Red Light Ticket After Running a Light to Avoid an Accident

[donzoh1]

This is just ridiculous. He should pay the fine, as he ran the red light. He doesn't have to go turn himself in, because he was already CAUGHT. And furthermore, if the OP were being honest, that he absolutely had to run the red light in order to avoid an accident, the red light camera pictures should be more than enough evidence to clearly show the imminent danger.

You don't read well? I didn't say he should turn himself in. If said the "high and mighty" (people like you) should. Let me know how it goes. Or don't you ever go 5 over, roll a stop, fail to signal, etc.?

- - - Updated - - -

Never said they did. But they would be making the person responsible deal with the hassle rather than themselves. It's not their job, business or responsibility to clear up someone else's mistake.

Agreed. That's why I'd prepare the TBD for them (or maybe give them a draft suggestion for the narrative part), and give them a $100 gift certificate at their favorite restaurant!

[free9man]

If said the "high and mighty" (people like you) should. Let me know how it goes. Or don't you ever go 5 over, roll a stop, fail to signal, etc.?

The same could be said for you. What you, and your ilk, cannot seem to get through your skulls is this: There are people in the world that believe in accepting responsibility for doing wrong. Not trying to get out of them by playing games with the court, which is 80% of the strategy you normally proffer. If a ticket is bogus, i completely agree with fighting it. But if you did it, own it. At the same time, I (and many others) also recognize the right to have the state prove it's case.

[donzoh1]

Never said they did. But they would be making the person responsible deal with the hassle rather than themselves. It's not their job, business or responsibility to clear up someone else's mistake.

If I ever get such a notice, trust me, it will be dealt with effectively. And no, there will be no enforcement. That's true whether it's my mechanic, my dad, my ex (if I had an ex) or my least favorite co-worker.

[cbg]

Some people never outgrew junior high school, I guess.

[donzoh1]

back shortly

[Jim_bo]

The same could be said for you. What you, and your ilk, cannot seem to get through your skulls is this: There are people in the world that believe in accepting responsibility for doing wrong. Not trying to get out of them by playing games with the court, which is 80% of the strategy you normally proffer. If a ticket is bogus, i completely agree with fighting it. But if you did it, own it. At the same time, I (and many others) also recognize the right to have the state prove it's case.

If you are suggesting that a defendant should assist the state in their prosecution or that they should not zealously defend themselves, then I'd say you have no idea what you are talking about.

[donzoh1]

The same could be said for you. What you, and your ilk, cannot seem to get through your skulls is this: There are people in the world that believe in accepting responsibility for doing wrong. Not trying to get out of them by playing games with the court, which is 80% of the strategy you normally proffer. If a ticket is bogus, i completely agree with fighting it. But if you did it, own it. At the same time, I (and many others) also recognize the right to have the state prove it's case.

But you don't care much about the Rules of Evidence, Rules of Court, Case Law, Statutory Enabling Language, Legislative History, or some of you, even about precise Statutory Language. I'm guessing if you and your supporters could have applied your legal ideas to the O. J. Simpson case, we could have prevented that nasty robbery in Vegas. Did you ever see the movie called The Star Chamber? Not a true story but still a good movie. Hopefully you'll never be on trial while the judge or prosecution plays fast and loose with such legal niceties.

I'll pay a fine when the prosecution gets its act together. And, I'll quit making noise when the judges do their jobs correctly. Not before then. Clearly, there are cops, prosecutors, and judges who do a difficult job and do it well. Some don't. If you think I should ignore the ones who don't, too bad. Of the four cases I've won, I was objectively innocent of just one. The others were won using available tools and knowledge. I'm not all that smart, but I'm persistent, and I've been lucky that most judges I've seen have been fair and I've made the opinions of others irrelevant.

And, my average red light violation time is .15 seconds or so. Considering the overlapping red light interval, not dangerous, but still a technical violation of the statute.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are suggesting that a defendant should assist the state in their prosecution or that they should not zealously defend themselves, then I'd say you have no idea what you are talking about.

Why are you asking such a question? He's not the only one around here doing that either.

On the other hand, I frequently gain insight here from people I disagree with. I ignore the misinformation or I challenge it, and then I retain the insight. I'm not perfect either, and if I put out incorrect information, I hear about it and then I research it and then I don't put out that information again.

On your earlier point about amending a charge, I agree with your earlier comment that an officer is in no position to amend a charge, or move to amend a charge, or suggest such a thing. He's a witness. He should testify about observations made and/or statements made contemporaneously by the defendant. Furthermore, as you say, an amended charge would require a completely different defense and requiring the defendant to return to court yet again would not seem in the interest of justice. The defendant has already likely missed work. Maybe the Local PD would like to pay for lost income and extra mileage?

Here I go again: People v. Goulet "Traffic rules account for most of the contact by average citizens with law enforcement and the courts. Enforcement of laws which are widely perceived as unreasonable and unfair generates disrespect and even contempt toward those who make and enforce those laws."

For those around here who think that a judge ignoring a Rule of Court or Case Law is no big deal, be assured that an average driver, even if they know they did it, will develop contempt for the system. They'll think it's rigged. They'll think that when a cop discovers he's pulled over another cop, he'll say "be careful out there."

[CourtClerk]

Maybe it's just San Francisco, but where do they postpone arraignments at?

Since when do traffic tickets even have case files?

The only "evidence" you're likely to find in this "case file" is a copy of the ticket (provided to the officer by the court) and the officer's declaration which is nothing but a pre-printed, pre-formatted document (again provided to the officer by the court) that requires them to check a few boxes and sign their name. I spent a very long time reading those. There's nothing damning in them.

[free9man]

If you are suggesting that a defendant should assist the state in their prosecution or that they should not zealously defend themselves, then I'd say you have no idea what you are talking about.

I know plenty about what I'm talking about Jim. You just don't seem to be understanding what it is I'm saying. Nice to see you finally got back after the last ban. Too bad TG got fed up with this place, I'm sure he'd enjoy playing with you again.

Nowhere am I suggesting anyone help the state. Nowhere am I suggesting they should not defend themselves IF it is a bogus cite. I am simply putting forth that most rare of ideas: Taking responsibility for your actions. If you don't want to do that and want to fight the cite/exercise your right to have the state prove their case., go about your merry friggin' way.

- - - Updated - - -

But you don't care much about the Rules of Evidence, Rules of Court, Case Law, Statutory Enabling Language, Legislative History, or some of you, even about precise Statutory Language.

Where in the heck are you getting that out of what I said? Where? Please show me.

I am simply putting forth that most rare of ideas: Taking responsibility for your actions. If you get caught doing wrong, take your lumps. If you don't want to do that and want to fight the cite/exercise your right to have the state prove their case., go about your merry friggin' way.

I shall ignore the rest of your rant.

[Jim_bo]

I guess your definition of bogus and mine are different. Bottom line is, traffic tickets are a billion dollar industry. They have long since stopped being about safety and changed their focus to revenue. The state profits hugely from people who are either apathetic or ignorant. This encourages the state to write more and more tickets. If only 10% of the people who get tickets would zealously defend themselves, the profit margins for the state would drop and maybe they wouldn't be so eager to use traffic tickets as a revenue stream. I have never suggested doing anything against the law. Everything I have ever suggested is in adherence to the law. So how could that possibly be bogus?. But since you are so eager about accountability, where is your rant demanding that the state be held accountable? Why don't you cry foul when the state violates its own rules? Where is your outrage at the millions of dollars taken by the state only as a result of the ignorance or apathy of the public? Do you demand only that the public accept responsibility blindly and not take advantage of the protections afforded to them under the law while ignoring the state as it runs roughshod over individual's rights and the law?

It is wholly disingenuous to criticize individuals who would exercise their rights under the law while ignoring the illegal, immoral, and unethical practices of the state.