06-10-2010, 11:03 PM
|
 |
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Colorado Springs,
CO
Cobra Make, Engine: Backdraft, supercharged Coyote
Posts: 2,455
|
|
Not Ranked
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoney FFR
Don't forget guys, I don't think anyone has posted the details on the case that was ruled on by the high court. For all we know the officer saw a kid on a crotch rocket going 130+ MPH. Something like that would be very easy to visually determine that he was substantially exceeding the speed limit. ...
|
Again, flawed reasoning. To estimate a speed of 130mph, you have to practice at it, even to get within 10% most of the time. How often do you see a MC traveling past you at 130mph? How often does the average motor cop practice estimating that? Probably never. So, clearly, he has no training or experiance in performing that function/duty/task. I am probably more qualified to testify, since I drive that fast on a regular basis, and watch other vehicles do the same. (on the track only).
So now the officer has to testify about something has no training, knowledge, or experiance. And the court just says, "OK"? You find that acceptable? Really?
What does the officer say? "I saw him riding really really fast". And out of what orifice does the officer pull the actual speed from? That's important, because the fine/punishment is based on the speed.
If you want to convict and punish some one for comitting a crime, you have to specify what that crime is. You can't just say that they did one of many possible crimes, and only on the say-so of one guy. That IS unconstitutional.
|
Threaded Mode
