[QUOTE=Connection Problem]unless he has a criminal record, they won't be on file[/QUOTE]

There's other ways for the government to get your fingerprints you know. A lot of people give them voluntarily. Some parents give their kids' fingerprints away in case they go missing. The government gets your fingerprints if you join the military.

The police aren't going to waste their time finger printing a beer bottle, or whatever it was.

They were in water bottles, and only one of them was found. It didn’t really cross my mind to lie to the cops; all of the others had already spilled their guts. I didn’t see any possible gain by lying, and I was completely honest with them, which they really seemed to appreciate. The people that drank it were really low lives and I made a bad decision.

Well today is my first day of the suspension and it really sucks. I will be allowed to make up my finals. I’m not entirely sure why they are allowing this, but the authorities were very complimentary of me after our chat. I’m not so worried about school, I think it should come out alright, the thing I’m most worried about is my girlfriend. I really let her down.

She will understand, man. Bad decisions are a part of life. If we didn't make mistake, life would actually be pretty god damn boring.

Best of look in the development of this event.

I just got arrested last week...

Was gonna post about it, but didn't get around to it.

Basically I was in a car accident because I was driving on a 3 lane freeway, and I was in the far left lane, and I went to change lanes into the center lane, was halfway there and some moron started moving over to my lane without signaling. I cut back to avoid him, and went across the left lane over the edge of the road, caught my tires on some gravel, and slid into the barrier, which knocked me back across all three lanes to hit the barrier on the other side facing the direction of cncoming traffic. Oddly enough, though there were cars all around me, I did not hit a single other car, including the moron who ran me off the road in the first place. But then when the cops showed up people were telling them that I was "speeding past them at 100 mph" which, while I was speeding slightly was not even close to true (I was going roughly 80 in a 60 where everyone else was going 70). So the cop arrested me for wreckless driving... I've got to go to court in a couple weeks (Vibes), and will likely lose my license.

Sarn, you definatly need to protest that. It doesn't always work, obviously, but definatly hold your hand of the stick no matter what. Oh, and throw a tantrum and kick the cops if they take your license.

VIBES TO BOTH OF YOU, DAMNIT.

Yeah, that's ****ed. Cops ought to be smart enough to know that people have no clue has fast another car is going on the freeway and that they had to have been shaken by seeing a car come across the freeway like that.

I am not an Attorney and you should seek council with anyone that is before following any of the suggestions I have outlined below.

1st - Request that the city provide you with an Attorney.

2nd - Have your attorney subpoena all of the eye witness listed in the report.

3rd - Have your attorney ask them if they had a radar gun or any other tool that could accurately describe how fast you were traveling. Since it is highly unlikely that none of them will have such equipment and/or are not experts in determining relative speeds, all of their testimonies will be dismissed.

4th - Have your attorney determine if an Accident Reconstruction Expert was called to the scene. If so, your attorney needs to get a copy of that report. The report will indicate your velocity before you applied your breaks or otherwise skidded. If no Expert was called to the scene then have your Attorney the subpoena the cop that showed up and made out the report. Once they establish that he's not an Accident Reconstruction Expert, his testimoney (the police report) will be dismissed as well. At this point, your Attorney should ask that the case be dismissed due to lack of evidence against you.

5th - If they did use an Accident Reconstruction Expert, then you're probably screwed. My best suggestion is for you to ask your Attorney to speak with the City Prosecution and see if you can work out some type of deal and allow you to keep your license.

that's kinda how I was figuring it myself... I did apply for a public defender, and I think that I'll ask him/her about just that.

Make sure that you're completely honest with your attorney and tell him exactly what you told us. One of the things you need to be careful of, however, is how you word your reaction to the guy coming into the same lane as you without a blinker. You should say that, "this other guy started to come into my lane without using his blinker. I quickly reacted to avoid a collision with the other car which resulted in a self sacrifice to avoid a potentially fatal accident on a major highway." The main idea is to not say that it's your fault. Don't say that you over-reacted or that you lost control of the vehicle. Even state that it's because you were able to maintain control of the vehicle the entire time that you were able to avoid coliding with any other vehicles (especially considering that you cross back across all three lanes). The image that you want to portray is that it is because of your quick reflexes that no one else was affected by the careless and reckless driving of the guy who 'ran you off the road'. Tell your lawyer that you were going 20 over (which IS wreckless driving/endangerment), but the attorney shouldn't mention that in court. That's an accusation against you and the city has to prove that you were going even 1 mile over the speed limit...and pretty much the only one that can do that is an Accident Reconstruction Expert.

Brain could probably give you some pointers too as he deals with traffic laws more frequently then I do.

I've been ratted out before. Of course this is a pay your way country, so all I had to do was pull out a 200 pesos bill (equivalent of a 20 dollar bill) and settle the dispute. Then I'd go feed the rats with my hands.

EDIT:You should tell them how you got the beer, because that is what they are after. They want to know who is giving minors alcholic beverages.

What!? You're 16 years old...a minor. You get other minors booze. Sounds like EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT for half of my school. Jesus.

How do you people survive in that country?

Kung Fu gangs

how did you get in trouble for getting underagers alcohol when your not even 18.. who did you get it from??

It's pretty easy if you're me. I've never drank, never want to.

I'm with Freelancer on this. I'm not really into drinking anymore.

I remember getting really drunk about a month ago and then having my first hangover. That started me thinking-- why should I pay to drink something that tastes really bad, makes you clumsy and act stupid, and then wake up feeling bad the following day? The hangover that I experienced caused me to develop an aversion towards excessive alcohol consumption all by itself, but when I found out about my dyspraxia, I understood that getting drunk was out of the question, (alcohol reduces my already inhibited coordination and balance to a point where it's no longer safe for me to be out and around while drinking), so in a way, the choice was made for me, for safety reasons in addition to religious ones.

Now, the most that I indulge in is a glass of decent wine and the occasional beer, but never to the extent that I used to.

Perception. I've been fooled by this. If I'm going 60 MPH and someone whizzes by at 80, it looks like they're going much faster. Although going 80 in a 60 zone is not "slightly speeding." In the Golden State, that is considered reckless driving (going 20 MPH over posted limit)...so I'm told.

well, yeah, 20 over can technically be considered wreckless in this state too. The thing is, I wasn't driving foolishly. Even if I'd been driving 10mph slower (which was the approx speed of most of the other cars) I still would been in trouble as soon as that guy cut into my lane. But regardless, there were no qualified witnesses to say how fast I was going, far as I know.

And you'd have to get pulled over by a cop who had a major stick up his butt to get a wreckless for 20 over.

If it was "wreckless" driving you wouldn't be having this problem. Reckless driving is 20 over pretty much everywhere. 20 over is a lot, otherwise they wouldn't classify it as reckless driving....and as much as it sucks, it IS your fault that you wrecked, because you DID overreact. Even though the other guy was the root cause and what he did was definitely illegal, you can't really argue it because YOU were speeding AND you overreacted....worse still maybe if you were going the speed limit your overreaction wouldn't have cause you to fly off the road. So there's something to think about....hey, maybe you should just go to traffic court, present your case to the judge, and hope for a reduced fine.

This is coming from a guy who got pulled over the other day by a rookie cop who bumbled his way through the traffic stop, forgetting things and messing things up, having to have ME correct him, and still got 2 tickets, one for driving after dark with my headlights off (with my running lights on down a road which is so well lit I couldn't even tell my lights were off if I tried) and one for having an expired insurance card (it had expired earlier that week). I was pissed, especially since both are not intentional infractions. Suck up your pride and admit that you broke the law and submit to the consequences. If you were wrongfully charged, that's one thing, but you weren't.

Sorry if I sound pretty mean, but this is something I feel strongly about.

Wah wah wah you broke the law you pay the price. Sounds to me like you got lucky and didn't hit anybody. BobTheMasher is the only one that's posted in this thread that makes any sense.

oh man, sucks. i know, i've been there.

i've been caught smokin weed by the cops. i've been suspended by my high school. i'm on double probation in my current university. somehow, the transgressions aren't enough to do serious damage, and im sure that will be the case for you.

i've been doing damn fine. as long as you do what needs to be done (get good grades, keep on track in academia), you won't have a problem. unless you kill someone.

stupid american rules.

In britain, 12 year old chavs buy alcohol, then the police turn up, and do shots of vodka with the chavs...

or was that a dream...

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Sarn should still use all legal means possible to fight it. If he broke the law, the state should have to prove that in court. Sometimes, the law's presumption of innocence protects the guilty but maintaining that system is a shield for the innocent.

The state should "suck it up" and have an accident expert look at it before convicting someone on poor eye-witness testimony.

I agree that the accident, ideally should be examined, but what I'm saying here is that he KNOWS he's guilty, so it's kind of dishonest to fight it.

[QUOTE=Jedi Legend]Sarn should still use all legal means possible to fight it. If he broke the law, the state should have to prove that in court. Sometimes, the law's presumption of innocence protects the guilty but maintaining that system is a shield for the innocent.

The state should "suck it up" and have an accident expert look at it before convicting someone on poor eye-witness testimony.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. And Bob, I'm not saying I was in the rght or trying to make excuses, but the consequences are going to be bad enough as it is, without me doing everything I can to ensure that I face the maximum penalties.

And I don't think it's dishonest to fight it. If I'd just been pulled over, I'd have gotten a (approx) $200 speeding ticket. Instead, I'm looking at a suspended license, community service, possibly even jail time. :((though that's pretty unlikely, I think)

Funny, if Sarn hadn't of been speeding, the likelyhood of the moron being in the lane next to him would have been like, nothing.

Yeah Sarn, this is clearly all your fault. I hope you're sorry, young man.

I'm not saying it's dishonest to try to get your penalties reduced, you definitely should, considering the circumstances.

Speed laws are very flaky in the respect of how they are inforced. If the speed limits were taken literally and strictly enforced, then you'd have less speeding. But as it is, most local level jurisdictions practice a 10 over rule. The reason for this, is because speed detection devices (such as radar) aren't totally accurate. If it's not calibrated on a regular basis, then it get's 'off'. So many people were arguing descrepencies due to the radar calibration or their speedometers being 'off' a few mph, etc. So, by practicing the 10 over rule, it's a pretty safe bet that those descrpencies will not grant a person the benifit of the doubt. To make matters worse, state level jurisdictions typically practice a 20 over rule. The reason for this is because there are simply so many people who speed on interstates and so few officers to enforce even a 10 over rule.

So, if it were me, and they wanted to push the issue, I'd blame the system for not strictly enforcing traffic laws which lead to this type of problem in the first place. ESPECIALLY when the 10 over rule is common knowledge. Keep in mind that when you go in for traffic court it's the City vs You. And you can bring any claims you want against them as well (such as a counter claim). It's a legal proceeding like any other, but because of it's atmosphere things like that are typically over-looked by average Joe.

Don't try and expert witness Sarn out of custody. He's guilty. Guilty. Guilty.

And knowing what an unsavoury character he is I wouldn't be surprised if he was part of Ewoklover's alcohol pipeling.

It's not dishonest to fight it in court.

Our legal system can't always make CORRECT decisions. Sometimes, it lets guilty people off. But the legal system's function is to produce fair decisions. This requires a burden of proof by the prosecution. Otherwise, the government can just throw whomever in prison and threaten to turn democracy into totalitarianism.

Sarn needs to go into court to make them prove his guilt. He has no legal obligation to testify against himself. In fact, the fifth amendment protections gurantees that he can rightfully choose to not do that.

You imply there is an ethical obligation to plead guilty. I disagree. Sarn's obligations in the court of law are determined by the law. He cannot lie under oath (perjury), but he can plead the fifth. This is honest by legal standards.

But if a plea bargain is a better deal, there's no reason why he can't take it.

[QUOTE=Jedi Legend]You imply there is an ethical obligation to plead guilty. I disagree. Sarn's obligations in the court of law are determined by the law. He cannot lie under oath (perjury), but he can plead the fifth. This is honest by legal standards.[/QUOTE]
I don't think BobTheMasher was implying an ethical obligation but a moral obligation. Yes, taking the case to court and having the state prove their case is sound by our laws and no one would argue that Sarn has done anything wrong by doing said action. But one might argue that he's being amoral by having case proven when he knows he's guilty as is there's the possibility of the case being thrown out because the state cannot prove guilt.

I make sense?

Edit: Pronoun clarification.

I don't understand why getting off from legal penalties through perfectly legal means would spill over into an immoral or amoral category of action. You can say wreckless driving is unethical and immoral while saying that an individual should fight agianst government punishment. Ethics and morality have separate consequences than law, arguably.

Is it immoral to not turn yourself in every time you speed? If he gets off from legal punishment, that's an error of the legal system and not his fault. I think the process is worth defending.

Of course, under objectivist idealogy it's immoral to plead guilty when pleading not guilty is in your better interest. Don't sacrfice yourself to the community, Sarn!

I think we might be putting forth different understandings. Yes, by all means, if you have a charge against you make them prove it if you suspect shady evidence. In Sarn's case I think he has sound grounds both ethically and morally to get the REAL story of the accident and then accept whatever penalties the law eventually deems necessary.

What I don't want him to do is to go to court with the intent of "how can I get out of this mess entirely?" and hope for some offshoot technicallity that gets him off scot free. That action/intent is immoral to me.

To Sarn: Although there was no speed gun on you, I'm sure impact sites will give a rough estimate of your speed. I'm gonna say that the reckless driving charge is going to stick. The only thing I can wish for you is that you get a fair and impartial trial.

My argument clashes with yours in that I say it's not immoral to get off on a technicality, even if it's immoral to speed. If he knows he's guilty, fighting it in court is not immoral. Perhaps fighting it with a higher power who determines morality such as God would be immoral (IE not asking for forgiveness) but this is a debate that exists on an entirely extra-legal plane, you could say.

I really doubt it will if it happened as he described it. It's based on someone say that he was going 100 MPH, which is just total bull.

RECKLESS NOT WRECKLESS AAAGH

Do what they say Sarn, maybe you can get that Rhett cat to be your attorney

Aha, now I understand why BobtheMasher's comment was witty. And this isn't sarcasm. I actually chuckled when I looked over the thread again after seeing this post.

lol, yeah, sorry about the misspelling.. I was being lazy and not paying attention.. And Todd (Rhett) isn't a lawyer... But then again, he'd probably be pretty good at it if he wanted to be one. :p

And Tracer, how did you know I was part of the ILLIGALZ ALKULHAL CRIEME RING?!/1

Anyway, while I was driving over the speed limit, I was not driving in a way that I believe to have been reckless. The guy who cut into my lane without signaling and without looking to see that I was there was driving recklessly. I'll do my best to get the charge dropped, but/and even if I do I'll still be paying penalties for this accident. Justice would be for both myself and the other driver to be in trouble. But I don't believe that what is just is always moral, or vica verca.

And by the way some of you have mentioned "traffic court"

This isn't traffic court. This is a criminal misdemeaner charge, meaning if I'm convicted, I won't just be getting a fine. I'll have a criminal record. I could technically end up doing jail time (though it'd more likely be community service and revoked license due to the fact that I have no prior criminal charges and had no alcohol or drugs or anything in my system or in my car).