Hearing Officer Rejected My Arguments

[jk]

. So whether I objected to it or not seems irrelevant as it would've been allowed anyway and probably would've just pissed off the General Magistrate and fueled the officer to seek further fines\points\whatever he can do. Also, are you leading at an appeal that there is grounds for a true appeal?

but the objection at the time is what preserves your right to an appeal based on that action. If you don't object then, you don't get to go back later and argue it was improper. Acquiescence equals acceptance.

as to there being some appealable point? No idea. It is all based on specific actions within the hearing and I wasn't there.

[Noah86]

but the objection at the time is what preserves your right to an appeal based on that action. If you don't object then, you don't get to go back later and argue it was improper. Acquiescence equals acceptance.

as to there being some appealable point? No idea. It is all based on specific actions within the hearing and I wasn't there.

Understandable, but that only pertains to missing the opportunity of objection toward the amendation of the citation.

Is there anything able to be done as far as the attempt at attacking the officer's credibility and being shot down by the Magistrate every time?

[That Guy]

Understandable, but that only pertains to missing the opportunity of objection toward the amendation of the citation.

Is there anything able to be done as far as the attempt at attacking the officer's credibility and being shot down by the Magistrate every time?

Credibility is a matter for the trier of fact to decide. Neither you nor the highest court in the land can dictate who the judicial officer will believe.

[Noah86]

Credibility is a matter for the trier of fact to decide. Neither you nor the highest court in the land can dictate who the judicial officer will believe.

What I meant was that every time I tried to make a point that had to do with referencing what the officer either had just stated under oath and\or had read from his citation notes, the Magistrate didn't have any interest in what I had to say. He asked right before making his decision if I "had anything further" but all of my attempts prior to that were disregarded and I was pretty much dumbfounded at that point.

Is there anything I can do to at least try and get the points withheld still?

Thanks again for all the replies

[That Guy]

What I meant was that every time I tried to make a point that had to do with referencing what the officer either had just stated under oath and\or had read from his citation notes, the Magistrate didn't have any interest in what I had to say.

Well, again, if you were attempting to attack the officer's credibility about something he swore to or documented on paper, the magistrate simply was not interested in hearing it simply because it would not have changed his opinion.

He asked right before making his decision if I "had anything further" but all of my attempts prior to that were disregarded and I was pretty much dumbfounded at that point.

That typically means "do you have any evidence or any testimony you'd like to present?. A different ball of wax than the "I said, he said"!

Is there anything I can do to at least try and get the points withheld still?

If you're told no, what would you ask for next? A $5 refund off your fine?

You drive a hard bargain but when you bargain too hard, you give the impression that as long as you walk away with something, anything, you'll be OK.

Really, none of the issues you raised were bound to change the momentum of this case for it to end in your favor... I mean if the officer is running Lidar in the left lane, he's still doing it one vehicle at a time, so how difficult do you think it would be to switch to a vehicle in the middle lane, or one in the right lane... And the worse one yet, was the last one you made about it not being you... Seriously, if you knew how Lidar works you'd realize that is nearly impossible to get the wrong car! And that by itself, puts all your other claims in question.

If you had any hope that you'll prevail, you were only fooling yourself!

[Noah86]

I know exactly how LIDAR works, it doesn't measure a speed of an object it measures the change in distance between the standing object (the LIDAR device) and the object being pointed at with the LIDAR beam. Just because it's LIDAR though doesn't mean it's questionable and also potential for margins of error, let alone throwing in the human element and being at night on a heavily populated road of travel.

I see you comment on here a lot, and you take extremes when considering ones level of intelligence. I sir (or ma'am), am not some idiot trying to ask for bargaining tools or ways to go back and beg for some kind of "discount" on my outcome. So don't treat me as such.

If the officer says he's running LIDAR in a specific lane, then that's what he needs to be doing. If he's running LIDAR on multiple lanes, then specify as such. Otherwise that's lying or at the very least, misleading. The law is supposed to be straightforward, not up to loose interpretation when pertaining to someone's testimony. You aren't allowed to say "oh I only robbed that one bank on the corner of easy street and main". But then fail to mention that you robbed multiple banks on easy street and main in different cities. It doesn't work that way. Your testimony is your words of truth, hence being under oath.

Oh, and so if I use LIDAR from over say, 1000yd away, it's going to be oh so accurate and "impossible to get the wrong car" huh? Please, quit trolling my thread with your non-sense. If you have anything constructive then, please, continue. Elsewise I'm not interested in your patronizing and condescending responses.

Oh, and in response to where you were being slightly civil in that last response:

That typically means "do you have any evidence or any testimony you'd like to present?. A different ball of wax than the "I said, he said"!

My case was not based, not even in the least, on what the officer said vs what I said (a "he said she said battle"). I will NEVER win in a "he said she said" battle against an officer, it's a court of law, not a court of high school officials (except after yesterday's hearing I may think otherwise now). I was using legitimate PROOF to prove that the officer was outright LYING. I was then going to use that proof and proof that the officer was lying to discredit his testimony and motion for a dismissal. It never got to that point because the Magistrate had zero interest in me doing as such which seems rather biased.

[That Guy]

I know exactly how LIDAR works, it doesn't measure a speed of an object it measures the change in distance between the standing object (the LIDAR device) and the object being pointed at with the LIDAR beam. Just because it's LIDAR though doesn't mean it's questionable and also potential for margins of error, let alone throwing in the human element and being at night on a heavily populated road of travel.

Not even remotely close to what my point is.

For you to claim "it wasn't me it had to have been someone else", the basis for that claim would have to be a wide beam that might hit more than one vehicle... Lidar has a much narrower beam than, for example Radar, and it can be easily seen which vehicle the beam is hitting and is reflected off of. So your claim has no basis!

I see you comment on here a lot, and you take extremes when considering ones level of intelligence.

I call it as I see it... you came here with a claim you were robbed in court, suggesting this was a complete "disregard to the statutes and florida administrative code" (probably the least relevant code), and you heard "no" after "no" until you got to the part where you were begging for a way to at least get the removal of violation points. That's usually a step before asking for the $5 discount. Sorry that it hit a nerve...

Actually, on second thought, I'm not sorry! You came here willingly and voluntarily... Deal with it!

I sir (or ma'am), am not some idiot

That would be "Sir"... And you're right, an idiot can figure that out of a screen name like "That Guy". Question is then, how did you stumbled over it?

If the officer says he's running LIDAR in a specific lane, then that's what he needs to be doing. If he's running LIDAR on multiple lanes, then specify as such. Otherwise that's lying or at the very least, misleading.

Obviously, the court felt otherwise. That might be indicative that you clearly have little to no clue about the laws and the relevant court procedures on your part. But hey, you'll know for next time!

The law is supposed to be straightforward, not up to loose interpretation when pertaining to someone's testimony. You aren't allowed to say "oh I only robbed that one bank on the corner of easy street and main". But then fail to mention that you robbed multiple banks on easy street and main in different cities. It doesn't work that way. Your testimony is your words of truth, hence being under oath.

Your testimony is your words, under oath, it does not mean the other party can dictate what your words should or should not include. And so that should make it obvious that you cannot dictate what the officer can or cannot testify to.

Oh, and so if I use LIDAR from over say, 1000yd away, it's going to be oh so accurate and "impossible to get the wrong car" huh? Please, quit trolling my thread with your non-sense. If you have anything constructive then, please, continue. Elsewise I'm not interested in your patronizing and condescending responses.

Let me address the troll part first... There is a certain troll who frequents this forum, who's clearly so obsessed with Lidar that he's been known on several occasions to start different threads under different screen names just to solicit responses that he can use to start stupid idiotic arguments about a topic that he clearly knows very little about. I think its been beyond perplexing that he hasn't posted in this thread, and even more so that you are starting to sound just like him... So you're making for a good trolling substitute! Of course only the mods can read IP addresses and if a match is made, you would be in violation of the terms of use on here.

Now, on to more of your mistakes; Lidar measurements are presented in feet, not yards, but hey, while you can pretend to know how Lidar works, you uneducated commentary is more indicative of your ignorance than I can ever prove by sitting here arguing with you all day. And you mistaking my posts for nonsense; if they were so why did my one post earn the longest response from you? Nonsense? Is that your way of saying I hit the nail on the head? Did I hurt your little feelings there? Is that why you're so offended?

All are rhetorical questions, by the way. No need to responds and dig yourself deeper. If you do, be mindful that I intended on obliging your request of not posting here but only because you said "please". If you do respond, mind your manners and be respectful and you'll get the same in return! Or else...

[jk]

Quoting Noah86

---

I know exactly how LIDAR works, it doesn't measure a speed of an object it measures the change in distance between the standing object (the LIDAR device) and the object being pointed at with the LIDAR beam. Just because it's LIDAR though doesn't mean it's questionable and also potential for margins of error, let alone throwing in the human element and being at night on a heavily populated road of travel.

if you want to use that description, radar also doesn't actually measure speed. nor does VASCAR

. Each of them use a calculation applied to observed phenomena or data.

If the officer says he's running LIDAR in a specific lane, then that's what he needs to be doing. If he's running LIDAR on multiple lanes, then specify as such. Otherwise that's lying or at the very least, misleading.

Unless the road is perfectly straight throughout the distance he is "clocking" people AND his laser emission is perfectly parallel to that road, it is impossible to limit your observance to one lane.

He likely was clocking people in a specific lane in general but even if he was, that does not prevent him from clocking a vehicle not in that lane.

---

The law is supposed to be straightforward, not up to loose interpretation when pertaining to someone's testimony. You aren't allowed to say "oh I only robbed that one bank on the corner of easy street and main". But then fail to mention that you robbed multiple banks on easy street and main in different cities. It doesn't work that way. Your testimony is your words of truth, hence being under oath.

depends what the specific question was. If I robbed 27 banks but only asked about the one specific bank, I am not required to disclose the robbing of the other 26 banks.

Oh, and so if I use LIDAR from over say, 1000yd away, it's going to be oh so accurate and "impossible to get the wrong car" huh? Please, quit trolling my thread with your non-sense. If you have anything constructive then, please, continue. Elsewise I'm not interested in your patronizing and condescending responses.

if you want to challenge the accuracy of lidar at 1000yd, then do that but throwing a fit and saying "of course it isn't accurate" isn't going to get you anywhere.



Did you challenge the accuracy or the possibility that more than one car was clocked at whatever distance he was from you? How far from you was he? Was there any other car close to you? Any other car in the determinable beam spread between you and the cop?

[Noah86]

Both of you can discontinue the trolling. This has been absolutely DERAILED and has given absolutely zero help (just like my previous thread where I was asking for information on what to bring up BEFORE the date of the hearing.)

I don't need to waste my time reading "That Guy"'s rubbish and patronizing or any one else's.

If anyone has any CONSTRUCTIVE information that pertains to my original post, please, by all means, contribute. Otherwise, shut up, and click your back button, because I'm not interested. That includes you "That Guy".

[COLOR=#333333]Did you challenge the accuracy or the possibility that more than one car was clocked at whatever distance he was from you? How far from you was he? Was there any other car close to you? Any other car in the determinable beam spread between you and the cop?

1) yes, I had mentioned there was a vehicle passing me that was on my immediate LEFT closer to where the FHP officer was sitting perpendicular to the path of oncoming taffic.
2) by "he" i'm assuming you mean the vehicle passing me on my LEFT, he was in the lane right next to me
3) there were cars on both sides of me as I was in the center lane
4) since the beam is more of a rectangular shape, with the elongated part north to south, yes, i would assume the vehicle passing me was in the beam, if not entirely, at least some of the front portion.

[jk]

1) yes, I had mentioned there was a vehicle passing me that was on my immediate LEFT closer to where the FHP officer was sitting perpendicular to the path of oncoming taffic.

2) by "he" i'm assuming you mean the vehicle passing me on my LEFT, he was in the lane right next to me
3) there were cars on both sides of me as I was in the center lane
4) since the beam is more of a rectangular shape, with the elongated part north to south, yes, i would assume the vehicle passing me was in the beam, if not entirely, at least some of the front portion.

well, if I am trolling, I'll stop and not bother responding to the questions.
Take care and have a nice evening.