- 7,149
- 2,373
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
thats what im saying,
u have to pay to go to a beach now?
Need Your Advice NT! Go to Court over this?
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by jj jumpman 23,
- Start date
u have to pay to go to a beach now?
- 7,149
- 2,373
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
thats what im saying,
u have to pay to go to a beach now?
- 1,661
- 81
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
The stuff I pointed out explained why he received the ticket and why he deserved to receive the ticket. That absolutely does matter in this case because that's what the case is about. As far as the law is concerned, it's his fault no matter which way you look at it because he didn't have the pass and he can't prove that he bought that pass. TC acts like the cop should be able to determine whether someone honestly purchased a pass and lost it and whether someone is lying about purchasing a pass and losing it. Yeah, he can plead to a judge and hope that the judge believes him out of the hundreds of others that present the same story.
- 1,661
- 81
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
The stuff I pointed out explained why he received the ticket and why he deserved to receive the ticket. That absolutely does matter in this case because that's what the case is about. As far as the law is concerned, it's his fault no matter which way you look at it because he didn't have the pass and he can't prove that he bought that pass. TC acts like the cop should be able to determine whether someone honestly purchased a pass and lost it and whether someone is lying about purchasing a pass and losing it. Yeah, he can plead to a judge and hope that the judge believes him out of the hundreds of others that present the same story.
- 1,310
- 59
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
yeah, its ridiculous.
- 1,310
- 59
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
yeah, its ridiculous.
- 3,312
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2000
No, your reading comprehension skills are suspect, and you don't understand what I'm saying.Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae
The stuff I pointed out explained why he received the ticket and why he deserved to receive the ticket. That absolutely does matter in this case because that's what the case is about. As far as the law is concerned, it's his fault no matter which way you look at it because he didn't have the pass and he can't prove that he bought that pass. TC acts like the cop should be able to determine whether someone honestly purchased a pass and lost it and whether someone is lying about purchasing a pass and losing it. Yeah, he can plead to a judge and hope that the judge believes him out of the hundreds of others that present the same story.
In order to have a ticket reduced or waived, you do not necessarily need to show that you were without fault. You can admit fault and ask for leniency based on the circumstances involved. This is what happens with most traffic ticket reductions. The person doesn't go and argue with the judge about whether or not he committed the offense, he tells the judge that he did, but is seeking leniency for X reason. Here, X reason is inadvertently losing the tickets, and it's a pretty good one. The judge could be sympathetic or not. But it does NOT matter that OP was legally at fault for losing the ticket, because that won't be his argument.
Whether or not losing the tickets was his fault would only have to matter if he was trying to press some sort of charges against the cop for false imprisonment, which isn't the case here. If he's trying to "fight the ticket," he doesn't need to show that he wasn't at fault, because even if he was at fault the judge could waive the ticket given the circumstances. Your initial response to OP about whether or not he was there illegally demonstrates your inability to understand this distinction. You're giving OP unhelpful and one-sided advice because you're stating what he can't do without offering him the OBVIOUS path to possible reduction or waiver of his ticket.
So
- 3,312
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2000
No, your reading comprehension skills are suspect, and you don't understand what I'm saying.Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae
The stuff I pointed out explained why he received the ticket and why he deserved to receive the ticket. That absolutely does matter in this case because that's what the case is about. As far as the law is concerned, it's his fault no matter which way you look at it because he didn't have the pass and he can't prove that he bought that pass. TC acts like the cop should be able to determine whether someone honestly purchased a pass and lost it and whether someone is lying about purchasing a pass and losing it. Yeah, he can plead to a judge and hope that the judge believes him out of the hundreds of others that present the same story.
In order to have a ticket reduced or waived, you do not necessarily need to show that you were without fault. You can admit fault and ask for leniency based on the circumstances involved. This is what happens with most traffic ticket reductions. The person doesn't go and argue with the judge about whether or not he committed the offense, he tells the judge that he did, but is seeking leniency for X reason. Here, X reason is inadvertently losing the tickets, and it's a pretty good one. The judge could be sympathetic or not. But it does NOT matter that OP was legally at fault for losing the ticket, because that won't be his argument.
Whether or not losing the tickets was his fault would only have to matter if he was trying to press some sort of charges against the cop for false imprisonment, which isn't the case here. If he's trying to "fight the ticket," he doesn't need to show that he wasn't at fault, because even if he was at fault the judge could waive the ticket given the circumstances. Your initial response to OP about whether or not he was there illegally demonstrates your inability to understand this distinction. You're giving OP unhelpful and one-sided advice because you're stating what he can't do without offering him the OBVIOUS path to possible reduction or waiver of his ticket.
So
- 3,132
- 2,854
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
fight it, violates your amendment right since he's presuming you're guilty
- 3,132
- 2,854
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
fight it, violates your amendment right since he's presuming you're guilty
- 5,974
- 352
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
he is "guilty" of not having a beach pass since he could not present it to the officer when it was requested. how is that a presumption of guilt?
- 5,974
- 352
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
he is "guilty" of not having a beach pass since he could not present it to the officer when it was requested. how is that a presumption of guilt?
- 1,661
- 81
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
All I've argued here is that TC is at fault from the perspective of the cop which would be relevant to the situation due to the fact that that was why he received the citation. TC never stated whether he would admit to be guilty or try to plead innocence. I never said that you couldn't admit fault and ask for leniency, so I'm confused as to why you decided to dedicate an entire post to that. I never stated "what he can't do", so I'm not sure where that came from. Since I never argued against admitting guilt and asking for leniency, I'm not sure where you deduced that I'm not able to understand this simple legal concept. Perhaps it's your comprehension in question?Originally Posted by PersiaFly
No, your reading comprehension skills are suspect, and you don't understand what I'm saying.
In order to have a ticket reduced or waived, you do not necessarily need to show that you were without fault. You can admit fault and ask for leniency based on the circumstances involved. This is what happens with most traffic ticket reductions. The person doesn't go and argue with the judge about whether or not he committed the offense, he tells the judge that he did, but is seeking leniency for X reason. Here, X reason is inadvertently losing the tickets, and it's a pretty good one. The judge could be sympathetic or not. But it does NOT matter that OP was legally at fault for losing the ticket, because that won't be his argument.
Whether or not losing the tickets was his fault would only have to matter if he was trying to press some sort of charges against the cop for false imprisonment, which isn't the case here. If he's trying to "fight the ticket," he doesn't need to show that he wasn't at fault, because even if he was at fault the judge could waive the ticket given the circumstances. Your initial response to OP about whether or not he was there illegally demonstrates your inability to understand this distinction. You're giving OP unhelpful and one-sided advice because you're stating what he can't do without offering him the OBVIOUS path to possible reduction or waiver of his ticket.
Soback at you, and your inability to understand a fairly simple legal concept, while talking about what the "law is concerned with."
- 1,661
- 81
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
All I've argued here is that TC is at fault from the perspective of the cop which would be relevant to the situation due to the fact that that was why he received the citation. TC never stated whether he would admit to be guilty or try to plead innocence. I never said that you couldn't admit fault and ask for leniency, so I'm confused as to why you decided to dedicate an entire post to that. I never stated "what he can't do", so I'm not sure where that came from. Since I never argued against admitting guilt and asking for leniency, I'm not sure where you deduced that I'm not able to understand this simple legal concept. Perhaps it's your comprehension in question?Originally Posted by PersiaFly
No, your reading comprehension skills are suspect, and you don't understand what I'm saying.
In order to have a ticket reduced or waived, you do not necessarily need to show that you were without fault. You can admit fault and ask for leniency based on the circumstances involved. This is what happens with most traffic ticket reductions. The person doesn't go and argue with the judge about whether or not he committed the offense, he tells the judge that he did, but is seeking leniency for X reason. Here, X reason is inadvertently losing the tickets, and it's a pretty good one. The judge could be sympathetic or not. But it does NOT matter that OP was legally at fault for losing the ticket, because that won't be his argument.
Whether or not losing the tickets was his fault would only have to matter if he was trying to press some sort of charges against the cop for false imprisonment, which isn't the case here. If he's trying to "fight the ticket," he doesn't need to show that he wasn't at fault, because even if he was at fault the judge could waive the ticket given the circumstances. Your initial response to OP about whether or not he was there illegally demonstrates your inability to understand this distinction. You're giving OP unhelpful and one-sided advice because you're stating what he can't do without offering him the OBVIOUS path to possible reduction or waiver of his ticket.
Soback at you, and your inability to understand a fairly simple legal concept, while talking about what the "law is concerned with."
- 3,312
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2000
Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae
All I've argued here is that TC is at fault from the perspective of the cop which would be relevant to the situation due to the fact that that was why he received the citation. TC never stated whether he would admit to be guilty or try to plead innocence. I never said that you couldn't admit fault and ask for leniency, so I'm confused as to why you decided to dedicate an entire post to that. I never stated "what he can't do", so I'm not sure where that came from. Since I never argued against admitting guilt and asking for leniency, I'm not sure where you deduced that I'm not able to understand this simple legal concept. Perhaps it's your comprehension in question?Originally Posted by PersiaFly
No, your reading comprehension skills are suspect, and you don't understand what I'm saying.
In order to have a ticket reduced or waived, you do not necessarily need to show that you were without fault. You can admit fault and ask for leniency based on the circumstances involved. This is what happens with most traffic ticket reductions. The person doesn't go and argue with the judge about whether or not he committed the offense, he tells the judge that he did, but is seeking leniency for X reason. Here, X reason is inadvertently losing the tickets, and it's a pretty good one. The judge could be sympathetic or not. But it does NOT matter that OP was legally at fault for losing the ticket, because that won't be his argument.
Whether or not losing the tickets was his fault would only have to matter if he was trying to press some sort of charges against the cop for false imprisonment, which isn't the case here. If he's trying to "fight the ticket," he doesn't need to show that he wasn't at fault, because even if he was at fault the judge could waive the ticket given the circumstances. Your initial response to OP about whether or not he was there illegally demonstrates your inability to understand this distinction. You're giving OP unhelpful and one-sided advice because you're stating what he can't do without offering him the OBVIOUS path to possible reduction or waiver of his ticket.
Soback at you, and your inability to understand a fairly simple legal concept, while talking about what the "law is concerned with."
- 3,312
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2000
Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae
All I've argued here is that TC is at fault from the perspective of the cop which would be relevant to the situation due to the fact that that was why he received the citation. TC never stated whether he would admit to be guilty or try to plead innocence. I never said that you couldn't admit fault and ask for leniency, so I'm confused as to why you decided to dedicate an entire post to that. I never stated "what he can't do", so I'm not sure where that came from. Since I never argued against admitting guilt and asking for leniency, I'm not sure where you deduced that I'm not able to understand this simple legal concept. Perhaps it's your comprehension in question?Originally Posted by PersiaFly
No, your reading comprehension skills are suspect, and you don't understand what I'm saying.
In order to have a ticket reduced or waived, you do not necessarily need to show that you were without fault. You can admit fault and ask for leniency based on the circumstances involved. This is what happens with most traffic ticket reductions. The person doesn't go and argue with the judge about whether or not he committed the offense, he tells the judge that he did, but is seeking leniency for X reason. Here, X reason is inadvertently losing the tickets, and it's a pretty good one. The judge could be sympathetic or not. But it does NOT matter that OP was legally at fault for losing the ticket, because that won't be his argument.
Whether or not losing the tickets was his fault would only have to matter if he was trying to press some sort of charges against the cop for false imprisonment, which isn't the case here. If he's trying to "fight the ticket," he doesn't need to show that he wasn't at fault, because even if he was at fault the judge could waive the ticket given the circumstances. Your initial response to OP about whether or not he was there illegally demonstrates your inability to understand this distinction. You're giving OP unhelpful and one-sided advice because you're stating what he can't do without offering him the OBVIOUS path to possible reduction or waiver of his ticket.
Soback at you, and your inability to understand a fairly simple legal concept, while talking about what the "law is concerned with."
- 1,661
- 81
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
And...I never offered any advice. So, you've successfully attacked arguments that I never made.
- 1,661
- 81
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
And...I never offered any advice. So, you've successfully attacked arguments that I never made.
- 3,312
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2000
Then stop trolling.
- 3,312
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2000
Then stop trolling.
- 1,661
- 81
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
Then stop trolling.
Oh god, someone explained to TC why they've fallen into a particular situation. They must be trolling.
- 1,661
- 81
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
Then stop trolling.
Oh god, someone explained to TC why they've fallen into a particular situation. They must be trolling.
- 1,517
- 41
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
Then stop trolling.
BOOM!!
- 1,517
- 41
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
Then stop trolling.
BOOM!!
- 1,868
- 45
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
get 2 beach passes from people that went to that beach that day...go to court..sucks you gotta waste time tho
