Traffic Court
-
So, I got a ticket for not having my "tabs" up to date (the little sticker on your license plate that says you've shelled out yet another tax, this one for auto registration). The fee was $101 and officer said I could request a "mittigation hearing," go to court and the fee might be reduced. So I thought I'd go ahead and try that as my record is clean and this was the first violation I've had of any sort (and it wasn't even a traffic violation really). The fun part was listening the 5 or 6 people who went before me. One was a seventeen-year-old who had gotten cited for speeding in a school zone, but when the officer asked for his license he didn't even have one. And he was coming to ask to have his $100 fee reduced. Fee reduced? Why isn't this twit in the slammer? :confused: When the judge asked him if he had a driving license now, he said yes, he did. So she asked him to show it. He handed her an ID card. She had to explain to him (more than once) that it was not a license to drive (which he knew damned well already). He insisted he passed the written test (probably a lie) and was intending to take the actual driving test in a few months. As if that is somehow a resonable proxy for not having a license. After (far too much) discussion with (or at) him, the judge finally gave up and essentially told him to shut up and pay the fee. I still don't understand why the fee isn't an order of magnitude higher for something like that (moving violation + no license) and why there isn't even more severe punishment on top of the fee. :wtf: Okay, I was still shaking my head as a couple easy ones were processed. Then another guy, who showed up late and needed an interpreter was up. (Naturally, the court-appointed interperter was on time and thus collecting tax dollars from the start. :sigh:). This guy had run a red light while speeding. On top of that, he had five previous moving violations of similar eggregiousness in the year. Through the interpreter, he explained that he didn't know the rules for driving! :wtf: That was his defense and hope for some mittigation? :omg: The judge told him (a few times) that he need to learn how to drive. Why the heck didn't she take away his license right there? How did he get one in the first place? His only penalty was to pay the full fee. :mad: Anyhow, what's scary is these morons -- er -- guys both got very light penalties and drove away from the place. And now they are back out the
-
So, I got a ticket for not having my "tabs" up to date (the little sticker on your license plate that says you've shelled out yet another tax, this one for auto registration). The fee was $101 and officer said I could request a "mittigation hearing," go to court and the fee might be reduced. So I thought I'd go ahead and try that as my record is clean and this was the first violation I've had of any sort (and it wasn't even a traffic violation really). The fun part was listening the 5 or 6 people who went before me. One was a seventeen-year-old who had gotten cited for speeding in a school zone, but when the officer asked for his license he didn't even have one. And he was coming to ask to have his $100 fee reduced. Fee reduced? Why isn't this twit in the slammer? :confused: When the judge asked him if he had a driving license now, he said yes, he did. So she asked him to show it. He handed her an ID card. She had to explain to him (more than once) that it was not a license to drive (which he knew damned well already). He insisted he passed the written test (probably a lie) and was intending to take the actual driving test in a few months. As if that is somehow a resonable proxy for not having a license. After (far too much) discussion with (or at) him, the judge finally gave up and essentially told him to shut up and pay the fee. I still don't understand why the fee isn't an order of magnitude higher for something like that (moving violation + no license) and why there isn't even more severe punishment on top of the fee. :wtf: Okay, I was still shaking my head as a couple easy ones were processed. Then another guy, who showed up late and needed an interpreter was up. (Naturally, the court-appointed interperter was on time and thus collecting tax dollars from the start. :sigh:). This guy had run a red light while speeding. On top of that, he had five previous moving violations of similar eggregiousness in the year. Through the interpreter, he explained that he didn't know the rules for driving! :wtf: That was his defense and hope for some mittigation? :omg: The judge told him (a few times) that he need to learn how to drive. Why the heck didn't she take away his license right there? How did he get one in the first place? His only penalty was to pay the full fee. :mad: Anyhow, what's scary is these morons -- er -- guys both got very light penalties and drove away from the place. And now they are back out the
-
Yea people are crazy. Did you end up having the fine reduced?
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
Yeah, I had to pay $25.
Matt Gerrans
-
So, I got a ticket for not having my "tabs" up to date (the little sticker on your license plate that says you've shelled out yet another tax, this one for auto registration). The fee was $101 and officer said I could request a "mittigation hearing," go to court and the fee might be reduced. So I thought I'd go ahead and try that as my record is clean and this was the first violation I've had of any sort (and it wasn't even a traffic violation really). The fun part was listening the 5 or 6 people who went before me. One was a seventeen-year-old who had gotten cited for speeding in a school zone, but when the officer asked for his license he didn't even have one. And he was coming to ask to have his $100 fee reduced. Fee reduced? Why isn't this twit in the slammer? :confused: When the judge asked him if he had a driving license now, he said yes, he did. So she asked him to show it. He handed her an ID card. She had to explain to him (more than once) that it was not a license to drive (which he knew damned well already). He insisted he passed the written test (probably a lie) and was intending to take the actual driving test in a few months. As if that is somehow a resonable proxy for not having a license. After (far too much) discussion with (or at) him, the judge finally gave up and essentially told him to shut up and pay the fee. I still don't understand why the fee isn't an order of magnitude higher for something like that (moving violation + no license) and why there isn't even more severe punishment on top of the fee. :wtf: Okay, I was still shaking my head as a couple easy ones were processed. Then another guy, who showed up late and needed an interpreter was up. (Naturally, the court-appointed interperter was on time and thus collecting tax dollars from the start. :sigh:). This guy had run a red light while speeding. On top of that, he had five previous moving violations of similar eggregiousness in the year. Through the interpreter, he explained that he didn't know the rules for driving! :wtf: That was his defense and hope for some mittigation? :omg: The judge told him (a few times) that he need to learn how to drive. Why the heck didn't she take away his license right there? How did he get one in the first place? His only penalty was to pay the full fee. :mad: Anyhow, what's scary is these morons -- er -- guys both got very light penalties and drove away from the place. And now they are back out the
That guy with no driving license could have killed someone, maybe a kid. I think that in Italy you would be arrested in that case. Anyway, it should be that way.
________________________________________________ Personal Blog [ITA] - Tech Blog [ENG] Developing ScrewTurn Wiki 2.0 (2.0 Alpha is out)
-
So, I got a ticket for not having my "tabs" up to date (the little sticker on your license plate that says you've shelled out yet another tax, this one for auto registration). The fee was $101 and officer said I could request a "mittigation hearing," go to court and the fee might be reduced. So I thought I'd go ahead and try that as my record is clean and this was the first violation I've had of any sort (and it wasn't even a traffic violation really). The fun part was listening the 5 or 6 people who went before me. One was a seventeen-year-old who had gotten cited for speeding in a school zone, but when the officer asked for his license he didn't even have one. And he was coming to ask to have his $100 fee reduced. Fee reduced? Why isn't this twit in the slammer? :confused: When the judge asked him if he had a driving license now, he said yes, he did. So she asked him to show it. He handed her an ID card. She had to explain to him (more than once) that it was not a license to drive (which he knew damned well already). He insisted he passed the written test (probably a lie) and was intending to take the actual driving test in a few months. As if that is somehow a resonable proxy for not having a license. After (far too much) discussion with (or at) him, the judge finally gave up and essentially told him to shut up and pay the fee. I still don't understand why the fee isn't an order of magnitude higher for something like that (moving violation + no license) and why there isn't even more severe punishment on top of the fee. :wtf: Okay, I was still shaking my head as a couple easy ones were processed. Then another guy, who showed up late and needed an interpreter was up. (Naturally, the court-appointed interperter was on time and thus collecting tax dollars from the start. :sigh:). This guy had run a red light while speeding. On top of that, he had five previous moving violations of similar eggregiousness in the year. Through the interpreter, he explained that he didn't know the rules for driving! :wtf: That was his defense and hope for some mittigation? :omg: The judge told him (a few times) that he need to learn how to drive. Why the heck didn't she take away his license right there? How did he get one in the first place? His only penalty was to pay the full fee. :mad: Anyhow, what's scary is these morons -- er -- guys both got very light penalties and drove away from the place. And now they are back out the
If we start punishing all the people according to the law, i.e. arrest the person without licence and etc, etc, Then there will be so many "driving criminals" to elect a senator (or bunch of them required for the majority) to ammend the law.
-Prakash
-
If we start punishing all the people according to the law, i.e. arrest the person without licence and etc, etc, Then there will be so many "driving criminals" to elect a senator (or bunch of them required for the majority) to ammend the law.
-Prakash
Mr.Prakash wrote:
Then there will be so many "driving criminals" to elect a senator (or bunch of them required for the majority) to ammend the law.
I'd think the majority of people without a license would include illegal immigrants and stupid teenagers. I'm ok with having both of them off the road. :-D
Jeremy Falcon "It's a good thing to do and a tasty way to do it." - Wilford Brimley[^]
-
So, I got a ticket for not having my "tabs" up to date (the little sticker on your license plate that says you've shelled out yet another tax, this one for auto registration). The fee was $101 and officer said I could request a "mittigation hearing," go to court and the fee might be reduced. So I thought I'd go ahead and try that as my record is clean and this was the first violation I've had of any sort (and it wasn't even a traffic violation really). The fun part was listening the 5 or 6 people who went before me. One was a seventeen-year-old who had gotten cited for speeding in a school zone, but when the officer asked for his license he didn't even have one. And he was coming to ask to have his $100 fee reduced. Fee reduced? Why isn't this twit in the slammer? :confused: When the judge asked him if he had a driving license now, he said yes, he did. So she asked him to show it. He handed her an ID card. She had to explain to him (more than once) that it was not a license to drive (which he knew damned well already). He insisted he passed the written test (probably a lie) and was intending to take the actual driving test in a few months. As if that is somehow a resonable proxy for not having a license. After (far too much) discussion with (or at) him, the judge finally gave up and essentially told him to shut up and pay the fee. I still don't understand why the fee isn't an order of magnitude higher for something like that (moving violation + no license) and why there isn't even more severe punishment on top of the fee. :wtf: Okay, I was still shaking my head as a couple easy ones were processed. Then another guy, who showed up late and needed an interpreter was up. (Naturally, the court-appointed interperter was on time and thus collecting tax dollars from the start. :sigh:). This guy had run a red light while speeding. On top of that, he had five previous moving violations of similar eggregiousness in the year. Through the interpreter, he explained that he didn't know the rules for driving! :wtf: That was his defense and hope for some mittigation? :omg: The judge told him (a few times) that he need to learn how to drive. Why the heck didn't she take away his license right there? How did he get one in the first place? His only penalty was to pay the full fee. :mad: Anyhow, what's scary is these morons -- er -- guys both got very light penalties and drove away from the place. And now they are back out the
Matt Gerrans wrote:
and drove away from the place
If the people without a license are allowed to do that and they kill someone I think the stupid judges should also be held accountable. As is, they are probably more concerned with reelection.
Jeremy Falcon "It's a good thing to do and a tasty way to do it." - Wilford Brimley[^]
-
Mr.Prakash wrote:
Then there will be so many "driving criminals" to elect a senator (or bunch of them required for the majority) to ammend the law.
I'd think the majority of people without a license would include illegal immigrants and stupid teenagers. I'm ok with having both of them off the road. :-D
Jeremy Falcon "It's a good thing to do and a tasty way to do it." - Wilford Brimley[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I'd think the majority of people without a license would include illegal immigrants and stupid teenagers. I'm ok with having both of them off the road.
That makes sense.
-Prakash
-
So, I got a ticket for not having my "tabs" up to date (the little sticker on your license plate that says you've shelled out yet another tax, this one for auto registration). The fee was $101 and officer said I could request a "mittigation hearing," go to court and the fee might be reduced. So I thought I'd go ahead and try that as my record is clean and this was the first violation I've had of any sort (and it wasn't even a traffic violation really). The fun part was listening the 5 or 6 people who went before me. One was a seventeen-year-old who had gotten cited for speeding in a school zone, but when the officer asked for his license he didn't even have one. And he was coming to ask to have his $100 fee reduced. Fee reduced? Why isn't this twit in the slammer? :confused: When the judge asked him if he had a driving license now, he said yes, he did. So she asked him to show it. He handed her an ID card. She had to explain to him (more than once) that it was not a license to drive (which he knew damned well already). He insisted he passed the written test (probably a lie) and was intending to take the actual driving test in a few months. As if that is somehow a resonable proxy for not having a license. After (far too much) discussion with (or at) him, the judge finally gave up and essentially told him to shut up and pay the fee. I still don't understand why the fee isn't an order of magnitude higher for something like that (moving violation + no license) and why there isn't even more severe punishment on top of the fee. :wtf: Okay, I was still shaking my head as a couple easy ones were processed. Then another guy, who showed up late and needed an interpreter was up. (Naturally, the court-appointed interperter was on time and thus collecting tax dollars from the start. :sigh:). This guy had run a red light while speeding. On top of that, he had five previous moving violations of similar eggregiousness in the year. Through the interpreter, he explained that he didn't know the rules for driving! :wtf: That was his defense and hope for some mittigation? :omg: The judge told him (a few times) that he need to learn how to drive. Why the heck didn't she take away his license right there? How did he get one in the first place? His only penalty was to pay the full fee. :mad: Anyhow, what's scary is these morons -- er -- guys both got very light penalties and drove away from the place. And now they are back out the
My last time in traffic court was the opposite. My daughter had received a rather bogus ticket after a small accident (everyone who looked at the car afterword was astonished that she was the one ticketed)--we went to court mainly to get the fine reduced and get the option of traffic school (why they didn't just give that option to begin with annoys me. Most the other cities around where I live do so, but not that one.) At any rate, we were sixth in line and we had a hanging judge. Only one of the first five was clearly guilty (and astonishingly so), the rest were arguably or blatantly innocent, but only one got off. In several cases the witness for the prosecution was obviously lying on the stand (I knew the locations of all the incidents.) In one, the witness contradicted himself three times! What bothered me the most was how the prosecutor strutted around the court room like he was sending murderers to jail. The judge was even worse--he gave no pretense of fairness.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke