Fighting a ticket pays off
72 year-old Doug Gray fought a 5 traffic ticket in Nevada City, CA for not wearing a motorcycle helmet. The disabled man had been walking his Yorkshire Terrier on his scooter going three miles per hour. ... senior traffic court motorcycle helmet ticket
Loading ...
I don’t see the helmet as a probelm. But walking the dog while driving is a probelm. The dog can be startled causing an accident i.e running under the wheels of the bike or car.
that would be the dogs fault, then he would have to have doggie insurance and hope the dog was sober lol
A warning would have done just fine, the second offence should be the ticket on a small thing like that.
If you drive on the road then you have to have a helmet. He should have gotten the ticket.
The cop had no right to stop you. He has to have reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed. To be a plaintiff in court, you must file a valid cause of action. A valid cause of action proves that someone’s individual rights were harmed or injured. Without a valid cause of action, the officer has no standing in court. 27$? Who the fuck comes up with stuff? Ridiculous.
What planet do you live on, primodmo? Of course the cop had a right to stop him. That’s a fact in every state throughout the country, and in every country around the world.
And there was reasonable cause – the visible absence of a helmet as mandated by state law.
Your other comments about “cause of action” make no sense at all, so I’ll forego any response to that.
As much as I feel for this guy, the helmet requirement is well known and there’s no valid excuse for not wearing one. Therefore, his partial disability, his dog, and his speed, are irrelevant. He deserved the ticket, and the standard fine charged everyone else.
In regards to standing, which is really important…
“Standing is a question of whether the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in he outcome of a controversy as to warrant invocation of jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the courts’ remedial powers on his behalf…The party must have personally suffered some injury and there must be a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct.” Moorhouse v. City of Wichta, 913 P.2d 172, 176.
“Standing is a question of whether the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of a controversy as to warrant invocation of jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the courts’ remedial powers on his behalf…The party must have personally suffered some injury and there must be a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct.” Moorhouse v. City of Wichita, 913 P.2d 172, 176.
whoops, had to do a bit of spell editing. So, to have standing you have to file a valid cause of action. Think about it, the US gov, is supposed to protect the pursuit of life, liberty, and personal happiness. Rape, murder, fraud, theft, endangering youth, those are crimes. That’s what gov is supposed to protect you from. Not to rape some disabled guy out of 27 dollars. So what, if he hurts himself, thats his fault. Do the gov watch him cook chicken to make sure he doesn’t get food poisoning?
FUCK NO! I am so tired of seeing money taken away from people for nothing. Thats whats wrong with our country, everyone wants fucking money for nothing! SHEESH.
I think you’re losing it, primodmo. Since the guy was ticketed by an officer hired by either local community or state, the “US government” wasn’t even involved here. Hence, much of what you said above has no relevance. You also need the read beyond the preamble to the Constitution because that document also gives federal, state, and local governments the right to legislate (make laws) and enforce.
BTW, if helmets save lives, laws requiring that are the “pursuit of life.” <- mostly in jest.
government= protect maintain individual rights. who was he hurting by not wearing a helmet? was there damage that accured? definetly not therefor this case has no standing and should have been thrown out
IF the laws were properly enacted… sadly it is rarely the case. Statutes are not laws, only codes of conduct for people who have contracted their rights away to the “administrative branch”.
he could ahve hurt himself..but yea i agree that its soo fucking stupid in some states you have to wear a helmet..i have a 1000 cc bike here in florida and as long as your 21 u dont really have to..unless u feel unsafe ..but watever
Cop had a right to stop him. Cop had a right to give him citation. Sure, the cop was definitely doing everything RIGHT by the book and it flows well for some people. Ethics still needs to be questioned at this case though. As the guy say, wouldn’t warning more than enough to get the point across? especially this seems like his first offence. I would have to question if officer needed to meet expectation!!! have to question he was just another ATM for state of CA…
its alright for him he is disabled and a pensioner , try getting a discount if your able bodied white male.