Distracted Driving Ticket... For Scratching

[Toma]

Originally posted by phil98z24


Traffic court is the exact same as criminal court, it is NOT civil or even close to being run the same way as civil trials. Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt stands for any accusation by the state against anyone in this country.

I disagree with this. The very basic and underlying concept is completely different.

In criminal court, your accuser cannot be the only witness, his testimony or word cannot be the only 'material' evidence, and it would be tossed very quickly if your accuser/person laying the charges not only had financial incentive, he/she also had a "performance" incentive.

[Nitro5]

This is an interesting thread and I'm learning a lot about cops here, especially the difference between the municipal ones and the RCMP. Dflamzer, can you point out where in the Alberta Police Act this limitation of municipal cops' powers are limited? I've downloaded it and can't find it. Or is it in the POPA the cops here mentioned, or is it federal in the Criminal Code or another act of parliament? I'd like to have the sources to better back up any claims I might make.

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by Toma


I disagree with this. The very basic and underlying concept is completely different.

In criminal court, your accuser cannot be the only witness, his testimony or word cannot be the only 'material' evidence, and it would be tossed very quickly if your accuser/person laying the charges not only had financial incentive, he/she also had a "performance" incentive.

I've had a buddy convicted for slapping around his woman and 'sexually assaulting' her all based on what she said after they got home from the bar. Didn't go to jail, but had to pay some steep fines and had conditions for awhile so he couldn't go out drinking with us.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Nitro5


I've had a buddy convicted for slapping around his woman and 'sexually assaulting' her all based on what she said after they got home from the bar. Didn't go to jail, but had to pay some steep fines and had conditions for awhile so he couldn't go out drinking with us.

Not a chance. There was other evidence. ie, physical, witnesses, noise complaints, prior calls to police etc.

[Nitro5]

He just said she was drunk, emotional and lied about everything. Buddy had no real record, just stupid teen stuff. He doesn't seem to be the sort to smack around his woman.

Edit, he said they were yelling and throwing shit over him supposably cheating, but claims he didn't hit her. He thinks it's her revenge for wronging her. Like I said, he isn't a violent guy, but the courts took her word over his.

Moral of the story is don't live with crazy chicks.

[Traffic_Cop]

Originally posted by Nitro5
This is an interesting thread and I'm learning a lot about cops here, especially the difference between the municipal ones and the RCMP. Dflamzer, can you point out where in the Alberta Police Act this limitation of municipal cops' powers are limited? I've downloaded it and can't find it. Or is it in the POPA the cops here mentioned, or is it federal in the Criminal Code or another act of parliament? I'd like to have the sources to better back up any claims I might make.

I will save you the time. There is none, RCMP, municipal police and Railway police are all the same. However your point of reference would be the Alberta Police Act - it may now be the Police and Peace Officer Act

***** edit ****** it is the Police Act. You need to look at Pt4 sec 38. The other act deals with Peace officers only.

[FullFledgedYYC]

Originally posted by dflamzer
I love how cops think they can spout off to people that have law degrees about how things actually work in court.

Originally posted by dflamzer
I wouldn't expect a cop to understand how court works in all honesty.

Originally posted by dflamzer
Wow your an old CPS guy that explains it all.

Originally posted by dflamzer
I would think somebody like traffic cop would know this, actually just about any uniform officer does.

Man.... people said that I was a cop hater.... this guy is stealing my thunder.

[speedog]

Originally posted by dflamzer
My job requires it. I haven't taken the BAR yet though.

So having a law degree makes you qualified to make the statements you have in this thread, eh.

What a bunch of bullshit - I am in my second career and I can assure you that even after 26.5 years in my first career that I never met anyone at TELUS (including myself) that could claim to know as much about their jobs as you do about yours. I guess this means that you are just fucking brilliant, so fucking brilliant that you probably know more about what I do than I do and after 5 years in this current career I can reassure you that I will never profess to knowing it all. Maybe not being humble is not a part of your job description - that's got to be it.

[Sugarphreak]

Originally posted by dflamzer
My job requires it. I haven't taken the BAR yet though.

Originally posted by dflamzer
Nah I've worked with a company that does decks year round and often the preference is single joist structures unless they are doing something exotic.

I had no idea you needed a law degree to be a patio deck mastercraftsman?


Then again, why would you be asking Beyond how to build a deck if you worked for a company that built them?
http://forums.beyond.ca/st/356858/a-cheap-diy-patio-/

[lilmira]

May be he stayed at the holiday inn express last night.

[dflamzer]

I actually do have a lot of respect for regular CPS members as the job they do isn't fun and is stressful. They deal with the lowest possible people in society and witness horrific events which drastically shorten their expected life span. The job they do is incredible.

TRU in my opinion is a highly ineffective and ineffecient unit. Yes they do all the horrific accidents, accidents involving other police members and they do accident re-construction on the horrible accidents that occur.

However, their methodology of issuing traffic violation tickets is highly ineffecient, partially biased and overall has a minimal effect on overall traffic safety as they are only catching a small number of offenders by having a limited presence for a specific period of time often in the same geographic locations.

Whereas red light cameras and photo radar have been physically proven to improve traffic safety by having a constant, unbiased methdology of catching offending vehicles. Areas where they are deployed always show significant improvement.

In terms of impaired drivers they do catch a lot. However the worst of the worst always seem to know where and when to drive home even though they are triple to quadruple the legal limit and sometimes even more.

It's simply an imperfect system where often TRU officers are earning more than a standard police officer and having a greater cost to the tax payer in general.

[Cos]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak




I had no idea you needed a law degree to be a patio deck mastercraftsman?


Then again, why would you be asking Beyond how to build a deck if you worked for a company that built them?
http://forums.beyond.ca/st/356858/a-cheap-diy-patio-/

He seems to have missed this Nick.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by lilmira
May be he stayed at the holiday inn express last night.

Oh come on, he's not a pilot!

[JLau]

i am sure you can show your phone statement or history showing you werent even on the phone at that time and date

[FullFledgedYYC]

Originally posted by JLau
i am sure you can show your phone statement or history showing you werent even on the phone at that time and date

Congrats on being about the 10th person to say this.

[sillysod]

My Uncle is an RCMP for many many years doing everything from reservations up north, highways, K9's and now running a detachment.

From what he told me 99% of Law Enforcement Officers have the same rules, the major difference is Fish and Wildlife / Conservation Officers. Apparently they actually have crazy authority.



The officer that got you is convinced you were on your phone. He wouldn't have pulled you over otherwise. Unfortunatley you are going to have to plead your case. Unless there is something missing from the story here I am confident it will get thrown out.

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by sillysod

The officer that got you is convinced you were on your phone. He wouldn't have pulled you over otherwise. Unfortunatley you are going to have to plead your case. Unless there is something missing from the story here I am confident it will get thrown out.

If the officer is convinced you were on your phone, he will say that in court under oath. The judge will believe him and the ticket will be valid. At most, it will be a deduction. It turns into a his word against yours battle which goes no where.

It sucks because there are times officers lie under oath (whether they do it on purpose or not, I don't know), but they present information that is false but they make it appear as true or they truly believe it is.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by Toma


I disagree with this. The very basic and underlying concept is completely different.

In criminal court, your accuser cannot be the only witness, his testimony or word cannot be the only 'material' evidence, and it would be tossed very quickly if your accuser/person laying the charges not only had financial incentive, he/she also had a "performance" incentive.

Is that so? The very basic and underlying concept of a specific part of our justice system is different from the other basic and underlying concepts of the REST of the justice system? You know that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The way our justice system works flows from the Charter and common law, period. There is no deviation.

In criminal court your accuser can be the only witness, and his testimony or word can be the only material evidence in the absence of other evidence. That is where reliability tests come into place, and a variety of interesting mechanisms that strangely enough seem to have been brought into place to deal with those cases where it's someone's word against someone else's. Funny how that works, isn't it? Maybe I've missed something but I've had assault PO, criminal hit and runs, impaired driving, and various other convictions based on my testimony alone. Did the courts screw up?

As far as financial motive and performance motive, give me a goddamn break. For that to be a valid defense and render the validity of a complaint null and void it would have to be reviewed under various judicial tests, the likes of which are very thorough and applied whenever there is even a hint of hinky happenings going on.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by Nitro5
This is an interesting thread and I'm learning a lot about cops here, especially the difference between the municipal ones and the RCMP. Dflamzer, can you point out where in the Alberta Police Act this limitation of municipal cops' powers are limited? I've downloaded it and can't find it. Or is it in the POPA the cops here mentioned, or is it federal in the Criminal Code or another act of parliament? I'd like to have the sources to better back up any claims I might make.

He can't because it doesn't exist. The power for the RCMP to do more than we can in terms of arresting people or compelling them to court via summons for driving 1 km/h over the speed doesn't exist. It's the same, through and through.

Police officers are police officers, that is it that is all. The RCMP only have further power to enforce certain federal acts, Customs and Excise, etc, and also have full police power across Canada whereas in Alberta we can only have our police powers across Alberta, except in certain exigent circumstances.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by speedog
So having a law degree makes you qualified to make the statements you have in this thread, eh.

What a bunch of bullshit - I am in my second career and I can assure you that even after 26.5 years in my first career that I never met anyone at TELUS (including myself) that could claim to know as much about their jobs as you do about yours. I guess this means that you are just fucking brilliant, so fucking brilliant that you probably know more about what I do than I do and after 5 years in this current career I can reassure you that I will never profess to knowing it all. Maybe not being humble is not a part of your job description - that's got to be it.

I'm betting dollars to donuts (yes, that was intentional) he doesn't have a law degree. Anyone who talks about not having yet taken the BAR in Alberta is making it pretty clear he doesn't have half a clue about what ACTUALLY happens in Alberta to become a lawyer.

Aside from that, his lack of critical thinking skills and inability to directly address my logical arguments and fact based approaches to his nonsense seems to speak for itself.

As far as having a law degree goes, I'm picking up what you are putting down. I can tell you from experience that it doesn't make you know everything and anyone who professes that it does, clearly doesn't actually possess said degree. Law is hands on, and book smarts doesn't translate to knowing shit until you actually practice.