to simply take a cops word for anything.

As for people like me begging a cop for help someday, it will NEVER happen...unless I pass out and an abulance takes me away, I will never purposely ask a cop for anything. If I cannot handle it, then too bad for me. I can defend my home, and cops cannot do that...taking a report later does not equal protection in any real sense..so if the cops never bothered me I would never bother them...fair enough?

I am STILL waiting for a Fed to say that this practice is WRONG and would never be imagined in any federal trial of any sort....local cops look to YOU guys for guidance and when you wink at excesses you are a part of the problem, not the solution.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


You got it; this behavior is WRONG. When I write an arrest report and I feel the need to point out the defendant's inappropriate behavior during the encounter, then I will do just that; spell it out directly in the report that has my name on it. If it is important enough to warrant notation, then I notate it. And sign my name to it.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JWH44
reply to post by richierich
 


You got it; this behavior is WRONG. When I write an arrest report and I feel the need to point out the defendant's inappropriate behavior during the encounter, then I will do just that; spell it out directly in the report that has my name on it. If it is important enough to warrant notation, then I notate it. And sign my name to it.



Hallelujah!! A PROFESSIONAL cop states that it is WRONG....and all you other cops out there...is the fed wrong, or are YOU? The law and the People say YOU are the problem!! Good for you fed..thank god at least some cops have a conscience.

By the way, I have seen defense attorneys jump all over ' attitude' descriptions in court because they can prejudice the defendant. Once the cop says the first few words they object and it is sustained and end of griping about attitude. The report you write will never, if it contains info NOT related to the OFFENSE , be introduced over defense objections, as it has NOTHING to do with the elements of the crime. Any lawyer worth a damn would object the moment any negative info was trying to be related about a defendant unless it had a bearing on the crime alleged, and that is rare as hens teeth.

Your OPINION of the defendant and his attitude has NO bearing on his guilt and so should be forbidden from discussion in court. No way would you be allowed to sit on a stand and berate and accuse the accused based only on your ' feelings' about his actions and how it made you upset.

Courts are for evidence of crime, NOT evidence of a free thinker that loves the Constitution!!



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


Please don't misunderstand me, I was not implying that attitude in and of itself should be brought into question. However, a subjects attitude and behavior, can, when coupled with other articulable facts/observations, elevate an officers level of suspicion to warrant further detention or a more thorough search. I shy away from giving specifics, but understand that a persons behavior/attitude during an encounter can be used to build a basis of suspicion that allows for further investigation. Attitude in and of itself is not reason for further detention/adverse action.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   


Hallelujah!! A PROFESSIONAL cop states that it is WRONG....and all you other cops out there...is the fed wrong, or are YOU? The law and the People say YOU are the problem!! Good for you fed..thank god at least some cops have a conscience.

By the way, I have seen defense attorneys jump all over ' attitude' descriptions in court because they can prejudice the defendant. Once the cop says the first few words they object and it is sustained and end of griping about attitude. The report you write will never, if it contains info NOT related to the OFFENSE , be introduced over defense objections, as it has NOTHING to do with the elements of the crime. Any lawyer worth a damn would object the moment any negative info was trying to be related about a defendant unless it had a bearing on the crime alleged, and that is rare as hens teeth.

Your OPINION of the defendant and his attitude has NO bearing on his guilt and so should be forbidden from discussion in court. No way would you be allowed to sit on a stand and berate and accuse the accused based only on your ' feelings' about his actions and how it made you upset.

Courts are for evidence of crime, NOT evidence of a free thinker that loves the Constitution!!


I knew the moment Mr. 44 posted his comment you would go off on a tangent about, ah ha, see I told you so kinda attitude.

The notes to the Judge are not going to make charges worse, only going to make sure they stick instead of giving you a break. And there are limits to the punishment a judge can give. So regardless of If you get an
or an
the system doesnt hurt anyone it only helps. Because you got issued the ticket... your going to court. It happened deal with it. Most of yall are associating the COP THINKING you have a bad attitude with your sentence. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. The only influence the Smiley of Frowny has is to say, this guy was being disrespectful, he had a negative attitude... dont cut him slack (as a lot of judges will do).

[edit on 4-3-2010 by rjmelter]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Well, think what you want. But a law enforcement officer should be held above reproach. He shouldn't partake in practices that can be called into question concerning their integrity. From a managers point of view, these actions call the officers integrity into question. Unfairly perhaps, but just look at this case. Look at the fallout from what to the cop was a harmless action. We have enough bad press as it is and our job is hard enough without adding fuel to the fire by playing little games with smiley faces on our official documents. If we hold ourselves to a higher standard of professionalism then we don't give the room for our integrity to be called into question. The public already distrusts us; why take clandestine, while possibly harmless, actions that only serve to further undermine what trust we have?



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JWH44
 


Well if you put it like that... then yes I agree it should be cut out. Officers should do what it takes to make Police work a little more professional. But with people whining and complaining about every little thing an officer does... When will it stop? If they have nothing to complain about anymore... they will find something.

Your are right... I'll give you that. But in school now they give you an Ethics grade. To me its the exact same thing.

Its a ticket, hes going to get it regardless and it shows how he was acting at the time of the incident. Seems fair to me. Although yes, some people may abuse it. Thats what needs to be watched.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JWH44
Well, think what you want. But a law enforcement officer should be held above reproach. He shouldn't partake in practices that can be called into question concerning their integrity. From a managers point of view, these actions call the officers integrity into question. Unfairly perhaps, but just look at this case. Look at the fallout from what to the cop was a harmless action. We have enough bad press as it is and our job is hard enough without adding fuel to the fire by playing little games with smiley faces on our official documents. If we hold ourselves to a higher standard of professionalism then we don't give the room for our integrity to be called into question. The public already distrusts us; why take clandestine, while possibly harmless, actions that only serve to further undermine what trust we have?



AMEN!!


AMEN!! Thats common sense if I ever heard it.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JWH44
reply to post by richierich
 


Please don't misunderstand me, I was not implying that attitude in and of itself should be brought into question. However, a subjects attitude and behavior, can, when coupled with other articulable facts/observations, elevate an officers level of suspicion to warrant further detention or a more thorough search. I shy away from giving specifics, but understand that a persons behavior/attitude during an encounter can be used to build a basis of suspicion that allows for further investigation. Attitude in and of itself is not reason for further detention/adverse action.



I agree...in part. The sad fact is that in common practice, there is NOTHING other than the ' attitude' that triggers an illegal reaction by the cop. There are many cops that would be highly suspicious of me: I refuse to answer ANY questions to a cop, and always tell them that I decline to be interviewed or make any comments, no consent, and am I free to leave? Thats it. Some cops take a perfectly legal stance by a citizen as ' suspicious' because we do not fall down trying to please the cop.

So, unless the cops ignore all but obvious evidence and stick to the facts, many more people will get hassled without cause. I read today that 90% of all searches of vehyicles gotten by badgering consent demands are found to be INNOCENT, which means that all those people were inconvenienced and embarrassed on the side of a road for no reason other than a cop on a fishig expidition for contraband and an easy bust. Fact.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
So, unless the cops ignore all but obvious evidence and stick to the facts


So running a stop sign IS obvious evidence. So far I am playing by YOUR rules. You freak out because your mad at me for pulling you over for violating the law. I put an AH code on the citation. Has that code added to the already OBVIOUS evidence I have? NO! Does that code make you anymore guitly? NO! Does that code make you pay the full fine instead of a smaller fine? IT CAN! Does that make it illegal? NO, why, because you weren't treated unfairly because of that code. The EVIDENCE is I saw you run the stop sign, and have it on video too...so your found guitly, and my AH had NOTHING to do with you being guitly or innocent, and will not sway a judge to determine your guilt as so many are trying to say. AH is NOT evidence, its a code that I as the officer am asking the court to make you pay the max fine, not be automatically found guitly. Again blurred lines...

People keep saying I am using my code to JUDGE, my code to find you GUILTY, etc...when thats simply not the case. Again my testimony and video to your violation is what makes you guilty, you being a pain in the a@@ just makes you not get a break on the fine. So is your actual argument I shouldn't have the right to want you to pay the full fine for your violation?



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I will even put myself in your shoes a second.

I am driving along and coming up to a stop sign. I don't see any traffic so I decide, screw it, and don't stop. Instead I blow through and all of a sudden there is the po-po. Oh man! So I get pulled over. He walks up, tells me that I ran the stop sign. I say FU, you can kiss my a@@! I didn't run the stop sign. Officer says, yes sir you did, license please. I give it to him and the whole time tell him he is a FN loser with no life, was the high school pushover and thats why he became a cop. I then say, if you didn't have that badge and gun you wouldn't act so tough. Cop walks away and returns with his ticket book. Says to me, sir, your being cited for failure to stop at a stop sign. I say, FU I am not signing the stupid ticket. He says, sir sign in the pink block, it is NOT your admission of guilt, it simply is saying that you recieved a copy of the accusation against you. I again say FU PIG! This time the officer says Sir, if you do not sign it, I will arrest you for failure to sign the citation. So I decide ok fine I will sign it. As I sign it I again call him every name i can think of and then tell him that I will have his job for this. As I drive off i see the AH on my ticket and just think its some legal BS so blow it off.

Court date comes. I am in court and so is the pig. Judge asks me if I ran the stop sign and I say no. The court then asks the officer to present the EVIDENCE against me. The officer gives his testimony as to me running the stop sign. he then says we also have the violation on video. Court see's the video and bam, I AM GUILTY. Judge see's on my ticket the officer wrote AH in the remarks. Judges decidesm hey, how come you gave the officer a hard time for something you did wrong. I say, because I am a patriot and constatutionalist and have every right to cuss him up and down. Judge says, yes sir you do. I can't argue that point. But what i can do is instead of making you just pay $10 and hoping you'll stop next time, I am going to make you pay the maximum $100. I lose it, freak out, WTF judge this is WRONG! Judge says..how so...I say because your using the officers personl feelings to punish me. Judge says, NO SIR, the fine for running a stop sign is $100 and the officer PROVED you ran the stop sign. I found you guilty and have decided that you will pay full price! I stand there so mad I could punch everyone in that courtroom....but then it dawned on me.....

I was driving the car that ran the stop sign
I made a choice to run that stop sign
I made the choice to act like a fool instead of man up and accept what I did and simply move on
I wasn't found guilty due to the officers little AH
I was found guilty because i violated law and they proved it
I need to just take responsibility

What a concept huh...





new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join