SO... it is not the judge's responsibility to know the law?
It's not the judge's job to understand how to apply the law?
They have to depend on the defendant to educate them on these finer points of exactly what a judge does for a living.
Oh, okay
E-cigarette lands man a traffic ticket in New York
- Thread starter CabinetGuyScott
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
SO... it is not the judge's responsibility to know the law?
It's not the judge's job to understand how to apply the law?
They have to depend on the defendant to educate them on these finer points of exactly what a judge does for a living.
Oh, okay
Good point, AgentAnia !!!!! 
Now the states will have to find a way to impose punitive taxes on electronic devices, like e-cigs.
Now the states will have to find a way to impose punitive taxes on electronic devices, like e-cigs.
The Judge's role is to Ensure that the Procedures inside His or Her Courtroom are Administered Legally. It is Not the Judges role to Defend the Plaintiff.
If a Plaintiff chooses to Not Bring Forth Evidence or to give Testimony on their Behalf, either Intentionally or thru their Own Stupidity, it is Not the Judges Responsibility to do so.
That is the Job of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff's Attorney.
Considering he should never have been in court in the first place, that is an ignorant conclusion.
Do you know the Circumstances as to Why he was Pulled Over?
Do you know what he Said to the Ticketing Officer?
Does Anyone Know?
But I do know that if he Went Into Court and Failed to Mention that His e-Cigarette was Not a Communication Device, than he Was/Is a Rube.
Last edited:
Unfortunately that's how they are being educated in Police Science. No longer law enforcement, more military without knowing the first thing about why or how the military works.
My wife has a part time employee where she works, the kid is going to school for Police Science, he came in and told them that "you have no rights, they taught us that the first day, we have the power and it's up to you to prove us wrong."
What a beautiful way to be brain washed and go through life, problem is most LEO's seem to have been picked on as kids and now have to show they are better in some way. It's a sick mind type of thing.
I was offered to go to the State Patrol in WI years ago. I told the Officer that wanted me to go that I would have a problem arresting people for something I may have done myself and got away with, 70's drinking, driving was wide spread at the time where I lived, almost a way of life. He told me hey that's the way it goes, once your in you'll never have to worry about it again. That was enough for me to say NO.
Unlike you, I believe what the story and the man stated. He got pulled over for vaping and that is what he got his ticket for. Did the cop think he was using a cell phone? Probably. But once the man showed him what it really was, that should have been the end of it. If he had gotten pulled over for speeding, as you suggested, (now pay close attention), he would have gotten a SPEEDING TICKET. But he didn't so he should not have gotten a ticket, period.
So your conclusion remains just plain ignorant.
BTW - Does Anyone Really think that the Ticketing Officer didn't know that Mr. Dewing's e-Cigarette couldn't be used as a Communication Device?
Sounds to me like he ...... the Cop Off somehow, so the Cop Wrote him a Ticket.
Wouldn't be the first time someone got a Ticket for doing Nothing more than Ticking Off a Police Officer.
Sounds to me like he ...... the Cop Off somehow, so the Cop Wrote him a Ticket.
Wouldn't be the first time someone got a Ticket for doing Nothing more than Ticking Off a Police Officer.
I would like to see some evidence of this, instead of "a friend of a friend told me..." if somone was teaching that to kids in a classroom he should be fired! No self respecting law enforcement officer would even say that. I would like proof.
The "kids that get picked on become cops" thing... its old hat, get some new material.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Why do I have a vision from a Cheech and Chong movie where the smoke fog emanating from the vehicle was instead vapor from a sub-ohm filling the passenger compartment?
Sorry to have hit a nerve, but I was there when the young man said what he said about his class and what was taught. I was also the person who was asked to join the State Patrol, by an officer I knew for years and he wanted me to join after I got out of the Army.
Up here in Wisconsin I've worked with guys that dropped out of Police Science because of what I posted, many of them, they don't believe it's right and didn't like it. Maybe things are different where you are, and that would be a good thing.
Heck I know one of the states top deputy Sheriff's and he was the biggest dealer of unmentionables to ever hit the north woods. How'd he get where he is, uncle was the county board chairman for years. I wish LO was as clean as you believe but it's not. I don't need to provide proof to anyone, I've seen it myself.
Last edited:
So a judge is nothing more than an administrative adjunct to the operation of a court of law, and dependent solely on what the plaintiff offers?
Z, I gotta say, you continue to ...
... let's just say "amaze" me.
Everyone is entitled to their own.
They can and they do ask their own questions, but generally only to elucidate evidence. They do not investigate and they do not introduce evidence. If there was evidence admitted that described the e-cig in detail, then they could have applied that to the law and found there was no match. But they can only consider the evidence before them. If nobody defined "e-cig" then they could not do their own research or apply their own knowledge. We don't have the court transcript, and we're not legally trained, so we don't know how much of this was down to the court and how much to the defendant. It sounds to me like the evidence offered by the defense amounted to nothing that affected his conviction under the law. People do that a lot; they say "I was doing this and it's innocent", whereas they need to say "in order for what I was doing to be an offense I need to have been doing this and this and this. I wasn't because of that and that and that, and here is the documentation and the expert testimony to prove it." It's why you always need a lawyer.
The whole conversation confused me. The e ciger was the defendant not the plaintiff. In this case, the defendant had a fool for a lawyer. If he wasn't going to argu why the law cited did not cover e cigs, he was just wasting his time and money. If this was presented in front of a JP like most states use, the defendant really needs to spell it out for the "judge" and that still might not be enough. At this point, he got his 15 minutes of fame, nothing more.
The guy was charged with violating a law that prohibits the use of electronic communication device while driving.
They defined what an e-cig is
And the judge assumed the e-cig's ability to be a communicator.
IMHO, and given we generally agree to the innocent until proven guilty it was the State's responsibility to establish the devise violated the law.
The State has the job to prove guilt, and it is the judge's role to apply the law - which in this case would have required him to not only understand what the equipment in question DOES, but further establish that it DOES violate the law.
And that's why I take such exception to the comments here placing the blame on the defendant for either possibly pissing the cop off, and / or not proving his innocence.
The guy was charged with using an electronic device, not an electronic communication device. Read the law. A device that allows the user to play games is also an electronic device under the law and would also be illegal.
The prosecution must have stated that he was using an electronic device. He evidently did not contest that fact in law. Therefore it was assumed to be true. That is how courts work. It would have been simple in cross-examination of the charging officer to prove that either he was incompetent to apply the law or that the device was not illegal under it. This was evidently not done.
This case should have never come to court. The police should not have prosecuted it. That is their fault. The defendant should have defended himself competently. He evidently did not. However it is not the judge's job to introduce evidence or to apply extraneous evidence of his own. He can not call witnesses to testify the abilities of an e-cig. He can not search the Internet for details of their construction. He is not competent to testify anything he knows or learns about e-cigs and to do so would be a huge conflict of interest.
The police and prosecutor are at fault.
The defendant's legal team is at fault.
The court did its job.
The prosecution must have stated that he was using an electronic device. He evidently did not contest that fact in law. Therefore it was assumed to be true. That is how courts work. It would have been simple in cross-examination of the charging officer to prove that either he was incompetent to apply the law or that the device was not illegal under it. This was evidently not done.
This case should have never come to court. The police should not have prosecuted it. That is their fault. The defendant should have defended himself competently. He evidently did not. However it is not the judge's job to introduce evidence or to apply extraneous evidence of his own. He can not call witnesses to testify the abilities of an e-cig. He can not search the Internet for details of their construction. He is not competent to testify anything he knows or learns about e-cigs and to do so would be a huge conflict of interest.
The police and prosecutor are at fault.
The defendant's legal team is at fault.
The court did its job.
It's the judge's job to JUDGE -- it says so right there on the label.
In fact, it's his job is to find people INNOCENT unless the State PROVES them guilty, which in this case would be darn near impossible. Let's look at why:
Does an electronic CIGARETTE fit the definition of devices that are not permitted to be used while driving?
No? Case dismissed.
Not sure? OK, let's continue on. Does USING an electronic cigarette fall into the category of actions prohibited by law?
No? Case dismissed.
Sorry, but this judge most certainly did NOT do his job.
Wow, classic "blame the victim". Your guessing, suggesting and misdirecting just makes your statement blaming the victim all the more pathetic.
- Status
Similar threads
