Normally an officer cannot see the race of a driver if he is behind them in traffic. Just a head rest, rear window, etc. He would not know her race until he walked up to the car.
😭The cop pulled me over for reckless driving, DWI, and a suspended license As an elderly overweight white male I think he was profiling me. The officer has daddy issues, and possibly penis envy 🤣🤣🤣🤣
День назад+2
Crying Wolf without cause weakens any actual racial profiling. She puts everything on the record to potentially use at trial. Could be interpreted as an intentional waste of resources.
"Your Honor, I respectfully submit that our justice system rests on the credibility of sworn testimony. When a person takes the stand, their testimony is assumed to be truthful unless there is reason to believe otherwise. In my case, I have never been arrested, charged, or convicted of perjury or any crime related to dishonesty. This establishes a strong presumption of my truthfulness. On the other hand, the officer’s testimony, though credible, is equally subject to scrutiny and does not inherently outweigh mine simply by virtue of his position. The law requires that evidence must reach a level of preponderance - meaning 'more likely than not' - in order to find me guilty. Without corroborating evidence to substantiate the officer’s claim over mine, there is no factual basis to favor his word over mine. Therefore, I respectfully insist that this standard has not been met, and I request the court to consider my testimony with the same weight as that of the officer, given the lack of supporting evidence."
People have tried that. The judge says that the officer is trained & experienced in traffic matters. Also that the officer has no dog in the fight, he doesn't get any bonus if you are found guilty, he gets paid the same either way. You, on the other hand, have a specific interest in have the case get dismissed. You are an interested party, the cop is not an interested party.
@@Fred2-123Fred, there is this thing called rules of evidence. Judges rule based on evidence and not his feeling of how officers are trained. By the way, the Judge doesn't know the officer and wouldn't know his experience nor his training. But let's go back to the rules of evidence which are binding Burden of Proof and Credibility: In a legal setting, even if one party has an “interest” in the outcome (like a defendant contesting a traffic citation), that doesn’t inherently invalidate their testimony. Courts assess credibility based on factors such as consistency, character, and any prior history of honesty or dishonesty-not solely on whether someone stands to gain from the outcome. In fact, courts often instruct juries to weigh testimony based on evidence, not simply by assuming one side is “more credible” based on a presumed lack of bias. Presumption of Innocence and Preponderance of Evidence: I correctly emphasized that a conviction or ruling against me must be based on a “preponderance of evidence” (in civil cases) or “beyond a reasonable doubt” (in criminal cases). Without corroborating evidence to support the officer’s claims, there’s no factual basis to favor one testimony over another simply because of job title or training. Asserting that an officer “has no dog in the fight” does not legally mean their account outweighs a defendant’s; it must be evaluated alongside all available evidence. "No dog in this fight" isn't a legal term I have ever heard used in court in the 20 plus year of practice. Role of Officer Training: While the officer is trained in traffic matters, this does not give them carte blanche credibility over a civilian in every scenario. Courts acknowledge an officer’s experience but also scrutinize their account, especially if they’re the sole source of evidence. Case law shows that officers, like any other witnesses, can be mistaken, influenced by situational factors, or subject to misinterpretation. The argument in court demonstrated an understanding that, while an officer’s role might carry weight, it does not override the defendant's right to have their testimony considered fairly, especially without corroborating evidence. This upholds the principle that credibility must be judged individually rather than assumed based on profession alone. Stick to working at the parts counter at NAPA.
I don't understand when you implied that she says a threat, then you took it back and said, "not really a threat, I wish I could rewind that..." Of course you can rewind it, you're the one making the video! I don't get that at all. And putting this all in the context of your video title, there is NO POINT where the judge or the officer show any kind of shock whatsoever. You just get into the RUclips game and you're already putting out lying, false video titles. Thumbs down and NOT subscribing.
She's basically saying I hope you all have a crap day 😂😂😂
Her. "I thought you didn't give pretty girls tickets."
Cop. "We don't.Sign here."
She's guilty and gets a fine, but her ego won't let her admit anything. The race card plus 'he was mean' don't work in her favour either.
There was a woman in my former town who threw coffee on a traffic officer and claimed slavery made her do it.
Normally an officer cannot see the race of a driver if he is behind them in traffic. Just a head rest, rear window, etc. He would not know her race until he walked up to the car.
Especially in the dark at 1:30 AM.
If she’s a student, she should study a lot harder in the hope that she lacks knowledge.
she isn't listening to the judge at all, waving talking then checking makeup
😭The cop pulled me over for reckless driving, DWI, and a suspended license As an elderly overweight white male I think he was profiling me. The officer has daddy issues, and possibly penis envy 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Crying Wolf without cause weakens any actual racial profiling. She puts everything on the record to potentially use at trial. Could be interpreted as an intentional waste of resources.
Spiteful and entitled.
Typical usual suspect. Won’t take responsibility for their actions and uses the race card.
Typical it's in her dna and how her gramma raised her....
Same shit, every time.
She really thinks she’s Beyoncé 🤣😂🤣😂🤣and even if she were, she still must obey the traffic rules.
"Your Honor, I respectfully submit that our justice system rests on the credibility of sworn testimony. When a person takes the stand, their testimony is assumed to be truthful unless there is reason to believe otherwise. In my case, I have never been arrested, charged, or convicted of perjury or any crime related to dishonesty. This establishes a strong presumption of my truthfulness.
On the other hand, the officer’s testimony, though credible, is equally subject to scrutiny and does not inherently outweigh mine simply by virtue of his position. The law requires that evidence must reach a level of preponderance - meaning 'more likely than not' - in order to find me guilty. Without corroborating evidence to substantiate the officer’s claim over mine, there is no factual basis to favor his word over mine. Therefore, I respectfully insist that this standard has not been met, and I request the court to consider my testimony with the same weight as that of the officer, given the lack of supporting evidence."
Bro 😧
In one single RUclips comment, you just took the entire "yeah, prolly" evidence standard DOWN!!
You got my ladyparts all 😍
People have tried that. The judge says that the officer is trained & experienced in traffic matters. Also that the officer has no dog in the fight, he doesn't get any bonus if you are found guilty, he gets paid the same either way. You, on the other hand, have a specific interest in have the case get dismissed. You are an interested party, the cop is not an interested party.
Dammit, Fred. Coming in here destroying my faith in the future of our Nation with facts and logic. Hate that. Uggggggh.
@@Fred2-123Fred, there is this thing called rules of evidence. Judges rule based on evidence and not his feeling of how officers are trained. By the way, the Judge doesn't know the officer and wouldn't know his experience nor his training. But let's go back to the rules of evidence which are binding
Burden of Proof and Credibility: In a legal setting, even if one party has an “interest” in the outcome (like a defendant contesting a traffic citation), that doesn’t inherently invalidate their testimony. Courts assess credibility based on factors such as consistency, character, and any prior history of honesty or dishonesty-not solely on whether someone stands to gain from the outcome. In fact, courts often instruct juries to weigh testimony based on evidence, not simply by assuming one side is “more credible” based on a presumed lack of bias.
Presumption of Innocence and Preponderance of Evidence: I correctly emphasized that a conviction or ruling against me must be based on a “preponderance of evidence” (in civil cases) or “beyond a reasonable doubt” (in criminal cases). Without corroborating evidence to support the officer’s claims, there’s no factual basis to favor one testimony over another simply because of job title or training. Asserting that an officer “has no dog in the fight” does not legally mean their account outweighs a defendant’s; it must be evaluated alongside all available evidence. "No dog in this fight" isn't a legal term I have ever heard used in court in the 20 plus year of practice.
Role of Officer Training: While the officer is trained in traffic matters, this does not give them carte blanche credibility over a civilian in every scenario. Courts acknowledge an officer’s experience but also scrutinize their account, especially if they’re the sole source of evidence. Case law shows that officers, like any other witnesses, can be mistaken, influenced by situational factors, or subject to misinterpretation.
The argument in court demonstrated an understanding that, while an officer’s role might carry weight, it does not override the defendant's right to have their testimony considered fairly, especially without corroborating evidence. This upholds the principle that credibility must be judged individually rather than assumed based on profession alone. Stick to working at the parts counter at NAPA.
Don't know about where she is, but here, if you run a yellow light, it's still a ticket.
You’re feeding into her ego by giving her a platform😅
Typical karen lol
The race card must be played!
immediated played the race card - yep that tracks
"Bu-ut...
There you have it “racial undertone”
Do something wrong claim racism… getting very old! Definitely narcissistic & ‘not my ‘fault’ ever attitude! Guys take notice…
Entitled or goofy?
melanistic and low iq
I don't understand when you implied that she says a threat, then you took it back and said, "not really a threat, I wish I could rewind that..." Of course you can rewind it, you're the one making the video! I don't get that at all. And putting this all in the context of your video title, there is NO POINT where the judge or the officer show any kind of shock whatsoever. You just get into the RUclips game and you're already putting out lying, false video titles. Thumbs down and NOT subscribing.
I saw this vid well over a year ago, possibly two, and he already has a channel, I don't get why he's doing this too.
I do the same only I turn the channel in for being complete liars and scammers to get views