Need Help/Advice - Stereo Related Tickets
So because everyone does it makes it right? You broke the law just like someone who fires a gun illegally did. I see no problems with pulling you over for breaking the law. If you do not like the law, I suggest running for city council so that you can infact change the bylaws that pertain to something like this.
A law is a law whether you choose to agree with it or not. Should you break that law, be prepared to suffer the consequences for it. A city police officer or RCMP officer has many jobs to do, all of which encompass enforcing the laws. You gave the officer reason to pull you over. Now you are trying to give us a reason as to why he should not have pulled you over by saying that he had better things to do? Seems to me he was doing his job and doing it properly. It also seems to me that you know you are dead in the water on this one. You would not win in court no matter what and here on a forum you will not win either. The reason why cities have endorsed bylaws like this, is for people like you who do not care about how your right to play music at an excessive or disturbing volume level impacts others.
That said though, I would still fight the screen issue, the balance of probabilities lies with you in this case and not the officer who saw a snapshot in time.
A law is a law whether you choose to agree with it or not. Should you break that law, be prepared to suffer the consequences for it. A city police officer or RCMP officer has many jobs to do, all of which encompass enforcing the laws. You gave the officer reason to pull you over. Now you are trying to give us a reason as to why he should not have pulled you over by saying that he had better things to do? Seems to me he was doing his job and doing it properly. It also seems to me that you know you are dead in the water on this one. You would not win in court no matter what and here on a forum you will not win either. The reason why cities have endorsed bylaws like this, is for people like you who do not care about how your right to play music at an excessive or disturbing volume level impacts others.
That said though, I would still fight the screen issue, the balance of probabilities lies with you in this case and not the officer who saw a snapshot in time.
dude, all i want to do is fight the tv ticket. i dont know why u wrote all that. i never said cops was wrong for pulling me over.... i did have my music loud and its not my first ticket for that, i just pay those or plead guilty for lesser fine. it's the TV ticket thats pissing me off and the fact that a cop made up a cheesy excuse to give me the ticket. do u think i should ask for the disclosure of the police report and see what they wrote? Im wondering about the ticket itself, it was issued by the officer who did not see me commint this alleged offence....do u guys think that could work in my favour?
Prolifik - this is a forum and as such if you post be expected for many personal views including one's that you don't agree with.
FYI, you talk as though the police should worry more about guns when in reality the police save far more lives doing traffic than all the other units combined. That includes such high profile units such as major crimes, hold up, and the various gun task force teams.
Good luck in court.
FYI, you talk as though the police should worry more about guns when in reality the police save far more lives doing traffic than all the other units combined. That includes such high profile units such as major crimes, hold up, and the various gun task force teams.
Good luck in court.
500 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 678
i feel your frustration. you are just tring to vent to your peers. no biggy. i can name a few times my self that i should have faught stuff of the same kind. i think if u have the ability to speak to a lawer some of wich will consult with u for free that wouldn't be a bad idea. they aren't there to judge but rather they will give u advice. not that u couldn't have told me any of the above. i hope things get settled for ya!
^^^ This goes to finding out about the LOCAL bylaws that pertain to excessive noise. Chances are that if you are readinly admitting to it and the fact that not one but two officers heard you, fight it all you want but chances are better than the average bear that you will lose, no matter how the bylaw is interpretted.
The issuing officer does not need to be the officer that saw the infraction. So this card is one that unfortunately cannot be played. In court it will be you and the issuing officer and chances are the officer who initiated the call for the offence. Again the balance of probabilities lies in your favour here, provided that you have your screen hooked up legally so as not to show a picture while the vehicle is in operation. Next is the snapshot in time. An officer can infact see a picture on a screen for a breif snapshot in time, at 70 km/h it is ust that depending on distance to the vehicle from where they were standing. Next to see detail on a screen of the average size of 6.5" from said distance and to see motion on it is another thing. Next to consider is seeing this motion from said veiwpoint. Next to consider is the fact that you have just admitted to speeding and this will gain you another ticket which they can indeed issue on the spot. Next add that if yuo choose to say that you were doing the speedlimit the snapshot in time has now become that much "clearer" of a picture for the officer to see. Next when you pulled over the officer did or did not see your screen and what was on it? So play out the balance of probabilities and prove your case, it can be done here IMO.
Now if you have bypassed the safety functions as they are, then chances are something could have been on the screen and the officer could have seen something. As it was only you and him, only one person is going to win this case.
The issuing officer does not need to be the officer that saw the infraction. So this card is one that unfortunately cannot be played. In court it will be you and the issuing officer and chances are the officer who initiated the call for the offence. Again the balance of probabilities lies in your favour here, provided that you have your screen hooked up legally so as not to show a picture while the vehicle is in operation. Next is the snapshot in time. An officer can infact see a picture on a screen for a breif snapshot in time, at 70 km/h it is ust that depending on distance to the vehicle from where they were standing. Next to see detail on a screen of the average size of 6.5" from said distance and to see motion on it is another thing. Next to consider is seeing this motion from said veiwpoint. Next to consider is the fact that you have just admitted to speeding and this will gain you another ticket which they can indeed issue on the spot. Next add that if yuo choose to say that you were doing the speedlimit the snapshot in time has now become that much "clearer" of a picture for the officer to see. Next when you pulled over the officer did or did not see your screen and what was on it? So play out the balance of probabilities and prove your case, it can be done here IMO.
Now if you have bypassed the safety functions as they are, then chances are something could have been on the screen and the officer could have seen something. As it was only you and him, only one person is going to win this case.
Don't mention that you were speeding, that's just stupid.
Don't fight the noise ticket if you feel you deserved it.
If you really weren't watching a movie, I would both challenge the ticket, and file a complaint against the initial officer.
Oh, and for the love of god, don't use the "don't you have anything better to do" line. The cops response will probably be allong the lines of "Well, yes I do, but you wasted my time by violating the law and forcing me to deal with you.
Don't fight the noise ticket if you feel you deserved it.
If you really weren't watching a movie, I would both challenge the ticket, and file a complaint against the initial officer.
Oh, and for the love of god, don't use the "don't you have anything better to do" line. The cops response will probably be allong the lines of "Well, yes I do, but you wasted my time by violating the law and forcing me to deal with you.
4000 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,655
Originally posted by Prolifik:
have you noticed how you say if someone got shot?? what is a cop going to do after someone is already shot? in that case u need a paramedic, not a cop.......but maybe in quinte a cop is a paramedic and a firefighter at the same time and he's also your local mail man.
this is exactly why cops are there AFTER shots are fired......they are too busy playing radio tag and pulling over ppl with stereos and clear tail lights instead of preventing shootings and looking for guns.
have you noticed how you say if someone got shot?? what is a cop going to do after someone is already shot? in that case u need a paramedic, not a cop.......but maybe in quinte a cop is a paramedic and a firefighter at the same time and he's also your local mail man.
this is exactly why cops are there AFTER shots are fired......they are too busy playing radio tag and pulling over ppl with stereos and clear tail lights instead of preventing shootings and looking for guns.
Learn to THINK about ALL the aspects before you open your mouth and shove your foot back in it at the same time. Why don't you do the research behind a cops job before you assume everything because of the odd cop that gives others a bad name.
"Too bad they werent attending a shooting b/c they were pre occupied giving me a ticket for something i absolutely did not do." ACTUALLY You did do something illegal that deserved a ticket. Your stereo charge. And maybe they'd attend those shootings if ignorant people like you weren't wasting their time with your loud stereo.
[ August 09, 2005, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Blind d(-_-)b ]
