Advice for fighting an Infringement Notice - for not putting my foot down?

[jasonu]

All that was missing from this thread was the current KB post whore.


Welcome.

Cassina??????

[dinosaur]

went to court - just to set a court day!!! 27 Feb

[FROSTY:Me]

Dino --couple of questions I wonder if you could clarify for me.
1) was here an actual STOP sign at hat rail crossing or is it a stop for barrier/stop for trains?
2) are you absolutely 100% certain that you came to a complete halt whit looking -it wasn;'t just moving at very slow speed?
problem you have is that mr policeman has stated you failed to stop. Th foot down part is smoke n mirrors when it comes to court.
You will be asked if you ame to a complete stop.Cop will be asked if you came to a complete stop -you canguess whose sorry the judge will believe.--so you ned proof of innocence.

[haydes55]

I reckon you have a decent case of it, the officer admitted you stopped.

I have tried to stop without putting my feet down. Front brake only, I can stop for a split second before starting to tip, if I use only the rear brake when I'm already slow enough to stop, I can stay stable stationary for a good second.

[dinosaur]

Those pics look as if they might be taken from too high a viewpoint, it might be better if the shot was from about the level the cops head would have been when he was sitting in the car.

The cop was out of his car - standing

I could see him, and I thought I had done everything OK - even WOF and Rego was up to date, I was surprised he pulled me up

[Latte]

went to court - just to set a court day!!! 27 Feb

Let us know how it goes, one more sleep maddafakker.

[Old Steve]

Best of luck tomorrow.

I'd concentrate on what the officer said, "Did you put your foot down when you stopped?" That confirms you stopped, and he was asking if you put your foot down when you did stop. Don't question the officer. Don't ask him about what he said, you might find he remembers a different version of what he said. Don't question him on where he was and how good his view was as his poor view contradicts his statement that he saw you stop, and was only asking what you did when you were stopped.

[RDJ]

In general, with honourable exceptions, the New Zealand police force is the most classical example of "picking off the low hanging fruit".

Generally law-abiding middle-aged middle-class citizens, pulled over at 104 km/h and fined for the maximum. Because we will pay.

Wifebeating and child killing - e.g. the Kahuis - allocated the absolute maximum of time without police interrogation to "grieve" (read, get their stories straight).

Lundy and Bain and the Crewe murders - common factor, all Pakehas without an applicable RDM (Racial Defence Mechanism) so the police don't really care what it takes to get a conviction, they go ahead with Whatever It Takes. Including, of course, Inexplicable Memory Loss.

And there are plenty more examples.

[scumdog]

Generally law-abiding middle-aged middle-class citizens, pulled over at 104 km/h and fined for the maximum. Because we will pay.

And what would 'fined for the minimum' be?

Cos I'd go for THAT fine!

[mossy1200]

Good luck.
I got a ticket once for not stopping at a stop sign.
I did in fact stop but approx a car length behind the painted lines. The only reason being that the road was wet and the glare from the street lights ment I couldn't see where they were on the road. I stopped based on the stop sign. Wish I had taken it to court but being young and dumb I just paid the fine.

[carbonhed]

Good luck!

It'll be fascinating to hear how you get on.

[dinosaur]

Today I went to court – to defend myself against the word of a Police Officer – actually a Police Sargent, who stopped me and issued me with an infringement notice (fine) for failing to stop at a rail crossing.
He claimed I didn’t come to a complete stop, I claim I did
His assumption was because I didn’t put my foot down then I didn’t come to a complete stop
It came down to his word against mine – and as many would tell you; the New Zealand Courts always find in favour of the Police – this needs to be challenged, the police need to present evidence beyond just a testimony from them
My case summary was a bit OTT but won the day for me – earning a commendation from the Magistrate, and charges dismissed.
My rant:
I should be Presumed innocent until proved guilty:
What proof has the crown presented? The testimony of the Officer only
What the prosecution is asking you to accept is; when a Police Officer stands before the court accusing a free citizen, his testimony alone amounts to enough evidence to presume guilt, that they need not present any further evidence in this case
Yet under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure, it reads; “Everyone who is charged with an offence has: the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:
The presumption of innocence means the burden of proof rests with the Crown, not with the accused. If you are accused of a crime, you do not need to prove that you are innocent – your innocence is the starting assumption, the Crown must prove that you are guilty.
If the police wish to sit at a compulsory stop, run a campaign of awareness and know this is what they are doing on this particular day – why have your camera on the vehicle pointing away from the railway crossing? Why not employ the camera that is on every police issued cell phone, or set up a camera at the crossing?

Why is this important to me, why don’t I just pay the fine; I want to talk about …. the rule of law
The free citizens of New Zealand cannot go about our business if we are subject to the arbitrary will of others – be it other private citizens or government officials. If a thug can beat you up and take your stuff, you are not free.
Nor are you free if a government official can accuse you of breaking the law without evidence, fine you or take your money at their discretion. Free people live under the rule of law, not the rule of men.
If an officer can simply fine you, and is not called on to prove guilt, and they are left to actively go about their business in that arrogant manner – then where is our freedom
This shows little or no respect for fundamental principles of justice
Shifting the burden of proof from state agencies to the people does not merely expose citizens to injustice, but it reduces government agencies’ incentive to conduct their inquiries to a high standard. It is a licence for incompetence
As evidenced in this case where; the Police run a campaign – not just a routine Police stop – a campaign they have planned; they selected the rail crossing in advance – and yet no one gives any thought to setting up a camera or a radar, or even setting up with a clear view of the crossing, or any means of proving if a vehicle came to a stop! why have your camera on the vehicle pointing away from the railway crossing? why not use the camera on your phone?
Another principal of Law in a free society is:
You are permitted to do anything that is not expressly illegal.
The officer sore fit to note that I had a ‘Radar’ on board – why? They are legal
I wasn’t breaking or being accused of breaking any speed limits, it adds nothing to the Crowns case alleging I failed to stop? Yet it influenced the officers decision, and I have no doubt it influenced the decision of the prosecutor to bring this case to court
In a free society you do not need to seek permission from the authorities to do something that is lawful. This principle is a close relative of the presumption of innocence. You should not be treated any differently by those charged with upholding and enforcing the law as a result
Not only did this officer wrongly apply the law – believing I am required to put my foot down to stop, but he further erodes my rights as a free citizen by effectively fining me for having a radar detector – even though it is a completely lawful thing to have and use
This may seem a trivial case to most – however I remind you all that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. In a democracy, we are free only so long as citizens are willing to stand up for freedom.

[swbarnett]

Today I went to court – to defend myself against the word of a Police Officer ...

Bloody good show. Well done.

the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. In a democracy, we are free only so long as citizens are willing to stand up for freedom.

This needs to be at the very top of any school curriculum. And taught in all it's historical detail.

[Akzle]

hurrah!
10mfchar

[awayatc]

Not often do you see somebody using so many words proclaiming they are just another tosspot.......

can't be arsed reading all that drivel, .....
Dinosaurs principals being as extinct as the species itself

karma being the bitch it is, I am sure you get what you deserve