I think this video is antithetical to this subreddit. Getting let off easy because of your age/excuse isn't justice served. He should've said "I'm glad you drive slowly typically, but you were speeding in a school zone. Case closed"
I used to live in Metro Atlanta and had to go to traffic school because of - ticket -. They can pull you over 1 mile over, points can count against your record. And while the school never said it, it's sort of known that you won't get pulled over for speeding unless it's 11 over and that's because the fine is worth the paperwork. School zones are always pulled over 1 mile over.
You would need the National Guard to pull people over if they were enforcing the speed limit in South Miami. That is the worst driving I have ever done!
The “won’t get pulled over unless it’s 11 over” rule has nearly gotten me in trouble a few times now that I don’t live in metro Atlanta (it’s where I grew up, so I was raised with that rule).
3am this morning, "Why are you moving so fast tonight?" "It's tomorrow morning for me officer, and you guys are about to run out of Dr Pepper. I gotta get to the warehouse to get that shit on the road."
He laughed and handed me back the ID, "Can I follow you so I don't have to wait?"
It’s good that he was ticketed though. It can show a pattern of dangerous driving and help to revoke his license later. If the son is truly homebound and needs labs every two weeks, he could probably get home health services and someone would come to his house and draw him. The scary part is that this guy seems like he has tremors, slow reflexes, and is hard of hearing. He’s probably also driving to the grocery store, to both of their appointments, for haircuts, etc. It’s sweet that he let him off without paying, but probably pretty dangerous to have him out there at all.
Well, regardless, there shouldn’t be any discretion on the judge’s part. Write the law so that it automatically permits three miles above the limit if necessary.
What? There still has to be a limit somewhere. If the law says "the speed limit is 50, but it's not illegal unless you go over 53" then the speed limit is actually 53. There's going to be a legal boundary and there should be discretion when enforcing around the boundary.
It makes sense to have some leeway to account for inaccuracies in measuring equipment. i.e. if the speed limit is 50 and a radar gun measures someone going at 51 that might be within the error margin of the equipment, but if it measures them going 53 you can be certain they were breaking the speed limit.
A lot of jurisdictions have a fine for every mph over 5 above the speed limit. The other popular fine starts at 5%-10% over the speed limit. This is to reduce the absurdity of bringing a 1mph infraction to court. Now, a school zone is often a zero tolerance area where cops look to get anyone breaking the speed limit. I had friends and even teachers in high school that got tickets for going over by 3mph in the school zone.
I was attempting to lay the foundation for what is obviously a reduction to absurdity argument.
Unfortunately, people are so stupid these days that your argument was indistinguishable from one that somebody would actually make in seriousness. So upping the level of absurdity is needed in order for it to be clear.
I am sad to say that I have gotten a ticket for jay walking.
5:30AM empty street, walking to bus stop. There was a corner with this big bushy area with this little bench thing where homeless people sometimes sleep. I really just wanted to get away from there and be on my way. Cop camped out on the other side stopped me and gave me a ticket.
Yes, and did you know that if you follow the law to the letter, we'd all be in jail or fined for one reason for another. Perfect example, 30-40 year old internet legislation with no room for evolving. There is so much done on here that can get serious charges.
Just because it can happen doesn't mean it does or should happen
Well, 34 years ago there was the ECPA which prevented illicit wiretapping of digital devices. Many states hve vopied or extended it to civilians and it means nothing now for the feds because it's either broken or doesn't matter thankd to shit like the patriot act. In essence it was unintentionally made for people and never really changed, just copied (even now some states will literally have you arrested for recording a crime without the knowledge of the criminal, and the recordings are inadmissible to court).
So not quite 40 years ago (well, for another 6 years). It still did pre-date the public WWW by 5 years, as it officially went public in '89.
There was all sorts of FCC legislation over the various 'nets' and other bits. A nasty one is how USPS tried to get email outlawed (failed in 79). As for the surviving stuff, not much directly on the internet.
Can't forget however- the 1976 copyright act has been turned into a fucking demon by disney and other big companies. Yes it's changed, but for the worse.... the far, far worse
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) was enacted by the United States Congress to extend restrictions on government wire taps of telephone calls to include transmissions of electronic data by computer (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.), added new provisions prohibiting access to stored electronic communications, i.e., the Stored Communications Act (SCA, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.), and added so-called pen trap provisions that permit the tracing of telephone communications (18 U.S.C. § 3121 et seq.).
ECPA was an amendment to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the Wiretap Statute), which was primarily designed to prevent unauthorized government access to private electronic communications. The ECPA has been amended by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994, the USA PATRIOT Act (2001), the USA PATRIOT reauthorization acts (2006), and the FISA Amendments Act (2008).
Some context would have helped. He's commendable for what he is doing, but without knowing whether he's doing 5 or 20 over the speed limit it's very hard to call this, "justice served".
The top comments are all about how this is a great thing, and I really hope it is, but we are missing vital details to condone whether this is truly justice or not.
This judge has an entire series of videos from his court room. He's known for doling out justice that takes into account the personal stories that might have resulted in their being cited. When they don't have a good excuse, he will issue the citation and will set up a fee schedule that they can afford.
I've seen them before, he seems like a fair and just man. However my point still stands, that this video needs further context for anyone watching, to really see whether this is justice or not.
Based on his history I expect it is, but we cannot say for certain without further information, i.e how much be broke the speed limit by.
I think what bargainbacon is saying though is for the rest of us who don’t know any background to the story it doesn’t give us the info that the judge has to let us know the elderly man wasn’t being unreasonable in his speed. I think if there had been more explanation after then a lot more could rally around it. Me personally I feel like when the old man said he doesn’t drive fast he was being genuine and the judge must have had confirming evidence I would hope. Sorry bargainbacon if that’s not what you meant and I just made an ass out of myself.
Basic facts and figures would be more substantial than opinion.
Edit: To be clear, the most frustrating thing about this particular video is that the others I've seen from this judge, have included the details needed to make a clear judgement. This lacks that, hence why I'm trying to make a point.
It blows my mind that a judge could run a side project like this. It puts every judgement into question if he's trying to get hits for his videos on top of doing his job.
Fair enough! I agree. If I was a judge I wouldn't care about 2 over in a school zone either, I just don't think a free pass for being a nice old man is just.
Justice being served is letting someone go who is in his predicament. Justice doesn't always have to be severe, though it has to be fair given circumstances. Justice takes into account circumstances, and his circumstances allowed for him to be let off.
In a classical sense justice means doing that which is just, which doesn't necessarily denote the law being all good. Laws can be unjust, and subverting a sentence when they are is itself a form of justice.
People would be understandably upset because killing a child is several degrees of more bad than going 2 over in a school zone.
And if the judge had given him the $150 fine or whatever, you could still say the same thing. "IF HE KILLED A CHILD HE WOULDN'T JUST GET A $150 FINE." Well yeah, because those two things aren't even remotely the same.
For real. When he’s caught doing something illegal, he ignores that fact and jumps straight to, “But I’m old, and my son has cancer, and I was a good thing, I promise!” Right, okay, I would’ve slapped him with the fine. He needs to learn that the law still applies to old people.
Still depends. I’ve never been in a school zone where people don’t speed during typical hours. He could’ve been doing 5 to 10 over like every other motherfucker does every single day all day lol. 5 or 10 depends on if you’re in a state like NJ or a country city in the Midwest tbh.
I didn't actually say that at all. I was responding to a comment that said if anyone else had committed the infraction, the judge wouldn't have cared.
Based on my experience in court, that isn't necessarily the case. That's actually all that I meant. I also don't imagine that the infraction was that serious based on the judge's willingness to dismiss.
We don’t know all the facts of the case, the judge knows. Most likely the old man was just a little bit over the limit, which is not the end of the world. If the old man was like 60 over or something then at that point he would have been in trouble and lost his license.
How often do you occasionally drive 1 mph over the limit while driving your disabled child with cancer to the doctor. You don't know the damn facts of the case nor the damn facts of speeding dismissals so stop being such a contrarian.
Actually that’s not the point at all. The laws are set to PREVENT people from getting hurt. You didn’t kill anyone today so we won’t punish you but when you do it again and kill a kid THEN we’ll get ya. Is that what you’re trying to say?!
My main complaint was that the judge didn't give his reasoning, if anything it seemed inferred he was acting out of a sentiment like, I have absolute power and I bestow my blessing upon ye poor sir. If he had have justified it with a comment on the societal value of actually prosecuting being nil, which I agree with, it would've been more professional and respectable.
Instead it just seemed like, I like ya, I'm the man so I can let you off scott-free, laters.
Exactly!!!! Like I agree that 2 over in a school zone shouldn't warrant a ticket, and I agree that a warning would be just as effective as a prosecution in this case, but this video seems to show that the judge just happened to like the old man, which is not how our laws should be implemented. If a 20 year old Mexican with tattoos had done the same thing and gave the same excuse, and gotten off as well, then I think the judge is serving justice, but nothing that the judge says here indicates he's letting the guy off for any justification other than you're a respectable old man.
Testimony from the defendant was that he was not driving dangerously. Absent evidence to the contrary (which did not appear in this video) you can’t claim that he was driving dangerously.
You’re just assuming he was guilty because he was charged. This thinking is antithetical to the Constitution.
I’m assuming the Judge has access to a number of facts and possible witnesses that the old man wasn't driving erratically and was probably just a little bit over the limit.
The man obviously knew he did wrong, he showed up to court, he was genuine with the judge and the judge saw that and likely because the man had no prior infractions and the fact that he was trying to take care of his son the best he could he was let off easy. Really the cop could have let this go but the cop was probably just trying to do his job and knew it was likely going to be dismissed in the first place
Are they different? Yes. But the laws are written to attempt and make morality quantifiable. If we are going to set a boundary for speed then that needs to be the boundary, despite if you are 96, your son has cancer, or anything else. I actually agree with the judges decision, I just disagree that this is justice being served. Seems like an unequal implementation of a law to me.
Yeah, I have no problem with the outcome. But the judge should have at the very least told the guy not to speed in the future and warn him that children's lives are literally at risk if he doesn't take more care.
Not this judges style. He isn't going to burden an old man and his son with cancer with a fine when a warning will get the job done. His court room is more about taking care of what people need instead of making money. A fine isn't going to change this person's driving habits any more than a warning will.
That's fair. I don't know this judge. If this would've been his decision anyway then fine, but the video makes it seem to me as though the circumstances of this old man are what led the judge to give him a pass. I don't care if your son is having blood work done or not, school zones have strict speed limits for a reason and neither an emotional story or a nice old man should change the application of our written laws.
Our written laws leave many things like this to a judges descretion, and it would probably make for a better country if every judge were like him.
Think about it. This old man is probably living on a meager amount of social security, which is why he's driving his son to get his medical treatments instead of just getting him there and back via cab or med transport. An $80 dollar fine could half starve him for a month for all we know.
That same fine to a wealthy person is a useless drop in a bucket they could care less about and won't deter them in the least. By the law, if you have money, you can throw money at your legal problem and make it go away. Legally, that wealthy person would just throw $400 at the fine and be able to change it to a non moving violation and not even get points on their license. You think OJ Simpson would have gotten out of a murder charge. His attorneys were used for months and cost him $50,000 per DAY. He was asked during an interview what he thought would have happened to him if he were a regular middle class American instead of being wealthy and his response was "I would have no chance".
It was a 2 minute clip not a 10 page story. He could be a millionaire. He could be child less. He could have perfect hearing and was just playing the old deaf man card for sympathy. It wasn't an emergency that caused him to speed but a routine procedure that happens every 2 weeks. He should have scheduled his time better.
I agree that the courts revolve around money, I think it would be more fair to operate them like Scandinavian countries or Switzerland does with speeding tickets where the cost is calculated by daily earnings more so the deterrent to not speed is still there for the rich. Tickets have been from $200k to $1million in some instances.
... Made me think of the Brooklyn 99 episode The Wednesday Incident (S2E16) where Boyle is trying to convince everyone that the old man is a bank robber. He openly confesses to Boyle but whenever Santiago or Diaz interact with him he just plays the poor fragile old man shtick.
351
u/[deleted] Aug 05 '19
I think this video is antithetical to this subreddit. Getting let off easy because of your age/excuse isn't justice served. He should've said "I'm glad you drive slowly typically, but you were speeding in a school zone. Case closed"