Text 7122, 120 rader
Skriven 2010-04-16 18:17:51 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
   Kommentar till text 7071 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: The police, your friend and helper
==========================================
16 Apr 10 12:13, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV> Hello Roy,

 MvdV> On Thursday April 15 2010 19:42, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>>> There are rules for keeping an apropriate distance. The general
 MvdV>>> rule is two seconds. mening that if you cross any point earlier
 MvdV>>> than where the car in front was two seconds ago, you are too
 MvdV>>> close.

 RW>> The law says it much simpler:

 RW>> Sec. 545.062. Following Distance.

 RW>> (a) An operator shall, if following another vehicle, maintain an
 RW>> assured clear distance between the two vehicles so that, considering
 RW>> the speed of the vehicles, traffic, and the conditions of the
 RW>> highway,

 MvdV> Not simpler and more important: not objectively verifiable. The two
 MvdV> seconds rule, just needs a stopwatch. Yor rule is subject to
 MvdV> subjective conditione.

It's also THE law that the cop uses to subjectively judge his following
distance vs yours.

 RW>> Law enforcement officers undergo rigorous training in this very
 RW>> subject. The majority of citizens don not realize it but traffic

 MvdV> [..]

 RW>> In addition, these officers routinely receive annual refresher
 RW>> training in order to keep their state certifications. With that in
 RW>> mind, one of the many things perfected in these courses is accurate
 RW>> visualization.

 MvdV> The theory is not much different here.

 RW>> While this learned skill is not absolute, with the certification to
 RW>> back up his expertise an officer?s testimony frequently carries
 RW>> enormous weight with regard to his visual estimates in a court of
 RW>> law.

 MvdV> Here the courts prefer technical evidence that is not subject to
 MvdV> interpretation by a policeman. One does not need to bne a trained
 MvdV> policeman to operate a stopwatch. Anyone trained to use a stopwacth
 MvdV> will do.

Of course, it has to be done in such a way as to be admitted into evidence
without any objections raised in order to get the jury to believe that
it's relevant.

 RW>> Therefore, if the cop is following someone, he's going to follow
 RW>> them at a safe distance according to the law. What a civilian
 RW>> observes is not the same as what an officer observes, who has been
 RW>> trained in this stuff.

 MvdV> Bullshit. In a Ducth court it would still be his word against mine.

As an officer of the court, your word is less trusted than his...

 RW>>>> In my experience, no cop will flagrantly violate the law to trap
 RW>>>> a speeder.

 MvdV>>> It is what Ward observed....

 RW>> And Ward knows the traffic laws in and out like the cop does? I
 RW>> doubt that he would be able to observe and make that judgement.

 MvdV> One does not have to know the trafic laws to recognise tail
 MvdV> gaiting.

I think one does...

 MvdV> If one can not see the lights of the trailing vehical at
 MvdV> highway speeds, then he is too close. No argument.

The ass end of my pickup is so high that I can't see the headlights of a
vehicle that is following me at a safe distance. Depends on the observers
point of view.

 RW>>>> Let's say that there was an incident and you took a picture or
 RW>>>> video of it. What will be your proof when the cop (being a
 RW>>>> crooked cop) takes your phone away from you and destroys it?

 MvdV>>> That assumes the cop is aware that the recording was made.

 RW>> It doesn't matter if he does or not...

 MvdV> Of course it does. If the cop is not aware I have a phone, he can
 MvdV> not confiscate it. He can not possibly catch and search every
 MvdV> bystander.

All the cop has to do is 'suspect' and then do a personal and vehicle
search and confiscate anything he wants. He can do the same with anyone he
suspects to be watching.

And then there's the right of the accused to be confronted by the evidence
under 'discovery' laws that allows the officer to find 'court friendly'
witnesses for his defense, should it come up. Again, the court will take
his word for it and that of any 'court friendly' witnesses he's able to
come up with. Those witnesses don't have to be real observers to be a
witness against you.

 MvdV>>> If the recording was made not by the speeder, but by a
 MvdV>>> bystander, that is not likely. That is why I wrote "someone to
 MvdV>>> take pictures or video"

 RW>> Highly unlikely that anyone would be doing that.

 MvdV> Youtube says atherwise.

Find it and show me the URL.

                R\%/itt

    You can put lipstick on a pig, but the pig still stinks!
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)