Armed Traffic Stop

[lukaszu]

Rediculous..

So M-T gives his last experience from being pulled over and u guys are riding him into the dirt.. WTF?
I do that too.. Little differently , hell my last interaction before I was detained I produced an ID with my permit on top. Even when I get pulled over. I show my driver license with my permit ontop. I never use the word gun, pistol or weapon just show my creds and S T F U. So far in the last 3 interactions with Cops they would ask "are you armed now?" followed by "where is it?".
How can you guys stand for a cause when you are too busy bickering amongst you selfs.?

That's all
Have a great day

 

[color of law]

So M-T gives his last experience from being pulled over and u guys are riding him into the dirt.. WTF?
I do that too.. Little differently , hell my last interaction before I was detained I produced an ID with my permit on top. Even when I get pulled over. I show my driver license with my permit ontop. I never use the word gun, pistol or weapon just show my creds and S T F U. So far in the last 3 interactions with Cops they would ask "are you armed now?" followed by "where is it?".
How can you guys stand for a cause when you are too busy bickering amongst you selfs.?

That's all
Have a great day

It's not what he said, it's how he said it. He was clearly preaching. Not preaching to the choir, but preaching.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

How can you guys stand for a cause when you are too busy bickering amongst you selfs.?

That's all
Have a great day

Because the story doesn't meet the narrative that some would like to hear and believe about dealings with Law Enforcement.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

>color of law

To quote you "Prima facie: At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary. State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110."

Upon the issuance of a citation for speed in excess of what is reasonable and prudent it is accepted at face value as being true, the state need not prove anything more than the fact that it issued the citation. It is the responsibility of the accused to present evidence to the contrary. Something I said.... twice.

Your protestations of "Nuhuhhh, it don't neither" is somewhat less than complelling without at least the presentation of some evidence.

Now, I'm sure you're a busy man, so I'm somewhat at a loss to understand why you seem to be persisting in drawing this out by not providing any answers.



Come on then, please educate us..

What is the definition of "reasonable and prudent" speed in Colorado law?
Traveling in excess of what speed is prima facie evidence of a speed that is not "reasonable and prudent" per Colorado law?

 

[color of law]

>color of law

To quote you "Prima facie: At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary. State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110."

Upon the issuance of a citation for speed in excess of what is reasonable and prudent it is accepted at face value as being true, the state need not prove anything more than the fact that it issued the citation. It is the responsibility of the accused to present evidence to the contrary. Something I said.... twice.

Your protestations of "Nuhuhhh, it don't neither" is somewhat less than complelling without at least the presentation of some evidence.

Now, I'm sure you're a busy man, so I'm somewhat at a loss to understand why you seem to be persisting in drawing this out by not providing any answers.



Come on then, please educate us..

What is the definition of "reasonable and prudent" speed in Colorado law?
Traveling in excess of what speed is prima facie evidence of a speed that is not "reasonable and prudent" per Colorado law?

"Upon the issuance of a citation for speed in excess of what is reasonable and prudent it is accepted at face value as being true, the state need not prove anything more than the fact that it issued the citation.' Based on that theory no one could win. I guess proving beyond a reasonable doubt is no longer required.

"It is the responsibility of the accused to present evidence to the contrary." Not necessarily true.

A citation is a complaint and a complaint requires a creditable witness to support the complaint. What happens when the witness is shown not to be creditable?

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

"Upon the issuance of a citation for speed in excess of what is reasonable and prudent it is accepted at face value as being true, the state need not prove anything more than the fact that it issued the citation.' Based on that theory no one could win. I guess proving beyond a reasonable doubt is no longer required.

The gentleman is no doubt familiar with laws that require an affirmative defence as Ohio has several. In the matter at hand, the proof beyond a reasonable doubt is that a sworn law enforcement officer issued a citaton (or accusation, if you will) for an alledged defence and no defence was presented by the accused.
As a hypothetical example:
An officer issues a citation for a violation § 42-4-1101(2)(d) which accuses a motorist of exceeding what the officer believes was a 'reasonable and prudent' speed. A motorist could counter that by saying that his speed of 30mph in daylight hours and on hard packed snow in a vehicle equipped with AWD and snow chains was both reasonable and prudent and not a violation of (2)(d). It would be up to the courts to make a decision, but it would not be prima facie evidence of guilt as if the motorist had been traveling at 41mph.

"It is the responsibility of the accused to present evidence to the contrary." Not necessarily true.

Were we discussing generalities, I would concur with the gentleman wholeheartedly; but we are not. We are discussing Colorado, the Traffic Code of Colorado, and § 42-4-1101(4) which in particular mandates that any defense to a citation for excessive speed is the responsibility of the accused.

A citation is a complaint and a complaint requires a creditable witness to support the complaint. What happens when the witness is shown not to be creditable?

Then it would mean that the accused has presented an affirmative defence, refuting the prima facie evidence as required by the Colorado traffic code. Absent that affirmative defense the courts will accept a citation as prima facie evidence establishing guilt.


I refer the gentleman to Colorado Code § 42-4-1101(4) and the phrase "prima facie evidence" and again I ask, "What is the State of Colorado's definition of a speed that is not "reasonable and prudent"?

 

[color of law]

Fallschirmjäger --- check your PM's

 

[hammer6]

do you mean the nice LE wasn't razzled and dazzled by your agent 99 tactic kool outfit or your bounty hunter badge..

oh wait he was mesmerized as he let you off since i am sure you filled the conversation with who you knew in the senior ranks of the men in blue throughout the state.

you do not oc mel as you are always under the color of law so please quit misrepresenting your comments as such.

for real

 

[F350]

Hey Mel you old buzzard bait; haven't heard of you since the old Colorado board went down.

Good to see you are still above room temp and fighting the good fight.

Not sure what tag I used on the Colorado site but I lived in Grand Junction if that helps jog the old marbles.

I see the usual @wipes have come out of the woodwork.


If you ever have cause to get to the SE corner of Wyoming give me a shout.

We were frequently making trips to UoC hospital for the wife's spinal fusion and spent a week there but had my old cell die and lost your contact info.