# Traffic Tickets Issued By MP's



## GSXRK4 (13 Sep 2005)

Got pulled over on the base in Kingston for speeding. This is my first speeding ticket issued by an MP and will be pleading NOT GUILTY.   I dont have my court date yet as I just dropped off my request to the court office here in Kingston 

Just wondering if anyone has any idea what the SOP is when an MP's traffic ticket is disputed in court.   Are the MP's required to a) to go to all court hearings b) dont go to any court hearings c) it is up to the issuing officer d) something else.

Thanks for everyone input.


PS Dont speed on base!


----------



## dutchie (13 Sep 2005)

GSXRK4 said:
			
		

> PS Dont speed on base!



How about don't speed period?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (13 Sep 2005)

By you saying don't speed on base it implies that you were speeding.

By pleading not guilty it implies you were not speeding.

Which is it?

If you were speeding and are pleading not guilty just to avoid paying the price that society demands of you then you are shirking your responsibility to society.

If you were not speeding and its a bum rap, good luck.


----------



## dutchie (13 Sep 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> If you were speeding and are pleading not guilty just to avoid paying the price that society demands of you then you are shirking your responsibility to society.
> 
> If you were not speeding and its a bum rap, good luck.



Bingo.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Sep 2005)

GSXRK4 said:
			
		

> Just wondering if anyone has any idea what the SOP is when an MP's traffic ticket is disputed in court.    Are the MP's required to a) to go to all court hearings b) dont go to any court hearings c) it is up to the issuing officer d) something else.



Answer is....this court case will be like any other court case.....The Issuing Officer will be there.


----------



## MP 811 (14 Sep 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Answer is....this court case will be like any other court case.....The Issuing Officer will be there.



Yep.........


----------



## Infanteer (14 Sep 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> By you saying don't speed on base it implies that you were speeding.
> 
> By pleading not guilty it implies you were not speeding.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## KevinB (14 Sep 2005)

The only dif, is MP's dont get Court Time...


----------



## noneck (14 Sep 2005)

Depending on where you work some cops don't get court time either. Here in the LMD there is a Court Computer Program that schedules court time for both traffic and Crim Court during the period that the police officer is working. Great idea, however if there was a major incident, then 1/4 to 1/2 of the members on a particular squad or watch may be off the road, sitting around court waiting to be called as opposed to out on the road taking calls. This system was probably developed by a "Carpet Cop" looking for some pips on their shoulders.


----------



## Bintheredunthat (17 Sep 2005)

Yeah - speeding on the base is a big no no.  You may be able to get away with 10 over in town - but when you go through those gates and see the "Marching Troops have Priority" signs, watch out.  MP's don't mess around.

I had a civilian friend get pulled over once doing 52 in a 50.   Ouch.  But those are the rules kids.  I know when I'm in that "marching troop", I don't want any clowns ripping by my guys doing 55-60.  And personally, I think they should lower all speed limits on base to 40 because I'm tired of people who are late for work tail gating me while I go the limit.

Bin


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (17 Sep 2005)

if you want a chance to beat the ticket, go find the sign that  states the speed limit on the base closest to where you were pulled over at, if there is no DND sticker on the back take a picture of it. that is how a guy  beat a ticket at base toronto,  since it was not ontario street or highway , the highway  and traffic act  for ontario was not valid. the mps then went around put DND stickers on all the signs and it became a valid ticket. 
but in most cases good luck in beating a MP ticket, they  do not get a lot of court time so i am betting that  MP will show up and be there with everything in order to show his side of the ticket as valid and you will be made to pay  it


----------



## Bintheredunthat (17 Sep 2005)

Good point.  I'm sure if MPs have nothing better to do than strictly enforce the speed limit, they surely have nothing better to do than show up in court.

Don't mean to offend any "Meat-heads" with the nothing better to do remark.   ;D

Bin


----------



## Strike (17 Sep 2005)

Were you caught by radar or was he following you?


----------



## NCRCrow (17 Sep 2005)

Fight it hard....you might get a reduction......MP's get real nervous in Court


----------



## GSXRK4 (17 Sep 2005)

Thanks to everyone for all the advice...I like the DND sticker idea. I have beaten a few tickets on technicalities and I will definitely look into the DND sticker defence.  This is my first ticket by an MP so it should be interesting.  Sad thing is the ticket is only $40 dollars but factor in all that insurance crap and that $40 can turns into a lot more. 

For those that wanted to know I was caught by radar doing a little more the 10km/h over, the MP knocked it down a few clicks.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Sep 2005)

Quote,
_For those that wanted to know I was caught by radar doing a little more the 10km/h over, the MP knocked it down a few clicks._

So even though the MP gave you a break you still can't get up on your hind legs and except the consequences? :-[


----------



## George Wallace (17 Sep 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _For those that wanted to know I was caught by radar doing a little more the 10km/h over, the MP knocked it down a few clicks._
> 
> So even though the MP gave you a break you still can't get up on your hind legs and except the consequences? :-[



Bruce

He is looking at the consequences:



			
				GSXRK4 said:
			
		

> This is my first ticket by an MP so it should be interesting.   Sad thing is the ticket is only $40 dollars but factor in all that insurance crap and that $40 can turns into a lot more.



As one ticket is not likely to affect Insurance, it would appear that he is/has 'experienced enough' and knows that several will.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Sep 2005)

George,
One can "look" all day, that doesn't equate to accepting one screwed up and that reperation must be paid....


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Sep 2005)

I for one have never fought or disputed a ticket (I have received 3). Why? Because I was speeding. Being polite and respectful certainly helped shave a few km/h, dollars and points off those bad-boys  

If the cop said I was doing 150 km/h and I knew I was doing 49, I would fight it (because that is inaccurate). But, as others have suggested, accept responsibility for your action. It seems that people have no spine anymore when it comes to these things. I'm not saying bend over and take it just because, but if you are in the wrong, you're in the wrong. And just saying "well, everybody does it!!!!" doesn't make it right, it only makes one look even lamer.

I know that if I was the boss of a soldier who was wanting time off to fight it in court (if they are just hoping for the cop not to show up, or get off on a BS technicality (like the DND sticker thing), I would make them take a day Annual. That would make them think twice about fighting it. If they were dead serious about it, and would use a day annual, it would indicate that they were probably justified in fighting it (my above-mentioned inaccuracy example, for example).

There was a guy in Edmonton who took half a day off to fight a photo-radar ticket, thinking he could win because there was another car in the photo. The judge called BS. He then said he was speeding because the car ahead of him blew a tire, so he had to speed up to avoid it. The judge again said BS (slowing down would be the logical thing to do, he said). The sad thing was he was given the time off as a freebie, because his boss wanted to see him "stick it to the man". Yeah, ok.....

Al


----------



## NCRCrow (17 Sep 2005)

FIGHT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!IN COURT


----------



## PViddy (17 Sep 2005)

Personally and strictly IMHO i would never just pay a ticket.  If i am correct MP's issue tickets under the HTA ? in which case if it is being tried in civi court you have an excellent chance of getting the ticket reduced even further.  Maybe somone can explain how a traffic ticket on base is tried, and i might be able to provide some more relevant information.  But ya the skinny is, never speed on base - the MP's will eat you because their is usually not much else goin on.  And yes, "never speed ever!" blah blah how many people do exactly 100 on the 400 series highways ? come on.  

cheers

PV


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Sep 2005)

The law is the law. Yes, I may sound like Ned Flanders, but believe me, I have broken more than a few.

If you want to start breaking the law, where does it end???? Well, who cares if the law says 1 spouse. 2, 3,4 .... what's the big deal???? Judge, I don't care if the Stat Rape age is 16 [or whatever it really is]. 15, 14, 8.... who cares?!?!?!

If you do the crime, do the time.

And, BTW, PViddy, I noticed that you are an OCdt (based on your avatar anyways). If/when I see you, I'm not going to salute you (when you get the Commission) because who salutes officers, anyway???


----------



## NCRCrow (17 Sep 2005)

C'mon Al................. you sound to pusser not to salute

10 clicks over the limit without a warning, gimme me a break

Its a citizen's right to have his day in court/


----------



## George Wallace (17 Sep 2005)

PViddy said:
			
		

> Personally and strictly IMHO i would never just pay a ticket.   If i am correct MP's issue tickets under the HTA ? in which case if it is being tried in civi court you have an excellent chance of getting the ticket reduced even further.   Maybe somone can explain how a traffic ticket on base is tried, and i might be able to provide some more relevant information.   But ya the skinny is, never speed on base - the MP's will eat you because their is usually not much else goin on.   And yes, "never speed ever!" blah blah how many people do exactly 100 on the 400 series highways ? come on.
> 
> cheers
> 
> PV



I am sure you read this whole post, but in case you didn't, reply # 4 stated:


> Re: Traffic Tickets Issued By MP's
> « Reply #4 on: September 13, 2005, 18:59:00  »
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## Neill McKay (17 Sep 2005)

PViddy said:
			
		

> Personally and strictly IMHO i would never just pay a ticket.   If i am correct MP's issue tickets under the HTA ? in which case if it is being tried in civi court you have an excellent chance of getting the ticket reduced even further.



Now, if you were to drive carelessly and run into someone's fence, would you pay to make good the damage or would you fight their claim in the hope of getting the amount reduced?

It seems to me, if the ticket is legitimate, doing anything other than just paying it falls short of a reasonable standard of ethical behaviour.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Sep 2005)

Quote from HFXcrow,
_10 clicks over the limit without a warning, gimme me a break_

Yea thats right, next time someone fly's by your kids school or playground JUST 10 km over the limit just smile and say " aww, there's too many kids in this world anyway." : Putz.....


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Sep 2005)

> Its a citizen's right to have his day in court/



Sure, if you feel the urge to tie up the judicial system with frivolous crap. IF you are innocent, fight it. If you are guilty, pay the fookin' ticket. Pretty radical, I know....



> you sound to pusser not to salute



I suppose my point was lost. If I were to not salute, could I just say (at the charge parade, were it to come to that): "Who salutes officers anyways???". That would be a air-tight defence. There are rules, laws, regulations. Follow them at your leisure, but don't whine, snivel and cry when it comes time to pay the piper. The courts allow these things to be paid outside of the courtroom to free up court-time. The more lame-asses and loop-hole weiners that fight these things "because I can" only make it worse. 

Plus, what the hell does "pusser" mean (I am too lazy to Google it right now). If you won't tell, here's one for you: SADSU.

Al


----------



## NCRCrow (17 Sep 2005)

Al:
Pusser:
a navy term that is a compliment for being above aboard and a good hand or sailor adhereing to the rules and setting a good example for others

Here is a quote:

"Pusser" a derivation of Purser, the supply/logistics hand, is an old yet current form of Naval slang used mostly in "Commonwealth" navies, those with strong operational, adminstrative or traditional ties to the British - Royal Navy, certainly in regular use in the Canadian Navy. Similar to the U.S. Army's use of the term "G.I." - Government Issue, anything issued by the Crown/government stores system may be referred to as Pusser. Something or someone(!), who appears to be "issue" may be refered to as "Pusser" as well. "His attitude was SO Pusser, it hurt."

what does SADSU mean..,,( lived up to my part)


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Sep 2005)

Suck a dick, straight up

A guy I know of used it once (never heard used before), and I have a certain affinity for it (especially, when you use it in acronym form, like SNAFU or BOHICA, as nobody gets it, so it's like an in-joke, and you certainly can beat the "harassment sniv's" who don't like any bad words used in the workplace......).

Pusser sounded a little too close to pussy, so I figured it was an insult.

Anyhoo, there it is.....


----------



## NCRCrow (17 Sep 2005)

no more compliments from me tonight, I have PDR's to finish (which means I should not be here)

Crow


----------



## GO!!! (17 Sep 2005)

Allan, 

There are a number of websites devoted to ensuring that you receive a fair trial in traffic court, the most common of which has 32 questions to ask the issuing officer. These include questions on the calibration of his equipment, his training on said equipment, atmospheric conditions which could adversely affect his or the equipment's performance etc.

They are not frivolous, they are there to ensure that your rights as a citizen are protected against LE that may have made a mistake. 

Also, the Canadian driver's handbook clearly states that you as a driver are to look at your speed every 8 seconds as part of your ongoing driving procedure. If your car is capable of accelerating 10km/h in the 8 seconds your eyes were on the road, this deserves consideration.

In addition to this, check over your ticket carefully. It sounds foolish, but if the Issuing Officer has made enough mistakes, the ticket can be quashed. A common one is placing a checkmark in the wrong box, indicating that you were charged under the wrong act/code.

Finally, in open court, ask the issuing officer how many tickets he wrote that day, and if he was instructed to issue a certain number. Many judges are remarkably unsympathetic to LE that writes 12 tickets in the space of an hour, all of whom are now fighting them in his/her courtroom.

None of these are foolproof, but the combination of aggressive questioning, the right questions, mistakes and the admission of using a quota system will often cause an LE to make a mistake, or admit one, resulting in justice being carried out, and you not being convicted. Of course, sometimes you will lose, but if the LE answered all of your questions to the judge's satisfaction, you deserve to.

It is never "frivolous" to go to court. It is an exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, just like voting.

Good luck!


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Sep 2005)

I know that if I was facing a murder rap, I would fight it in court. There are certain things that don't merit wasting the court's time. A speeding ticket, where you are guilty, and you know it, but want to waste everybodies time doing so, is frivolous. Say what you want, but that is my opinion (and it appears, many others here.....)

 The fact that there are websites that tell you how to "beat" a ticket doesn't impress me much. There are websites that tell pedophiles where to hunt for children, I'm sure. Doesn't make them right, now does it?!?!

I know that there are "countermeasures" to beating radar, photo-radar, whatever. Do I buy them (other than the radar-detector I had about 15 years ago, but I had to shit-can because they are banned in 99% of jurisdictions, it seems)???? No. I don't want to put my money into someone else's pocket for something that is there to beat systems that try to get people to slow the fook down. Law enforcement  personnel are doing exactly that: enforcing laws that we, the people, want. Speed kills, we all know that. Excessive speed is a waste of fuel, which is why governments imposed certain speed limits during the oil crisis in the 70's. 

I have heard/seen too many barrack-block lawyers, and the civy variants, go on about how to beat tickets: mail in a cheque for 50 cents over the fine, and "they" can't process it because it isn't the exact amount. Ask about the calibration of the radar gun (as you mentioned). Mail in a photo of the amount of the fine in cash (the best, urban legend no doubt) response from the police was a photo of a pair of handcuffs). And the list goes on. 

Sure, fill your boots, take a day off work (if on the clock, it can cost you plenty) to fight the Man. I won't be there to stop you, nor will I be there to support you. 

BTW, I am in the process of being investigated for harassment at work. I am "fighting" it, because I am innocent. I didn't bend over, and say thank you very much, Sir. There is a time and a place to take your stand against injustice. But, if I were guilty, I would have saved everybody the time (and believe me, there are many man-hours of work involved in this process) and said "Guilty, as charged" and taken my punishment. If you think that is being, well, whatever you want to call it, so be it. I have my own guidelines and principles that I follow. That's what allows me to sleep at night.

Al


----------



## PViddy (18 Sep 2005)

> it is never "frivolous" to go to court. It is an exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, just like voting.



well said.

PV


----------



## MP 811 (18 Sep 2005)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Fight it hard....you might get a reduction......MP's get real nervous in Court



uhuh....................some of us actually didnt mind court.  Here's an idea, obey the freakin laws.


----------



## Springroll (18 Sep 2005)

You broke the law, now pay the fine. It is as simple as that.


----------



## ZipperHead (18 Sep 2005)

Here's (hopefully) my final say on all of this: for all of you that say "fight it in court", and that are leaders (or supervisors or managers, or whatever corporate-speak we use in the military today): when you have to recommend a soldier for disciplinary action (ie they were insubordinate to you, they assaulted you, they broke a regulation you hold near and dear, etc), you best be helping them fight it on a technicality. Show them how to beat the rap. I.e. when did you do your leadership training, and are you still current on all the QR&O's, DAOD's, CFAO's.... Did you read them their caution immediately, or did you shit on them first? Are there 415 witnesses, video evidence, and Notary Public signed documents to seal the deal???

I have seen soldier's get away with a lot because of this type of nausea, and it astounds me that we have come to this. So again, if you are so "for" sticking it to the Man, if you have a set of nuts, you will help the very soldiers that you want to see charged for whatever offense, because it would be only the "right" thing to do. If you would, or have, good for you. It shows that you have principles. If not, I thought as much (cough *lamer* cough).

Al


----------



## MP 811 (18 Sep 2005)

Well put Allan Luomala.  I astounds me the advice thats been put out here.  MP's get real nervous in court, common, grow up.  Lets face it, if you did something that was wrong, suck it up, pay your dues and GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE.  I myself have received two parking tickets as of late.  And guess what, I PAID THEM!!  Yes, what a concept huh??


----------



## George Wallace (18 Sep 2005)

As you seem intent on going to Court, have you at anytime had that experience before?  What are you going to do when the Judge simply asks you "Were you speeding?  Yes or No."   No shades of grey.  No arguements.  Just 'Yes' or 'No'.  Your day in Court would then be approximately five minutes, after a couple of hours waiting, and only to be told that you have two months to pay the fine.


----------



## GO!!! (18 Sep 2005)

You will notice that the tone of my post was based on the idea of a fair trial and conviction, and not "getting off". How foolish would you feel if you paid the ticket, and later found out the MP had no formal trg on that particular model of radar/laser, and it had not been calibrated in 2 years, and now had a large margin of error. 

You would have been improperly accused, and will reap the benefits of higher insurance, more demerits on your licence, and a less than spotless driver's abstract. And you just plead guilty, ensuring that the cycle will continue.

Also, are you wasting Revenue Canada's time by challenging a portion of your tax audit? Are you wasting the passport offices time by applying for a passport? Of course not. They are services that you pay for in the form of taxes to protect your rights, and you have every right to it.

Barrack block lawyers? The phrase originated in the 1950's, with the return of a good number of WW2 vets, who had vast experience in the military, and would routinely beat even the most minor (129) of charges, simply because the law was weak. When the laws were tightened up with the Defence judicial review in 195_, the ability of troops to beat these charges was significantly reduced, resulting in a higher proportion of successful charges and a comensurate improvement in discipline. SO. The barrack block lawyers provided the impetus for the cleaning up of a sloppy system, and we are better for it today.

Troops beat your charge? Well, you have one person to blame for that one. If you had done your job properly, he would have been convicted, but you did'nt, and he walked. I think this is the downside of an army of "thinking" soldiers - sometimes they will out think their leadership!


----------



## Neill McKay (18 Sep 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> You will notice that the tone of my post was based on the idea of a fair trial and conviction, and not "getting off". How foolish would you feel if you paid the ticket, and later found out the MP had no formal trg on that particular model of radar/laser, and it had not been calibrated in 2 years, and now had a large margin of error.



None of that matters if the individual knows he was speeding.



> Also, are you wasting Revenue Canada's time by challenging a portion of your tax audit? Are you wasting the passport offices time by applying for a passport? Of course not. They are services that you pay for in the form of taxes to protect your rights, and you have every right to it.



Fighting a ticket when you know you did what you're accused of having done is quite different from fighting a bad ticket.  A legitimate use of government services is one thing, but using them to avoid paying a debt that you clearly owe is quite another.


----------



## Greywolf (18 Sep 2005)

I just got a ticket a few weeks ago from the MPs on Base Pet.  It was early Sat morning...with absolutely no cars or people or animals on the road.  I came up to a stop sign and slowed down and stopped for about a second, looked and saw no cars and I turned right.  That's when I saw an MP Police car coming the other way and the MP there flagged me down.  He gave me a ticket for not completely stopping at a stop sign.  Now ok, maybe I didn't stop for 5 sec, but it was obvious there was absolutely nothing on the road.  The MP said it was dangerous and I should always stop completely for several seconds before a stop sign because there are often troops marching there.  Well, I understand that, but on that Sat morning, there were no troops on the road.  In fact, there was absolutely no one on the road!  I think some MPs choose to enforce the law, even when it's trivial , but at other times, I've seen Police cars speeding themselves without sirens on.


----------



## GO!!! (18 Sep 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As you seem intent on going to Court, have you at anytime had that experience before?   What are you going to do when the Judge simply asks you "Were you speeding?   Yes or No."     No shades of grey.   No arguements.   Just 'Yes' or 'No'.   Your day in Court would then be approximately five minutes, after a couple of hours waiting, and only to be told that you have two months to pay the fine.



No judge would ask you that, and even if they did, you would not be required to answer - that little rule about "not giving evidence to incriminate oneself"

Hey - I was'nt always in the army!


----------



## GO!!! (18 Sep 2005)

Greywolf said:
			
		

> I just got a ticket a few weeks ago from the MPs on Base Pet.   It was early Sat morning...with absolutely no cars or people or animals on the road.   I came up to a stop sign and slowed down and stopped for about a second, looked and saw no cars and I turned right.   That's when I saw an MP Police car coming the other way and the MP there flagged me down.   He gave me a ticket for not completely stopping at a stop sign.   Now ok, maybe I didn't stop for 5 sec, but it was obvious there was absolutely nothing on the road.   The MP said it was dangerous and I should always stop completely for several seconds before a stop sign because there are often troops marching there.   Well, I understand that, but on that Sat morning, there were no troops on the road.   In fact, there was absolutely no one on the road!   I think some MPs choose to enforce the law, even when it's trivial , but at other times, I've seen Police cars speeding themselves without sirens on.



Look on the POINTTS website.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Sep 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> No judge would ask you that, and even if they did, you would not be required to answer - that little rule about "not giving evidence to incriminate oneself"


Really!

Happened to me in Renfrew ON.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (18 Sep 2005)

renfrew is policed by  over zealous officers of the OPP, renfrew has become a dumping ground for newer officers and they  ticket for anything that  will get them noticed by the desk and detachment SGT.  do not drink and drive in this town or walk home after the bar, they  look for the unsteady walker. they  love the ticket book here. 
i live in renfrew and I know it


----------



## ZipperHead (18 Sep 2005)

> Troops beat your charge? Well, you have one person to blame for that one. If you had done your job properly, he would have been convicted, but you did'nt, and he walked. I think this is the downside of an army of "thinking" soldiers - sometimes they will out think their leadership!



I'm guessing that you are a Cpl, without a PLQ. Why??? Because you seem to think it is easy to the job "properly". Ever issue a caution to someone??? If so, did the guy/girl get off on a technicality??? How about have someone be insubordinate to you, and you had the presence of mind to pull out your caution card immediately (or quote it, word for word) before you said anything???? How about having to go to a soldier's house, because he didn't show up for work, get a social worker to come along, have a MCpl there as a witness, (thereby having 3 witnesses, one a civvy), and then because you were concerned for his mental well being, let the social worker do the talking, and then because you ask a few basic questions, to cover the basics, not have an AWOA charge not  go through because you had the nerve!!! the nerve!!!! to ask these questions before the caution was read?????? Welcome to my world..... I gotta wait til you're my superior, and I'll push all the buttons I need to get you to not do your job properly, because, Hey!!! I'm a thinking soldier,too, you know... and then I'll laugh my hole off when I walk out of the Base Commander's office... Remember, it's always easy to look up the totem pole and say all you see are assholes, cause when you look down the totem pole, all you see are pricks.

I admit that I "shit the bed" on 2 of these occasions, but my leadership trg was done in an era ('92) where it was look up the info in the good old QR&O's (in a book.... using an index..... no Ctrl F..... IMAGINE!!!!!!), figure out what/where/how it applied, and that was that. No questions asked. Now, if you even breath hard while issuing the caution, which BTW, I just learned of within the last 2 years, the soldier can get off because you didn't do your "job properly". 

 We do sensitivity trg, diversity trg, harassment trg 2 or 3 times a year, but it seems that the type of PD (professional development) that should be done, isn't. 

BTW, I have never been charged, though I should have been, more than a few times. I was going to FORCE my WO and Tp Ldr to charge me for dereliction of duty, just to make sure that a Tpr would also be charged (they didn't want to charge the guy, because it would make our troop look bad.... hmmmm, that's good logic). In fact, the reason that more people aren't charged, is because, well, golly, it is too much work to do it, and all the hoops that one has to jump through to make a charge stick. And then even when all the T's are crossed and the i's are dotted, an OC or CO gives a teeny, tiny slap on the wrist. Is it any coincidence that discipline is in the crapper???? Soldier's could pretty much get away with murder, because they know that little or nothing will be done about it. The only thing stopping me from going "postal" some days is a sense of discipline, pride and professionalism..... I could claim PTSD, stress, boils on my ass, whatever, and I would probably skate.....

Anyway, I'm sure we can all go 'round and 'round on who's right and who's wrong. 

Al


----------



## Infanteer (18 Sep 2005)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> do not drink and drive in this town



I'd say don't do it - period.


----------



## Acorn (19 Sep 2005)

"Speeding" is a silly law, but the fact is that it is the best qualtifiable means to enforce traffic rules. It's hard to prove "reckless driving" but if you have a radar gun, you can easily show "exceeds the speed limit." The fact that many speed limits are stupid isn't relevant doesn't matter.

"Speed kills" is also a silly slogan.

And then there are photo radar units....

As for drunk driving - that IS stupid (I know - stupid is as stupid did.)

Whatever the case, be it an MP, Queen's Cowboy, or lesser force - they get similar training. Don't assume the MPs are going to screw things up.

Acorn


----------



## MP 811 (19 Sep 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Whatever the case, be it an MP, Queen's Cowboy, or lesser force -* they get similar training. Don't assume the MPs are going to screw things up.*Acorn



exactly.


----------



## GSXRK4 (19 Sep 2005)

For those of you who say it a frivolous reason to go to court or you are just wasting the courts time, court fees are built into your fine.  My example.......the fine for speeding was $30 and the court fee was $10....total owed $40.  Not only is it your right to go to court but you in fact pay for that service.   I have two close relatives that are cops and two friends that are cops.  I have never heard them say just pay the ticket...in fact they all say the opposite, you should never pay the ticket.   They even helped my get my last tickets quashed. 

The judge can't make you pay more than what is on your ticket so the question is why not go to court.  There isn't may cases where you actually will end up paying the full fine.  If the cop doesn't show up you win, if he/she does, the crown will most likely try to plead you down to a less fine/no points you name it.  If you still think you can do better in front of the judge, have at her.

And if everyone fought their traffic tickets there would be such a backlog that you would never have to pay because you weren't given a trail in a "timely fashion", which is one of your rights


----------



## dutchie (19 Sep 2005)

GSXRK4 said:
			
		

> The judge can't make you pay more than what is on your ticket so the question is why not go to court.



Oh, I don't know, because you're guilty? If you did speed, you WILL be asked by the judge if you were speeding. You now have a choice: 1-Lie. 2-Tell the truth (I was speeding).

If you choose to lie, then you have just purgured yourself. Not only that, you have no honour or integrity.

If you tell the truth, and admit to speeding, even 1 km over the limit, the next thing you will here is "Fine of ____, case dismissed." That fine will be the same fine as printed on your ticket. The judges have no time for people fighting tickets just to avoid the fine (as opposed to those that legitimately believe they were not speeding).



			
				GSXRK4 said:
			
		

> There isn't may cases where you actually will end up paying the full fine.



If you admit it, 99.99% of the time you will pay the original fine. 



			
				GSXRK4 said:
			
		

> the crown will most likely try to plead you down to a less fine/no points you name it.



They see a hundred of these things a week. This isn't CSI or Law and Order. This is the McD's of the court system. They want you in and out ASAP, ie - no plea.



			
				GSXRK4 said:
			
		

> If the cop doesn't show up you win, if he/she does,



In BC at least, the cops get OT for court. It's eeeee-zeeeee money. They show up.



			
				GSXRK4 said:
			
		

> And if everyone fought their traffic tickets there would be such a backlog that you would never have to pay because you weren't given a trail in a "timely fashion", which is one of your rights



Yeah, let's shut down traffic court so you numpties can avoid paying your fine. Don't need to worry about public safety or anything. Your personal finances and wish to break the law are more important.

Grow up.


----------



## Springroll (19 Sep 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Yeah, let's shut down traffic court so you numpties can avoid paying your fine. Don't need to worry about public safety or anything. Your personal finances and wish to break the law are more important.
> 
> Grow up.



I agree 100%!! 

If you are guilty, pay the damn fine and stop speeding. If you are not guilty, go to court, prove your not and go from there. 
The one thing I hate is people who speed and try to fight it by lying. It just shows that you have no personal integrity and no concern for anyone else but yourself. The law is there for a reason and if you think that you should be exempt from it, well it is time for you to move elsewhere. Laws are there to keep people safe from the morons of society. 

What would happen if you were speeding down my street and hit one of my kids as they were riding their bike or playing in the front yard? Would you try to say you weren't speeding to get out of it? Would you try to blame my kids? A similar situation happened earlier this year when some punk arse kid sped down my road and miscalculated the corner and ended up driving through my neighbours lawn. My friend and I watched this guy do it and he tried to claim a cat ran across the road and that he was doing under the speed limit....yeah right!! He was doing at least 70 in a 50. My kids play up there all the time so what would have been his reasoning if he had hit one of the kids?? I can guarantee that he would have said that it was the kids fault...somehow it was their fault that he was behind the wheel doing 70 in a 50 and wiped the car out on the curb and almost took out the telephone pole. :

Pay the fine for doing the crime.


----------



## MP 811 (19 Sep 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Yeah, let's shut down traffic court so you numpties can avoid paying your fine. Don't need to worry about public safety or anything. Your personal finances and wish to break the law are more important.
> 
> *Grow up*.



Wow, someone else using the same two words that I used!   I personnally have a hard time as well with people clogging up the courts with pissy complaints about why they wern't speeding to save themselves 30 bucks.   Our court system is in such dire straits that I know as a judge, I would love to have a docket full of guys wishing to contest their speeding tickets because they "weren't speeding"   But sure go ahead, if it makes you feel good to waste the courts time as well as your time go ahead and contest.   After all, you can go and tell all your friends that you beat a speeding ticket................makes you a big man


----------



## MP 811 (19 Sep 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> What would happen if you were speeding down my street and hit one of my kids as they were riding their bike or playing in the front yard? Would you try to say you weren't speeding to get out of it? Would you try to blame my kids?



I tell you what i'd do..............................but i'd end up out of a job and in criminal court, not traffic court.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Sep 2005)

And with that note, this thread has only served to polarize two camps; those who would admit to their transgression and pay for it, and those who would attempt to use the system against itself to not pay a deserved penalty. 

If anyone believes they have something more to offer besides reiterating either of these views, PM me with a request to add your comments. And I will consider doing so.


----------

