Thank you Rossum!
What is so complex about this centuries old concept that even today, people are just so ... it's frustrating to have to spell it out, to say the very least.
E-cigarette lands man a traffic ticket in New York
- Thread starter CabinetGuyScott
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Thank you Rossum!
What is so complex about this centuries old concept that even today, people are just so ... it's frustrating to have to spell it out, to say the very least.
...
What is so complex about this centuries old concept that even today, people are just so ... it's frustrating to have to spell it out, to say the very least.
The Next Time you are given a Ticket for Violating a Traffic Code, walk into Court and present No Evidence of your Innocence, we'll see just how well that "Guilty until Proven Innocent" things works in this Country.
Quoted for posterity with emphasis added.The Next Time you are given a Ticket for Violating a Traffic Code, walk into Court and present No Evidence of your Innocence, we'll see just how well that "Guilty until Proven Innocent" things works in this Country.
I suppose what you're saying is that the judge in the case this thread originated around isn't the only one who doesn't do his job properly?
Not saying that at All. The Judge did His Job.
It was the Defense that Didn't.
Why didn't Mr. Drewing Mention that his e-Cigarette Couldn't Communicate?
Last edited:
NY Does Not need the money we pay the highest income taxes in the country I have the max taken out of every paycheck and still owe money to NY state income tax at the end of the year. They need to use their money wisely.
I don't get why the defense didn't mention that his eCig wasn't a magic flying carpet? I mean how is the judge supposed to know that it isn't if the defense doesn't make this point?
Curiouser and curiouser.
Why does the song Taxman from The Beatles keep popping into my mind. Of course they need every dollar they get plus. The only time they'll stop is when they get it all.
Under English law, and those depending more or less on it, like Canada and Australia, it is called "Burden of Evidence". It is necessary for the defence to raise a reasonable doubt. They do this by presenting evidence sufficient to raise this doubt. Once that has been done the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm sure it exists in US law, but I don't know what it's called.
Say I am watching TV and some kids steal my car and drive past a speed camera at 110mph. Say they do it over the country line or whatever. I report the car stolen, get it back and alls good. Then a month or two later I get a speeding ticket. I can't just stay silent and expect not to have to pay it. I have to go to the trouble of raising that doubt by telling someone that I was not driving the car. The court will make assumptions. It has to. The assumptions it makes are those points of fact and law that are not challenged.
In this case the defence did a good job in proving that a phone was not involved. However they failed to raise a doubt that an e-cig is not an electronic device. To be fair to them it seems this theory was introduced later by the judge, maybe after evidence was finished.
Reading that Examiner article: Exclusive: Man found guilty of electronic cigarette law that does not exist - Knoxville Business | Examiner.com seems to indicate that the defence team was on the ball but blind-sided late in the trail. I wouldn't like to say without reading the transcript and taking at least a year of law school. But if the defence had crossed their Ts and dotted their Is, they would have submitted evidence relating e-cigs to the law. They obviously didn't do that.
In Common Law for the UK, are there Different Procedural Issues and Difference Assumptions about presumed Innocence for when a person Breaks a Law verses when a person Violates a Traffic Code?
No. It's a criminal offence. The only category with different requirements is civil.
The burden of proof remains with the plaintiff/prosecutor at all times. The case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, (or preponderance of evidence in a civil case.) The purpose of burden of evidence is to raise that doubt; it establishes a question of fact that can be put before the finder of fact (jury or judge). The burden is to present evidence such that the fact is seen to be apposite and can be reasonably considered.
The burden of proof remains with the plaintiff/prosecutor at all times. The case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, (or preponderance of evidence in a civil case.) The purpose of burden of evidence is to raise that doubt; it establishes a question of fact that can be put before the finder of fact (jury or judge). The burden is to present evidence such that the fact is seen to be apposite and can be reasonably considered.
Interesting.
Do you know if in the case of Mr. Drewing if he was Charged with an Infraction, a Misdemeanor or if he was charged with a Felony?
I believe its called "preponderance of evidence" in US (or NY) law.
The "to be fair" part is largely significant, and relates to my admittedly ridiculous point of proving he wasn't using a magic flying carpet. I would say it is equally ridiculous to add on the "electronic device" charge right after person has just shown you phone records establishing that his communication device was not in use at time of the incident. Article notes that defense had to explain the law about "electronic device" to the court, and that the court was unaware of the wording of this law.
I believe it was submitted, but deemed not proven after already established that under the law this isn't the type of electronic device that 1225-d (or c) is dealing with. Which is ridiculous.
Some in this thread want to say defense was snippy with LEO and that's why this is where it is. I think it is exact opposite. I think LEO was convinced from getgo that defense was using cell phone. Even when presented with the device at time of charge, the LEO couldn't bring himself to see it any other way than way he was convinced to see it. So made the charge. Guy goes to court, with records to establish it couldn't have been his cell phone. Court sees that and then court gets snippy with defense, citing general law around portable electronic devices. Defense quotes exact wording of law to court to establish, again, that his device was not a communication device as is wording of the law. Judge then has option of vacating the ruling, or sticking by idea that defense needs to prove this device is not part of that law. Which is ridiculous, or equally ridiculous to point of defense having to prove that the eCig was not a magic flying carpet.
I mean, not to pick nits here, but isn't the burden of proof on the plaintiff? I agree with the whole lawyer thing, but really? How much should one spend to defend against a traffic ticket that was written for breaking a law that doesn't even exist?
Exactly enough to raise a reasonable doubt that the law exists.
No it isn't perfect. It would be nice if someone did the work for you so an innocent was never inconvenienced. But life is not fair; anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
You're right, life is not fair. But we're talking about a JUDGE here. He's PAID to BE FAIR and KNOW THE LAW; that's his JOB. If he doesn't know what the law actually says, he needs to take the time to read it before he convicts someone of violating it.
Go ahead, keep allowing and even making excuses for stuff like this, but then please don't be surprised when people tell you that they're withdrawing their consent to be governed by an unjust system.
Dr Johnson and a friend were walking around London. Before the great fire the streets were narrow and the upper stories of houses were built out over the street so there was only a small gap between them. The two friends stopped to watch two women in houses opposite each other, hurling insults and kitchen implements at each other.
"They will never agree," observed the good doctor, "as they are arguing from different premises."
"They will never agree," observed the good doctor, "as they are arguing from different premises."
Sounds pretty, and a lot like how the mafia might operate. But if LEO and judge are convinced otherwise, and proceeding from that logic, I would say there is not enough money on the planet to create this fictitious "reasonable doubt" that you are alluding to.
Says the person who implies a 'good defense' can be bought and paid for.
Considering that we (humanity) have made the 'law' in to a matter of 'how much money do you have today?' - then I would say we have no integrity in assessing the actual fairness of life, nor innocence. Stubborn judgment(s) and inability to let go of erroneous thinking are what makes 'life' appear unfair. I submit that life is entirely fair.
It is Baffling that you Continue to Confuse the Role of the Judge in a Court with the Role of the Accuse and or the Attorney who is Defending him.
If you walk into a Court Room and do Not Provide an Adequate Defense for the Charges that are being brought Against you, you will be Found Guilty.
Do Not Expect a Judge to Plead Your Case. Or to bring forth Evidence in your Defense.
- Status
Similar threads
