Man beats traffic ticket with dashcam evidence then sues town.

Motorist Rod MacIver was pulled over and given a citation for running a red light despite the officer's dashcam video clearly showing that the light had not yet changed. The judge, after viewing the footage, promptly threw the case out. MacIver wanting justice and recompense for his time and money spent defending the original citation is now suing the town for $2000. The judge said that he is "looking forward to (hearing)" the case and admonished the officer to show up. The video from the dashcam is shown in the link.
www.autoblog.com...

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


why does every dashcam have NWO then a number...

I think every car should have their own personal Dashcam in them, one cam in the front and a cam in the rear of the car. Its would benefit the driver in my opinion. you could easily dispute whos fault it was at a traffic collision, or counter a police officers ticket for running a red light, or swirving, whatever. Gives you more leverage, but ONLY if it was your own cameras, not owned and operated by insurance companies, that would be to much for me.

Originally posted by th3onetruth
reply to post by CosmicCitizen

 

why does every dashcam have NWO then a number...

It's the first time I've ever seen it .. and I googled around and haven't found another with that on google images..

I personally took it to be NW and 02 .. I was thinking NW was showing the direction the cruiser was pointed..

Search google images for police dash cam and you find all of them having different things..

Originally posted by th3onetruth
reply to post by CosmicCitizen

 

why does every dashcam have NWO then a number...

You honestly don't know what NWO is an abbreviation for?

Since the driver told the cop to give him a ticket, I don't think he should be able to sue. It's one of the rare cases where the cop actually did what the person wanted him to.

I can see him getting out of the ticket because it is evident he did not run a red light, it may have been yellow but not red. That is legal. The judge should have dismissed the charges and awarded the man adequate compensation for his legal costs and a half day pay. By suing the police, a person is suing the people who pay for the police, the citizens who pay taxes. I think the police officer should have got a week minimum unpaid suspension if it was his first offense, he was making a poor example for the children of the country.

This cop should be fired for his own good as he clearly is very very dim. You are running with a dashcam recording everything and yet decide to lie about what happened. How stupid can you get. At the very least he should have switched the camera off before he decided to make up bs.

I really don't see why the cop could have even made a mistake about that, it was green all the way there and past...

reply to post by Glassbender777

It appears (from posted videos) that most of the vehicles on the road in Russia have dash cams to provide evidence for the motorist in the event of an accident (often staged for insurance?)....but that would not have helped the man in this case unless it was rear mounted and showed the light change after he passed thru the intersection.

reply to post by roughycannon

The town is seeking revenues from traffic citations and he probably has a quota....being a small town he started to bend the rules and probably rationalized that the light was "yellow" so...."close enough" (to red).

reply to post by bigyin

The average policeman (with whom we entrust our lives) has a very average IQ and given the culture prevalent in many precincts probably an even lower EQ*. I trust that the boys in blue who are members of ATS have an above intelligence level across the board.

*Emotional Quotient (see the work by Goldman).

Originally posted by rickymouse
By suing the police, a person is suing the people who pay for the police, the citizens who pay taxes. I think the police officer should have got a week minimum unpaid suspension if it was his first offense, he was making a poor example for the children of the country.

Not necessarily so. The police officer, by committing perjury on the stand, shouldn't be represented by the City - the limited immunity city officials enjoy is waived when they engage in criminal acts. Lying under oath is a criminal act. It would be interesting to see how the case is captioned, but it should have been pressed against the officer "acting under color of his office". I don't see how the City Administration or any other member of the police department would be a plaintiff under this type of action.

Of course, that doesn't mean the City won't obligate the taxpayers by hiring lawyers and participating in a settlement agreement if their officer is found culpable (guilty). Actual mileage may vary - this is my experience based on the legal system in Texas.

ganjoa

reply to post by ganjoa

The city should just cut the check since he is only asking $2000 before he gets a city lawyer and sues for punitive damages (where the lawyer would be motivated by a 40% contingency fee). The town lawyer(s) are probably salaried but if they had to hire an outside legal eagle it could cost that much just to review the case for 4 hours.

Originally posted by ganjoa

Originally posted by rickymouse
By suing the police, a person is suing the people who pay for the police, the citizens who pay taxes. I think the police officer should have got a week minimum unpaid suspension if it was his first offense, he was making a poor example for the children of the country.

Not necessarily so. The police officer, by committing perjury on the stand, shouldn't be represented by the City - the limited immunity city officials enjoy is waived when they engage in criminal acts. Lying under oath is a criminal act. It would be interesting to see how the case is captioned, but it should have been pressed against the officer "acting under color of his office". I don't see how the City Administration or any other member of the police department would be a plaintiff under this type of action.

Of course, that doesn't mean the City won't obligate the taxpayers by hiring lawyers and participating in a settlement agreement if their officer is found culpable (guilty). Actual mileage may vary - this is my experience based on the legal system in Texas.

ganjoa

An interesting point, I suspect there are few, if any perjury cases against policeman/women. They are fully allowed to lie at all times prior to court, only then is the issue of lying a court monitored issue. But, then, in telling the truth about the lying done prior, is one really telling the truth? Perjury, in reality, only applies to those OUTSIDE the system, those inside the system have to commit a truly egregious act, AND find a judge who is interested in dealing with the wrath that befalls those who fail to tow the line.

In this case, the officer is told to: lie, collect taxes and do both as much as possible. That is his job, so, is he doing anything wrong relative to his job description? Do we the people deserve this from those we pay to police us - yes, we pay people with low IQ's, questionable moral systems and devotee's of top down authority systems to collect taxes from us any way they can.

reply to post by ganjoa


One way or another the taxpayer always foots the bill. When someone sues our government, they are suing the taxpayer, because that is who pays the bill. Maybe the insurance pays, which spreads the liability but insurance companies don't lose money, they will just raise rates on the insurance premiums. It does not hurt a police department, it hurts the taxpayers.

I think the cop should be penalized, not the police department as a whole. In the Video, the guy asked for the ticket. That should disqualify his case. I have been stopped before for things I knew were not wrong, the cop wanted to check out if I was drunk or maybe they saw my car somewhere around town and were checking to see who I was. That always happened back thirty years ago if you were driving in a strange town, they just gave you a warning if you were polite to them. A cop has a right to check who is driving around in his town if there is a strange car around and things have been happening. Excuses range from not coming to a complete stop at the stop sign to not using your blinker or a dirty headlight or obstructed license plates. Even dodging potholes in the road gets you pulled over sometimes.

I just bought a 4 camera backup camera system for my RV. and a 8 camera DVR.

In a accident if its not my fault i have the evidence to prove it. if it is my part no one will ever see the recordings.

This camera system will also be my security system when i am parked so that it will also protect my RV when i am not there...

This is a must when you might stop in a RV park with trailer trash that rip off travelers.

It will also give me evidence in tickets like one a couple years ago when a 18 wheeler parked in front of the speed sign coming into a town and the road department had not painted the speed on the pavement. This town has a wide area for 18 wheelers to park that blocks the speed sign and i believe the cops know this and set up on the highway when ever a 18 wheeler parks in front of the sign to use it as a speed trap.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

Motorist Rod MacIver was pulled over and given a citation for running a red light despite the officer's dashcam video clearly showing that the light had not yet changed.

Actually, unless there is another angle it appears the driver did get caught in the intersection when the light was red. The police officer's light changes green about the instant the truck passes through the intersection. As a truck driver I see hundreds of lights per day, and there is somewhere between a 3-5 second delay from when one set of lights turns red until the perpendicular street's lights change to green.

I'll grant that from the dashcam angle you can't see at what point the light changed red at the intersection the man in the truck drove through, but based on experience if the officer's light turned green as the truck passed through the intersection most likely it turned red when the truck was in the middle of that intersection.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That is interesting (if true)...but I think the law considers it a violation only if the light turns red before your vehicle enters the intersection (not during).

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That is interesting (if true)...but I think the law considers it a violation only if the light turns red before your vehicle enters the intersection (not during).

I don't know what state this case is from but generally a vehicle has to be completely through the intersection before the light turns from amber to red.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That may be true but I always heard that they dont enforce it if it changes while you are in the intersection...much like they generally give you a 5mph cushion above the speed limit before they enforce it and pull you over. Obviously this cop was the exception to the rule then.