Hungarians Oppressed By North American Police

Remove all ads!

OK, so I posted this strictly so I could create the thread title; the story itself is just a bonus.

But for those who actually care, a local senior (who, according to the story, is originally from Hungary) received a ticket for using a cell phone while driving (which is illegal here), but he claims he doesn’t even own a cell phone.

Link

I now turn this thread over to Baronious (and Rags for balance) .

 

So is he lying? Or are those evil police officers lying? Was he actually busted for distracted driving? Only time will tell!

 

LMAO - the guy doesn't have internet access, doesn't even have an answering machine on his home phone, and the height of modern technology he possesses is an automatic garage door opener. Assuming he actually was NOT talking on a cell phone - which seems reasonable if he didn't have one - I wonder why he was actually pulled over. What could he have had in the car that appeared to police to be a cell phone? I suppose the garage door opener is a possibility, but why would you have it in your hand if you weren't just outside your house?

Apart from the snarky comment of the police probably pulled him over for being Hungarian, I find it hard to believe that police would pull someone over and issue them a ticket for using a cell phone while driving, unless they really thought that they were doing that. So the options I see are 1.) The guy is lying, 2.) He had something in his hand that the police thought was a cell phone, or 3.) He got a DWH (driving while Hungarian).

 

Splunge,
you miscalculated - I won't post here, oh wait ...

 

At the risk of turning this thread into something serious, the police issued a response:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/police-defend-issuing-of-ticket-141718633.html

Rags - your attendance, while welcome any time, is only really required if Baronious jumps in.

Aldeth:

LMAO!

 

The police are probably just socialists.

 

Seriously though, what recourse does this guy have? It's going to come down to his word versus the police. He certainly can't prove he wasn't talking on a cell phone, although I suppose he wouldn't have to. If Canada's system is like the US, the onus would be on the police to prove he was.

Granted, it would be easy enough for they guy to prove that he doesn't own a cell phone, but proving he doesn't own a cell phone would not prove he wasn't using a cell phone. The law doesn't state you can't talk on your cell phone, it states you can't talk on any cell phone. I guess the next most logical question to ask is, did the police have the camera running? Most police cars nowadays have cameras.

 

I wonder if they're calling her cell.

btw, I'm too late but I wanted to do "in before 'you can't post about Hungary here!'"

 

Aldeth, that’s a good question. Under the law here, all that is required is that police observe someone using a cell phone (or texting, etc.) while driving. So it literally becomes the word of police against the driver’s if the driver disputes it, and it seems that the law would be on the side of the police. I suppose phone records could help prove guilt, but not necessarily innocence as the argument would be that the driver could have used a phone that didn’t belong to them. It’ll be interesting to see how this turns out if it goes to court.

I'm not sure about cameras, but if they had a picture, we'd proably know that by now. This case is getting a lot of attention here, and the cops are in damage-control mode.

 

I'm not aware of any side-view cameras used in police cars (as opposed to dash cams, which look straight ahead), and it seems most likely that the cops observed him from the side because doing so from the rear would be rather difficult to ascertain unless he had absolutely no-tint windows. So probably there is no video.

Personal observation on the part of an officer is generally all that's required in the States as well for this kind of thing (texting, seat belts), and that does tend to fall in favor of the police. If an officer says you weren't wearing your seat belt and you go to court and say yes you were and there is no other evidence presented, chances are the court will side with the officer.

I agree with dmc though that if this guy could present enough testimony and/or character witnesses to cast significant doubt on the probability, the court may side with him. It sounds like he's gearing up to do just that.

I strongly doubt that the cops would present any cell phone record evidence (assuming there was any), as that tends to be rather costly in terms of manpower and effort, and all they're potentially getting back on this is 200 Canadian dollars. Not to mention the likelihood that the guy's theoretical cell phone service provider might not be terribly inclined to produce records as the matter is just a low level misdemeanor traffic offense (or Canadian equivalent) and not a murder or anything serious like that.



^^ entirely more analysis than this caper is deserving of ^^

 

2 things

1. I hate chicken **** laws like that. Cops should have better things to do then hand out tickets for the "trendy law" of the day.

2. That salami looks scrumptious. I am willing to take Baronius's side in any and all arguments if he can arrange for one of those to be sent to me.

 

That "trendy law" is going after the fastest rising cause of automotive death in the US. Distracted drivers, primarily on their cell phones, are dangerous.

 

There was just that story in the news about an 18-year old girl taking a 4-hour ride and texting every 90 seconds (seriously?) to stay awake. Her last text, said "shouldnt text while driving its dangerous haha." A minute later she slammed into the back of a tanker truck doing 80 mph and was killed instantly. How sadly ironic, and yet, somewhat humorous - she isn't laughing now.

 

It's funny, yet it's horrible. Weird mix.

Here in Alberta, we have a distracted driving law. It's mostly aimed at cell phones, but also applies to eating, drinking, fondling yourself or someone else, and personal grooming. Anything that takes your attention from the road. So the yummy Hungarian salami Taluntain posted would get you a similar ticket here if you were eating it or using it for massage as Tal hinted at. I'm all for the law -- too many people not focusing on the road.

 

I'm not quite sure if there is the evidence to back up that statement. I know there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to say so. I will agree that distracted driving can be a problem, but I think way too much emphasis is being put on being on the phone. How many accidents have been caused by people changing the radio/CD/Cassette?

Personally, I believe that far more accidents are caused by tired drivers then distracted drivers, but I have nothing to back that up.

 

Well, for example:
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2009/07/2009-571.html
https://www.oma.org/HealthPromotion/Cellphone/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2008/March/march5_drivingwhilelistening.shtml

Personally, I have less of an issue with talking on a cell phone than with texting. After all, if you're looking at a screen, you're not looking at the road.