RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Greg,
I have tremendous respect for you - you are an extremely well-read individual - nevertheless, in spite of that knowledge and education there are times that you just get it flat-out wrong. I'm not gonna beat on that aspect too much, but as Turtle points out - you are incorrect (at least partially) on both the 5th Amendment and the matter of some traffic violations.
Sometimes, when one is possessed of too many details (or too much knowledge), it clouds their understanding of what is basic or fundamental.
1. The 5th Amendment does not only apply to appearing in court - otherwise why would the Supreme Court have required Miranada ?
2. Traffic offenses (at least some of them) are indeed criminal matters - not civil - in the State of Ohio, if not elsewhere.
The only thing I can wish for you my friend it that you never find your self in the position of being accused of a crime you didn't commit, and having the power of the state arrayed against you ...... even on something so minor as a traffic offense.
Let that charge conjure up in your mind what type of accident it might have been ..... what might have occurred ....
Now let me tell you where the point of contact was between the two vehicles:
The right front corner of her vehicle contacted the left front corner of the car I was driving - at roughly a 90 degree angle.
At the time where the vehicle contact occurred, I had already steered right (had I steered left I would have crossed left of center, across double-yellow lines, into the path of any oncoming traffic .... in a blind S curve) and I was completely off the roadway (because she had just turned left into my lane, directly into my path of travel), in an effort to avoid her reckless operation of her vehicle. I was traveling across her mother's lawn, and was crossing their driveway (one of two) heading toward the horse pasture.
My vehicle ended up roughly 60' off the roadway, and maybe 30' from the point where the impact occurred. The contact between the two vehicles was a glancing blow at best (so it didn't serve to slow my vehicle much) and I was traveling across a wet, muddy unfrozen yard (in early March) ...... keep the above distances in mind for later
Such a viewpoint in my opinion borders on delusion .....
I did almost immediately begin to write up what had happened - even before I contacted the police department or an attorney - within hours of the accident. I did this on the advice of my insurance company (USAA) - who, to their credit, fought against paying any claim to the other party - even after I had been tried and convicted. They did this partly due to my explanation, and the fact that I was adamant about what had happened and who was actually at fault. Obviously that was a position that it was in their best interest to take.
And I did go back to the scene of the accident (within a couple of days) and take photos (probably 20 or 30 of them): one of the things that Officer Dount-eater asserted on the stand that I was I must have been moving at a high rate of speed and that he had personally measured over 90' of skid marks (theoretically from my vehicle)
Of course, that was utterly false and an outright lie - the photos I had showed that there were no skidmarks whatsoever on the roadway and the only marks on the yard were light impressions or indentations from the weight of my vehicle rolling over wet, unfrozen ground - my vehicle traveled in a straight line once I left the road and there was no skid or loss of control on my part. This is likely the reason why Donut never brought his photos to show and tell
At no point, had I been going greater than 35 or 40 mph (the speed limit on the road was 45) while following the other party. I was on my way home from Cross Truck in Canton after having purchased some e-track and was in no particular hurry.
At the point where the other party slowed down, and went completely left of center, crossing the double yellow lines, completely vacating the lane, I had slowed to around to 15 or 20 mph and was approaching cautiously in my lane, which was now entirely clear.
All the mailboxes on this section of road were on the opposite of the road - the one that the other party had moved over to - and it appeared that she was attempting to pull up to her mailbox to retrieve her mail. The only possible way for her to do that while remaining in her vehicle, was to do exactly what she did.
It was one of those instances where I let emotion dictate my actions rather reason. I was so upset that Donut was charging me - and not citing her at all - despite the fact that she had committed multiple violations of traffic law (driving left of center, failure to signal, failure to yield, and reckless operation)
Before this incident I generally had the view that most cops are probably decent, honest individuals ..... in spite of the fact that I had some personal experience, and additionally was well-aware of many, many instances generally where that was not true.
Now, I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could spit.
Lesson: Under similar circumstances (investigation of a crime) never, ever say anything to law enforcement - even if it doesn't appear that they would be or are looking at you - and if you are stupid enough not to follow that maxim, then always contact an attorney before you do - maybe he will be able to talk some sense into you.
In fact, this guy couldn't understand why I was so worked up about it - afterall (to paraphrase him): "It's just a traffic ticket ......"
No, actually what it was, was being unjustly accused of a crime I did not commit. That, and that alone, was why it was a big deal. Had I been at fault, I wouldn't have uttered a word - I just would have went to court and plead no contest.
After I was convicted, I very seriously considered appealing the verdict - I contacted several lawyers, including what had been up to that time, my law firm I used previously (you now - the high priced spread: they are one of the top law firms in Akron, had entire floor of the Key Building in downtown, real cherry paneling, and leather furniture, the whole enchilada ....)
I was looking at a minimum of $5K just to research and file the appeal (I had already done some research and there was case law on the books that would have supported my case) - and, like I said, I very seriously considered going down that road - but in good conscience I couldn't do that (incur the expense) to my family.
I also considered going to the media - the reporter who did the pieces on Officer Donut (one doesn't always have to go thru the criminal justice system to obtain justice)
My normal attorney's rather cryptic advice (probably based on much experience with dealing with law enforcement): "Don't even think about it - they are the police - and they have ways to make you regret that you ever even considered it."
Criminal justice system ? ....... yeah, it's criminal alright .....
I have tremendous respect for you - you are an extremely well-read individual - nevertheless, in spite of that knowledge and education there are times that you just get it flat-out wrong. I'm not gonna beat on that aspect too much, but as Turtle points out - you are incorrect (at least partially) on both the 5th Amendment and the matter of some traffic violations.
Sometimes, when one is possessed of too many details (or too much knowledge), it clouds their understanding of what is basic or fundamental.
1. The 5th Amendment does not only apply to appearing in court - otherwise why would the Supreme Court have required Miranada ?
2. Traffic offenses (at least some of them) are indeed criminal matters - not civil - in the State of Ohio, if not elsewhere.
Not really, it's just a story - an experience of one individual.
Funny ? You think it's funny ?
The only thing I can wish for you my friend it that you never find your self in the position of being accused of a crime you didn't commit, and having the power of the state arrayed against you ...... even on something so minor as a traffic offense.
Assured Clear Distance - which, in the State of Ohio, is a criminal misdemeanor.
Let that charge conjure up in your mind what type of accident it might have been ..... what might have occurred ....
Now let me tell you where the point of contact was between the two vehicles:
The right front corner of her vehicle contacted the left front corner of the car I was driving - at roughly a 90 degree angle.
At the time where the vehicle contact occurred, I had already steered right (had I steered left I would have crossed left of center, across double-yellow lines, into the path of any oncoming traffic .... in a blind S curve) and I was completely off the roadway (because she had just turned left into my lane, directly into my path of travel), in an effort to avoid her reckless operation of her vehicle. I was traveling across her mother's lawn, and was crossing their driveway (one of two) heading toward the horse pasture.
My vehicle ended up roughly 60' off the roadway, and maybe 30' from the point where the impact occurred. The contact between the two vehicles was a glancing blow at best (so it didn't serve to slow my vehicle much) and I was traveling across a wet, muddy unfrozen yard (in early March) ...... keep the above distances in mind for later
Oh my goodness .... you really are a true-believer, aren't you ?: "We're from the government ..... and we're here to help you ....."
Such a viewpoint in my opinion borders on delusion .....
Up to the LEO - Woods isn't required to participate - the FHP admitted as much - so it's irelevant and moot.
I did not really have a decent camera at the time of the accident - I was driving my wife's car, and the cell phone that I had at the time had an extremely poor camera and any pictures I could have taken with it would have so small (320 x 240 resolution) and so artifacted from JPEG compression as to be unusable.
I did almost immediately begin to write up what had happened - even before I contacted the police department or an attorney - within hours of the accident. I did this on the advice of my insurance company (USAA) - who, to their credit, fought against paying any claim to the other party - even after I had been tried and convicted. They did this partly due to my explanation, and the fact that I was adamant about what had happened and who was actually at fault. Obviously that was a position that it was in their best interest to take.
And I did go back to the scene of the accident (within a couple of days) and take photos (probably 20 or 30 of them): one of the things that Officer Dount-eater asserted on the stand that I was I must have been moving at a high rate of speed and that he had personally measured over 90' of skid marks (theoretically from my vehicle)
Of course, that was utterly false and an outright lie - the photos I had showed that there were no skidmarks whatsoever on the roadway and the only marks on the yard were light impressions or indentations from the weight of my vehicle rolling over wet, unfrozen ground - my vehicle traveled in a straight line once I left the road and there was no skid or loss of control on my part. This is likely the reason why Donut never brought his photos to show and tell
At no point, had I been going greater than 35 or 40 mph (the speed limit on the road was 45) while following the other party. I was on my way home from Cross Truck in Canton after having purchased some e-track and was in no particular hurry.
At the point where the other party slowed down, and went completely left of center, crossing the double yellow lines, completely vacating the lane, I had slowed to around to 15 or 20 mph and was approaching cautiously in my lane, which was now entirely clear.
All the mailboxes on this section of road were on the opposite of the road - the one that the other party had moved over to - and it appeared that she was attempting to pull up to her mailbox to retrieve her mail. The only possible way for her to do that while remaining in her vehicle, was to do exactly what she did.
Hindsight is 20/20 ain't it bud ?
It was one of those instances where I let emotion dictate my actions rather reason. I was so upset that Donut was charging me - and not citing her at all - despite the fact that she had committed multiple violations of traffic law (driving left of center, failure to signal, failure to yield, and reckless operation)
Before this incident I generally had the view that most cops are probably decent, honest individuals ..... in spite of the fact that I had some personal experience, and additionally was well-aware of many, many instances generally where that was not true.
Now, I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could spit.
Like I said, there was really nothing specific in it that could be used against me - because I wrote down and recorded what exactly had happened. It was used against me in the sense that it alerted the prosecutions key witness to what the probable strategy of my attorney would be. It allowed Donut to prepare for potential lines of questioning and challenges to his credibility.
No Greg, I didn't - I didn't have to: he commented on it (that it probably wasn't a good move) when I explained to him what I had done: I contacted the police before him - thinking that it was so clear-cut that any reasonable person would see it - and that they would actually be concerned about seeing that justice was done. Guess what ? The police are often not at all reasonable, nor do they much care about justice. Often it's just about covering their own butts.
Lesson: Under similar circumstances (investigation of a crime) never, ever say anything to law enforcement - even if it doesn't appear that they would be or are looking at you - and if you are stupid enough not to follow that maxim, then always contact an attorney before you do - maybe he will be able to talk some sense into you.
Lemme tell about my lawyer: at the time I was limited to who I could retain to represent me (finances) - so I choose a guy whose racket was to "represent" defendants by showing up in court for an hour or two and then charging them $250. No real prep for the trial, no real interest in winning the case. Do 3 or 4 of them a day, and well ..... it's a pretty good racket.
In fact, this guy couldn't understand why I was so worked up about it - afterall (to paraphrase him): "It's just a traffic ticket ......"
No, actually what it was, was being unjustly accused of a crime I did not commit. That, and that alone, was why it was a big deal. Had I been at fault, I wouldn't have uttered a word - I just would have went to court and plead no contest.
Yeah, well like I said - hindsight is alway 20/20. I know a lot more now than I did then - hopefully I will never again be in position where I have to use that knowledge.
After I was convicted, I very seriously considered appealing the verdict - I contacted several lawyers, including what had been up to that time, my law firm I used previously (you now - the high priced spread: they are one of the top law firms in Akron, had entire floor of the Key Building in downtown, real cherry paneling, and leather furniture, the whole enchilada ....)
I was looking at a minimum of $5K just to research and file the appeal (I had already done some research and there was case law on the books that would have supported my case) - and, like I said, I very seriously considered going down that road - but in good conscience I couldn't do that (incur the expense) to my family.
I also considered going to the media - the reporter who did the pieces on Officer Donut (one doesn't always have to go thru the criminal justice system to obtain justice
)My normal attorney's rather cryptic advice (probably based on much experience with dealing with law enforcement): "Don't even think about it - they are the police - and they have ways to make you regret that you ever even considered it."
Criminal justice system ? ....... yeah, it's criminal alright .....
Last edited:
