You have the right to contest the ticket if you wish said the police officer, and contest it he did because he knows that there is a place for that and it’s called the courts of laws. Donald could see no logical reason for the cop to issue him a ticket on this day and no reason why he should not contest it in court. So like he’d done on other occasions, he ticked the box which says; not guilty and returned the ticket to the address indicated on the ticket. Many months later the reply came in the mail with directives as to how to go about getting ready for a court date so he did those preliminary preparations and waited. Meanwhile waiting, Donald had reasons to discuss and rehearse some of his arguments and reasons for “fighting” these tickets.
He was fast developing a reputation as the guy who always fight tickets (and won). So why do you always fight these tickets one close friend and associate asked him? Simple said Donald, I’m not in the habit of pleading guilty to something I did not do to begin with and whether you know it or not, every time you go pay a ticket, whether you did ticked that box that says “guilty” or not you did plead guilty by default, and secondly; He was simply leveraging the law of average and logic. Whatever the reason(s) might be which informs the police’s decisions to hand out a ticket shrouded in ambiguity, mystery and suspicion to someone, that officer must be made to face the light of day (so-to-speak) by standing in front of his/her peers and others and explain or attempt to justify his/her actions. If more people would stand up to defend their rights (in the right manner and via the proper channels) then unscrupulous cops would be less likely to behave unseemly or float the laws. Furthermore He argues, No self-respecting judge is likely to sit in the judgement seat under the full view and scrutiny of his/her peers and float the laws with impunity as the cops tends to do, if for no other reasons, because there are usually for more eyes and ears there in observance of what the judge say and do,
Whatever the reason(s) might be which informs the police’s decisions to hand out a ticket shrouded in ambiguity, mystery and suspicion to someone, that officer must be made to face the light of day
Furthermore He argues, No self-respecting judge is likely to sit in the judgement seat under the full view and scrutiny of his/her peers and float the laws with impunity as the cops tends to do
Although the courts are usually for more fair and one is more likely to get justice from off of those seats than from one coming off of the front seat of a police car, there is always the exceptions to every rule and Donald was in for finding this out first hand on this occasion. There are days when; from the get go one knows the things are likely to go well today based on events prior to the main event. This was such a day for Donald. Donald was early to arrive, too early probably. The list of names and case file was posted on the notice board so Danny knew that he was somewhere down the list between 5 and 10 however, because no one else was there He was first on the stand. The preliminaries were done and then he was standing there no one say anything but Donald who has done this before began to give his statement to the court pointing out that; on the day in question, he was servicing his regular route when upon the approach of the stretch of roadways (gave the name) he encounter a cyclist who was riding towards him and coming right at him on his side of the road seeming to be avoiding the reserved bicycle lane which was harboring some snow and slush. Donald who was traveling at or about the 30 KPH which is the speed limit at this point slowed down and was about to stop to wait for the cyclist to clear the way but then decided to use the other (oncoming) lane to continue on since this was available and there was no other vehicle in the vicinity. He did noticed by the reaction of the cyclist that he was somewhat disgruntled but Donald just continued on his way.
To be cont'd