Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf
Discussion
Greendubber said:
TheBear said:
The Selfish Gene said:
Durzel said:
Clearly they knew what he'd done with it because the article says that it was thrown in the river "when he found out that officers had launched an investigation". I hope you're not going to suggest next that it "could've been anyone's jammer that was thrown away". Can't move for discarded laser jammers these days.
yeah understand - but it's a little dangerous for the police to 'know' he did it without the physical evidence to 'prove' that he did.Non?
Personally I prefer innocent until proven guilty. I'm old fashioned like that. I know we have thrown that our for driving 'offences' but I would still prefer to keep it that way around.
"it's a little dangerous for the police to 'know' he did it without the physical evidence to 'prove' that he did"
You actually think it went all the way to court and a guilty plea with just the police "knowing" he did it?
You must be more intelligent than that, surely, even for PH?
The Selfish Gene said:
Durzel said:
Clearly they knew what he'd done with it because the article says that it was thrown in the river "when he found out that officers had launched an investigation". I hope you're not going to suggest next that it "could've been anyone's jammer that was thrown away". Can't move for discarded laser jammers these days.
yeah understand - but it's a little dangerous for the police to 'know' he did it without the physical evidence to 'prove' that he did.Non?
Personally I prefer innocent until proven guilty. I'm old fashioned like that. I know we have thrown that our for driving 'offences' but I would still prefer to keep it that way around.
They obviously didn't just make it up that he disposed of it in a river on a whim.
julian64 said:
vonhosen said:
PtCoJ is not about addressing disrespect for individual laws, it's not a demand of respect on individual laws.
That's why it isn't terribly important what the original offence was, it's a serious offence whatever the original offence was.
It's because it undermines the whole legal process. It's an attack on the very fabric of justice, rather than the individual offence from which it originated.
I'm not in the legal process, I'm outside it. I don't have to win hearts & minds.
Are you really saying that you would apply PCOJ to any crime no matter how trivial based upon the criminal lying to police abut their involvement?That's why it isn't terribly important what the original offence was, it's a serious offence whatever the original offence was.
It's because it undermines the whole legal process. It's an attack on the very fabric of justice, rather than the individual offence from which it originated.
I'm not in the legal process, I'm outside it. I don't have to win hearts & minds.
It is beyond telling simple untruths.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
That's our version of a society with a rule of law
What society has a rule of law & enforces those laws without any punitive measures?
I assume the jammer has caused error readings on the cameras within the van and triggered the investigation. He's ultimately been interviewed and admitted fitting a device.
Admissions with the corroboration of the error readings is sufficient. The lies he also told may have also supported the offence, depending how he told them i.e. were they in response S.172 request or during 'informal' enquiries.
He would have also said where he disposed of the jammer. Where else would that information come from?
Admissions with the corroboration of the error readings is sufficient. The lies he also told may have also supported the offence, depending how he told them i.e. were they in response S.172 request or during 'informal' enquiries.
He would have also said where he disposed of the jammer. Where else would that information come from?
To make things a bit clearer.
If they had seized his car and found the fitted jammer, more than likely he would've been done for Perverting too. Like this guy (the one I mentioned before).
If he disposed of the jammer after an investigation had commenced, as he did - the article even explicitly says this, then it would be considered evidence, and he would be charged with Perverting. Fabricating or disposal of evidence is one of three things that will pretty much mean you're bang to rights.
Once he was suspected of interfering with a speed enforcement device, the circumstances were such that he was odds on to be charged with Perverting anyway. Ipso facto if you're going to use a jammer then you best remove & destroy it every time you park up, take the fine & points like a man, or not speed in the first place. Pretty simple really.
Lying to the Police in general isn't going to get you charged with Perverting, not in the sense of being stopped at the side of the road and giving a false name or something. As the likes Road Wars, Traffic Cops, etc show - if there is still a chance of you being prosecuted for whatever you were stopped for, then the lying while you're in the back of the car is a bit of a wheeze.
Perverting is a very serious offence and as such the bar for prosecution is going to be significant, certainly more than simply dealing with a simple traffic offence that could even attract a SJPN would be. The guy who has ended up in prison for 8 months could easily have just ended up with a few points, and even arguing exceptional hardship to keep his license after 12. Instead he traded what are very simple and mundane offences - often disposed with outside court - for one that is guaranteed to result in serious punishment.
If they had seized his car and found the fitted jammer, more than likely he would've been done for Perverting too. Like this guy (the one I mentioned before).
If he disposed of the jammer after an investigation had commenced, as he did - the article even explicitly says this, then it would be considered evidence, and he would be charged with Perverting. Fabricating or disposal of evidence is one of three things that will pretty much mean you're bang to rights.
Once he was suspected of interfering with a speed enforcement device, the circumstances were such that he was odds on to be charged with Perverting anyway. Ipso facto if you're going to use a jammer then you best remove & destroy it every time you park up, take the fine & points like a man, or not speed in the first place. Pretty simple really.
Lying to the Police in general isn't going to get you charged with Perverting, not in the sense of being stopped at the side of the road and giving a false name or something. As the likes Road Wars, Traffic Cops, etc show - if there is still a chance of you being prosecuted for whatever you were stopped for, then the lying while you're in the back of the car is a bit of a wheeze.
Perverting is a very serious offence and as such the bar for prosecution is going to be significant, certainly more than simply dealing with a simple traffic offence that could even attract a SJPN would be. The guy who has ended up in prison for 8 months could easily have just ended up with a few points, and even arguing exceptional hardship to keep his license after 12. Instead he traded what are very simple and mundane offences - often disposed with outside court - for one that is guaranteed to result in serious punishment.
La Liga said:
I assume the jammer has caused error readings on the cameras within the van and triggered the investigation. He's ultimately been interviewed and admitted fitting a device.
Admissions with the corroboration of the error readings is sufficient. The lies he also told may have also supported the offence, depending how he told them i.e. were they in response S.172 request or during 'informal' enquiries.
He would have also said where he disposed of the jammer. Where else would that information come from?
Assuming he erased all trace of the jammer from his car, denied ever owning one and left it up to the Police to decide why his car gave odd readings - where do you think this would have gone?Admissions with the corroboration of the error readings is sufficient. The lies he also told may have also supported the offence, depending how he told them i.e. were they in response S.172 request or during 'informal' enquiries.
He would have also said where he disposed of the jammer. Where else would that information come from?
The Selfish Gene said:
yeah understand - but it's a little dangerous for the police to 'know' he did it without the physical evidence to 'prove' that he did.
Non?
Personally I prefer innocent until proven guilty. I'm old fashioned like that.
This is presumably why they took him to a court to be tried on the evidence beyond reasonable doubt and didn't hang him from the nearest pitchfork.Non?
Personally I prefer innocent until proven guilty. I'm old fashioned like that.
Bigends said:
La Liga said:
I assume the jammer has caused error readings on the cameras within the van and triggered the investigation. He's ultimately been interviewed and admitted fitting a device.
Admissions with the corroboration of the error readings is sufficient. The lies he also told may have also supported the offence, depending how he told them i.e. were they in response S.172 request or during 'informal' enquiries.
He would have also said where he disposed of the jammer. Where else would that information come from?
Assuming he erased all trace of the jammer from his car, denied ever owning one and left it up to the Police to decide why his car gave odd readings - where do you think this would have gone?Admissions with the corroboration of the error readings is sufficient. The lies he also told may have also supported the offence, depending how he told them i.e. were they in response S.172 request or during 'informal' enquiries.
He would have also said where he disposed of the jammer. Where else would that information come from?
This is of course assuming that it works. In my experience they are dubious at best, especially with LIDAR because the jamming beam needs to be precisely targeted from a moving vehicle. Chances are the officers noticed it in the photo.
vonhosen said:
Schmed said:
Proportionality I think is what most people have a problem with - particularly with regard to minor motoring offences like speeding.
Out of interest you can smack someone over the head whilst robbing them, leaving them for dead but that doesn't get you a custodial sentence. Try to evade speeding tickets and you'll do hard time :
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/16179256...disgustingsentence_given_to_robber_who_attacked_her_mum/
It's not about the offence (speeding or whatever), it's about the attack on the system of justice.Out of interest you can smack someone over the head whilst robbing them, leaving them for dead but that doesn't get you a custodial sentence. Try to evade speeding tickets and you'll do hard time :
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/16179256...disgustingsentence_given_to_robber_who_attacked_her_mum/
Brainwashed.
A f****ng monkey can tell that is wrong.
TooMany2cvs said:
The Selfish Gene said:
Since Xmas I've caught 3 scum in the act of burglarising my house and I've been threated with a gun (probably) at 10pm
Have you considered moving somewhere less s
t?THey don't burglarise their neighbours do they!
I could I suppose live in a s
tty area so that I don't get robbed.........TheBear said:
The Selfish Gene said:
Durzel said:
Clearly they knew what he'd done with it because the article says that it was thrown in the river "when he found out that officers had launched an investigation". I hope you're not going to suggest next that it "could've been anyone's jammer that was thrown away". Can't move for discarded laser jammers these days.
yeah understand - but it's a little dangerous for the police to 'know' he did it without the physical evidence to 'prove' that he did.Non?
Personally I prefer innocent until proven guilty. I'm old fashioned like that. I know we have thrown that our for driving 'offences' but I would still prefer to keep it that way around.
"it's a little dangerous for the police to 'know' he did it without the physical evidence to 'prove' that he did"
You actually think it went all the way to court and a guilty plea with just the police "knowing" he did it?
You must be more intelligent than that, surely, even for PH?
Durzel said the police 'know' he did it. I was simply querying that they should have evidence rather than know based on Durvel's comment.
One would think they did, considering they were specific about the river thing...........
I do love the irony of when people accuse other people of not being intelligent on here. It's never a good argument.........
Dhol01 said:
The point that I was making is that he has obviously seen your silly little van (evidenced by him giving you the finger on 3 occasions). Whilst he is obviously not the brightest individual, he would have to be a moron to do so whilst speeding.
So why bother with the jammer if he wasn't speeding? Bigends said:
La Liga said:
I assume the jammer has caused error readings on the cameras within the van and triggered the investigation. He's ultimately been interviewed and admitted fitting a device.
Admissions with the corroboration of the error readings is sufficient. The lies he also told may have also supported the offence, depending how he told them i.e. were they in response S.172 request or during 'informal' enquiries.
He would have also said where he disposed of the jammer. Where else would that information come from?
Assuming he erased all trace of the jammer from his car, denied ever owning one and left it up to the Police to decide why his car gave odd readings - where do you think this would have gone?Admissions with the corroboration of the error readings is sufficient. The lies he also told may have also supported the offence, depending how he told them i.e. were they in response S.172 request or during 'informal' enquiries.
He would have also said where he disposed of the jammer. Where else would that information come from?
Would three (assuming there were) error signals (possibly on different devices) along with the gestures, and potentially an inference being drawn through refusing to answer questions be enough?
I guess it would partly depend on the specificity of the error readings. Could they could be caused by something else that'd introduce reasonable doubt?
My view is if there are three separate occasions on different devices, then there'd be a good chance, but I may well be wrong.
Steviesam said:
I cant believe you even have an answer that tries to defend this clear idiocy.
Brainwashed.
A f****ng monkey can tell that is wrong.
Yes, you're right, everyone else must be wrong. Brainwashed.
A f****ng monkey can tell that is wrong.
JM said:
Dhol01 said:
The point that I was making is that he has obviously seen your silly little van (evidenced by him giving you the finger on 3 occasions). Whilst he is obviously not the brightest individual, he would have to be a moron to do so whilst speeding.
So why bother with the jammer if he wasn't speeding? Why do I have a sportcar if I don't want to do more than 70mph everywhere?
Steviesam said:
vonhosen said:
Schmed said:
Proportionality I think is what most people have a problem with - particularly with regard to minor motoring offences like speeding.
Out of interest you can smack someone over the head whilst robbing them, leaving them for dead but that doesn't get you a custodial sentence. Try to evade speeding tickets and you'll do hard time :
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/16179256...disgustingsentence_given_to_robber_who_attacked_her_mum/
It's not about the offence (speeding or whatever), it's about the attack on the system of justice.Out of interest you can smack someone over the head whilst robbing them, leaving them for dead but that doesn't get you a custodial sentence. Try to evade speeding tickets and you'll do hard time :
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/16179256...disgustingsentence_given_to_robber_who_attacked_her_mum/
Brainwashed.
A f****ng monkey can tell that is wrong.
Less sentient beings than monkeys could see that.
The Selfish Gene said:
JM said:
Dhol01 said:
The point that I was making is that he has obviously seen your silly little van (evidenced by him giving you the finger on 3 occasions). Whilst he is obviously not the brightest individual, he would have to be a moron to do so whilst speeding.
So why bother with the jammer if he wasn't speeding?His gestures alone aren't going to start a PCoJ investigation. They'd probably get ignored as I imagine a few people do that sort of thing without the speeding / jamming.
The Selfish Gene said:
JM said:
Dhol01 said:
The point that I was making is that he has obviously seen your silly little van (evidenced by him giving you the finger on 3 occasions). Whilst he is obviously not the brightest individual, he would have to be a moron to do so whilst speeding.
So why bother with the jammer if he wasn't speeding? Why do I have a sportcar if I don't want to do more than 70mph everywhere?
I'm pretty sure you don't drive everywhere in excess of 70mph, so I'm not really getting your point re your car.
You can have plenty of entertainment in a sports car or any other car at less than 70mph. You could also take your car on track days etc. OR you may just be a poseur, wanting to be seen in a 'flash' car.
What is the other purpose of a jammer?
JM said:
The Selfish Gene said:
JM said:
Dhol01 said:
The point that I was making is that he has obviously seen your silly little van (evidenced by him giving you the finger on 3 occasions). Whilst he is obviously not the brightest individual, he would have to be a moron to do so whilst speeding.
So why bother with the jammer if he wasn't speeding? Why do I have a sportcar if I don't want to do more than 70mph everywhere?
I'm pretty sure you don't drive everywhere in excess of 70mph, so I'm not really getting your point re your car.
You can have plenty of entertainment in a sports car or any other car at less than 70mph. You could also take your car on track days etc. OR you may just be a poseur, wanting to be seen in a 'flash' car.
What is the other purpose of a jammer?
maybe it tells him where tax cameras are such as the TomTom or Waze does?
Maybe jamming is only part of it's functionality and he was naive and didn't know it served that purpose?
as for my Sportscar - it's a valid argument - just because something is capable of breaking the law doesn't mean it's breaking the law.
I have a cock, I'm not a rapist.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff