Pulled over by Police but what could he actually do?
Discussion
vonhosen said:
nickofh said:
Wonder why he would go to the trouble of stopping and doing all the checks and yet not prosecute if he had the evidence to do so?
Probably because he was more interested in any offences that the checks may highlight rather than the speeding. The speeding just provided the impetus for him to look for other offences.nickofh said:
vonhosen said:
nickofh said:
Wonder why he would go to the trouble of stopping and doing all the checks and yet not prosecute if he had the evidence to do so?
Probably because he was more interested in any offences that the checks may highlight rather than the speeding. The speeding just provided the impetus for him to look for other offences.Some just have little or not interest in speed prosecutions (or you can add other matters in there such as tailgating etc).
vonhosen said:
Nah.
Some just have little or not interest in speed prosecutions (or you can add other matters in there such as tailgating etc).
Well from what the OP tells us , speed and disrespect are the reasons for him being pulled. So he must have some interest in speed matters ( like us ;-) ). I stick to my original opinion that something stopped him from being prosecuted. Some just have little or not interest in speed prosecutions (or you can add other matters in there such as tailgating etc).
VonSenger said:
sounds like this d1ck had the hump because you didn't "obey" him. You didn't rise to it and let him believe he was master. In reality, sweet FA he could do but why go through the hassle of testing it. Good approach. Another reason why the NSL needs raising.
I appreciate the police and what they do, but not d1cks like this chap. Had a similar problem with a moron when I parked on a completely empty road, albeit double yellow at midnight. Because he was sitting in his car and I didn't "respect him" it was an issue.
I say, bully victim at school getting his own back.
come back when your bolloocks have dropped little boy... I appreciate the police and what they do, but not d1cks like this chap. Had a similar problem with a moron when I parked on a completely empty road, albeit double yellow at midnight. Because he was sitting in his car and I didn't "respect him" it was an issue.
I say, bully victim at school getting his own back.
if you are disrespectful, fractional witted and rude to people;s faces as you are here it;s unsuprising that you have problems
passing a marked police vehicle while you are travelling in excess of the speed limit is baiting pure and simple, but you appear to be a master at that ...
if you don;t want to get pulled ( remember no reason is required in law, but it's rare that any BiB will pull someone totally randomly) don;t give them cause to stop you - as evidence of a moving traffic offence is a wonderful way to divert attention from a complaint aobut a random stop ...
nickofh said:
vonhosen said:
Nah.
Some just have little or not interest in speed prosecutions (or you can add other matters in there such as tailgating etc).
Well from what the OP tells us , speed and disrespect are the reasons for him being pulled. So he must have some interest in speed matters ( like us ;-) ). I stick to my original opinion that something stopped him from being prosecuted. Some just have little or not interest in speed prosecutions (or you can add other matters in there such as tailgating etc).
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 21st July 19:01
nickofh said:
Wonder why he would go to the trouble of stopping and doing all the checks and yet not prosecute if he had the evidence to do so?
I quite often stop people for minor offences. It often leads to something bigger. I don't always prosecute them...words of advice are often more effective that fines and/or points. So there's nothing strange about the officer's decision not to take any further action.vonhosen said:
One cop & a speedo is plenty.
That's not no evidence, witness testimony under oath is evidence.
If you haven't noticed by now, posters on PH have a real difficult time grasping this. They seem to be under the impression that the only admissible evidence is video footage of the suspect committing a crime (taken by the criminal themselves) and a handwritten confession. Anything less is merely 'circumstantial' (which they believe to be inadmissible).That's not no evidence, witness testimony under oath is evidence.
vonhosen said:
doogz said:
John145 said:
If he believes you were exceeding the speed limit and his speedo was showing that you were pulling away and he was doing at least 70mph that's enough evidence for a conviction.
Is it really?I mean, I don't know, but one cop, on his own, in his car, with no evidence whatsoever, and the only piece of equipment he has to use is the speedo in his car.
That's enough for a conviction?
That's not no evidence, witness testimony under oath is evidence.
s p a c e m a n said:
vonhosen said:
doogz said:
John145 said:
If he believes you were exceeding the speed limit and his speedo was showing that you were pulling away and he was doing at least 70mph that's enough evidence for a conviction.
Is it really?I mean, I don't know, but one cop, on his own, in his car, with no evidence whatsoever, and the only piece of equipment he has to use is the speedo in his car.
That's enough for a conviction?
That's not no evidence, witness testimony under oath is evidence.
VonSenger said:
sounds like this d1ck had the hump because you didn't "obey" him. You didn't rise to it and let him believe he was master. In reality, sweet FA he could do but why go through the hassle of testing it. Good approach. Another reason why the NSL needs raising.
I appreciate the police and what they do, but not d1cks like this chap. Had a similar problem with a moron when I parked on a completely empty road, albeit double yellow at midnight. Because he was sitting in his car and I didn't "respect him" it was an issue.
I say, bully victim at school getting his own back.
They were all bullied at school, that's why they join the police force, to get back at the public...I appreciate the police and what they do, but not d1cks like this chap. Had a similar problem with a moron when I parked on a completely empty road, albeit double yellow at midnight. Because he was sitting in his car and I didn't "respect him" it was an issue.
I say, bully victim at school getting his own back.
Wow! Sounds like there's many bully victims on this part of the site?
What happened to a speedo being 10% out and calibration of speedo's etc? Or do you just make up your own rules nowadays?
I'd say there's a few egos here which wear uniform. Grow up guys it's a debate, this is my opinion on a forum, you have no jurisdiction here.
What happened to a speedo being 10% out and calibration of speedo's etc? Or do you just make up your own rules nowadays?
I'd say there's a few egos here which wear uniform. Grow up guys it's a debate, this is my opinion on a forum, you have no jurisdiction here.
Edited by VonSenger on Monday 21st July 19:43
vonhosen said:
The case law is posted earlier in the thread.
Hogwash. I'd like to see that stand up in court under proper scrutiny, I.e over a few cases with varied juries etc. There's a reason he didn't issue a FPN, it's weak and a waste of time and money and he knew it. He'd have waved his willy if he had the opportunity. For the record most officers I've come across are a pleasure and appreciated but some, like the ones here need to focus their time on more important issues and get off their high horse. Every industry has them. To say the force doesn't is naive.
VonSenger said:
vonhosen said:
The case law is posted earlier in the thread.
Hogwash. I'd like to see that stand up in court under proper scrutiny, I.e over a few cases with varied juries etc. There's a reason he didn't issue a FPN, it's weak and a waste of time and money and he knew it. He'd have waved his willy if he had the opportunity. For the record most officers I've come across are a pleasure and appreciated but some, like the ones here need to focus their time on more important issues and get off their high horse. Every industry has them. To say the force doesn't is naive.
2) Juries don't hear speeding trials, magistrates do.
vonhosen said:
1) It's case law, it's been through the appeals process & the lower courts are bound by it.
2) Juries don't hear speeding trials, magistrates do.
So let me get this right. Man overtakes police car slowly but overtakes nonetheless (possibly in the 10% speedo margin of error), man speeds up shortly but out of sight, man gets stopped in a short distance then nicked due to testimony of one man. Does the testimony of the occused no longer matter or proper evidence???2) Juries don't hear speeding trials, magistrates do.
What a load of rubbish. This would never stand up in court. I haven't read the case law but it can't be this simple surely?
Any lawyers in the house as opposed to boys in blue spouting rubbish??
VonSenger said:
vonhosen said:
1) It's case law, it's been through the appeals process & the lower courts are bound by it.
2) Juries don't hear speeding trials, magistrates do.
So let me get this right. Man overtakes police car slowly but overtakes nonetheless (possibly in the 10% speedo margin of error), man speeds up shortly but out of sight, man gets stopped in a short distance then nicked due to testimony of one man. Does the testimony of the occused no longer matter or proper evidence???2) Juries don't hear speeding trials, magistrates do.
What a load of rubbish. This would never stand up in court. I haven't read the case law but it can't be this simple surely?
Any lawyers in the house as opposed to boys in blue spouting rubbish??
The testimony of the accused is evidence too & it is up to the court to listen to all the evidence & consider it in reaching their verdict.
People can & do get convicted on the evidence of one officer & his/her speedo reading. People do of course get acquitted in cases too. The court listen to the evidence & then reach a verdict, each case is dealt with on the merits of the evidence presented.
The main point is that one officer & a non calibrated speedo is not a bar to conviction.
VonSenger said:
Wow! Sounds like there's many bully victims on this part of the site?
You mean the people who are taking the time to explain things to you who actually know what they are talking about? VonSenger said:
this is my opinion on a forum
Who is saying you're not entitled to your opinion? Just because it's foolish and multiple (most non-police officers) have said so doesn't mean you shouldn't write it. Perhaps someone else can learn from the answers you're provided with. VonSenger said:
There's a reason he didn't issue a FPN, it's weak and a waste of time and money and he knew it. He'd have waved his willy if he had the opportunity.
Yet he didn't issue a practically unchallengeable, ultimately bendable, 2 minutes of paperwork S.59 warning. What's your explanation for that? What a nice consistent argument you have. The time, stress and cost of going to court (even if the OP were found not guilty) and "what if" pressure to accept an FPN / SAC would be a 'punishment' in its own right if the officer wished to make it so.
VonSenger said:
This would never stand up in court.
VonSenger said:
I haven't read the case law
Brilliant. Sounds like the type who represent themselves in court or decline a solicitor for interview because they think they know it all. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff