Re: IMPRISONED FOR "DRIVING A NICE CAR IN A BAD NEIGHBORHOOD

More | Report Post

Dear V...

This is exactly my point! If you must know then here goes. I was,
at the time, a Sales Consultant for two Major Automobile Companies...at
the same time. I also have a degree in Avaition Science and I am a home
owner. So when you start to stereotype remember that! Paying for gas,
insurance and other wonderful items is not factoring jesture. Affording
an attorney is different. Most attorney's are afraid to handle this case
because of the triffleness of the arrest in the first place. The car
itself was a "Diamante" and two years old at that time. The point is that
there was no other reason or probable cause to initiate, the initial
beginnings, of a traffic stop...and I am trying not to use the Racial
Profiling arena (but what else is it?). People are so focused on the
car...does it really matter. The POLICE said that "what caught their
attention was a nice car in a bad neighborhood" as the main generating
force behind initiating all-out law enforcement. WHAT LAW IS OUT THERE
THAT SAYS "IF A PERSON (whoever they are) IS DRIVING NICE CAR PULL THEM
OVER"? Have you ever seen the movie "First Blood"? Then stop acting like
pointing out what really happened is wrong. What is wrong is the motive
behind the arrest...from the beginning? Everything that the motivating
factor of stopping a motorist hinges on is "breaking of the law". Tell
me....what LAW was broken by DRIVING A NICE CAR?

ACT 1. (Senerio)- Nothing to do and it is close to shift change!!!

Officer. #1 --- Look that is a car. And look there is another one.

Officer. #2 --- Look there is one over there. And another one!

Officer. #1 --- Wow...now there is a nice one!

Officer. #2 --- Ohhh....I wanna see. Can we stop it? Turn the lights on!

Everything that happens next is what? Come on people, some of you are
very smart and you know exactly what happened. Don't try to distract from
the way the "Good Ole Boys" messed this up. I am not the one who drew
first blood. But...I do want to stop the bleeding!!! Understand...and
drive another nice car or two when the bandaids come off.----My wife
drives a super nice car...she is afraid she may get pulled over. Does she
trade it in for something less...does she lower her standards of driving?

On 8/03/08, v wrote:
> Driving a nice car, in a bad neighborhood. Jap -- think about this for a
> second. You didn't say what type of car, you left that wide open to any
> ones interpretation. Is it a caddy? a lincoln? Brand new? What does it
> matter? I think theres alot more to this story than your telling. The
> first question on any logical persons mind would be thinking, if you
> cannot afford an attorney, how can you afford a nice car? How can you
> afford to maintain it? How can you afford to drive it, afford the gas,
the
> insurance, the logical mind is thinking what your saying dosen't wash.
> Just "an" opinion.
>
>
> On 8/01/08, JAP to C wrote:
>> On 7/29/08, JAP to C wrote:
>>> On 7/29/08, C wrote:
>>>> An officer of the law may pull you over for pretty much any reason
>>>> he wants. This applies to most every state. In a nice neighborhood
>>> a
>>>> car that is less than desirable or say for example a van that says
>>>> "free candy" on the side may illicit some concern or at least some
>>>> checking into, at minimum a double take. If you are doing something
>>>> illegal you may want to remain as inconspicuous as possible. This
>>>> means knowing and understanding your surroundings and if you are in
>>>> the ghetto, a Carrera GT may be a bad choice to delve out drugs
>>> with.
>>>>
>>>> My point here is there must have been some other factors we are not
>>>> hearing here. If the arrest was solely based on the car you were
>>>> driving, well then it should be over already w/ half competent
>>>> counsel. On the other hand if the nice car was a means to an end it
>>>> will probably be more difficult to prove.
>>>>
>>>> GL either way,
>>>>
>>>> C
>>>
>>> Proving this is the easy part...getting help in litigating it is the
>>> difficult fence to jump. The police officers admitted to this
>>> during trial...on the record. Yes, they can pull you over for
>>> pretty much anything...probable cause must be the prevailing
>>> objective though. The trial should have stopped right there!! True,
>>> I did have a court appointed attorney...fact is I have had 5 (five)
>>> appointed attorney's...2 (two) of which claim to have been TOLD not
>>> to defend. Call it what you want....I call it conspiracy,
>>> railroading just for a start. I submitted an 11.07...no answer
>>> yet! Filed with the State Bar...of course the cloak was laid over
>>> it!! Everything after the admission of stopping someone
>>> for "driving a nice car in a bad neighborhood" does not matter.
>>> Listen, Elmer Fudd stopped laughing when??? That's right when the
>>> rabbit had his turn. I have all the proof transcripts,
>>> documentation, from start to finish. All I want is for the law to
>>> apply accross the counter just as it does when I am wrong. Ever
>>> heard of proper perspective or the haves and the have not's? I need
>>> a real chance at setting the record straight...you just can't break
>>> the law and call yourself upholding is at the same time, while
>>> expecting right to come from dirty deeds.
>>>
>>> Anyway thanks for the chat...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/26/08, -- wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey!! That has been done already. Do the ends justify the
>>>>>> means? Where are the attorney's that actually look at what
>>>>>> took place to get the conviction? It is far more criminal to
>>>>>> break the law, in order to uphold the law, than to outright
>>>>>> break the law and get caught. One who breaks the law in order
>>>>>> the catch a law breaker, breaks the law first and foremost.
>>>>>> The law does not walk on two feet, nor sit on the fleshly
>>>>>> cushion of a rear end...does it? Since when does a person get
>>>>>> sent to prison for "driving a nice car" that rightfully
>>>>>> belongs to them? Since when does chronological order of
>>>>>> events not matter?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is impossible to know what the actual legal situation you
>>>>> faced was from your postng. I gather you do not claim "actual
>>>>> innocence" rather "procedural" innocence because of improper
>>>>> police work and prosecutorial misconduct.
>>>>>
>>>>> You indicate that a direct appeal has already been done,
>>>>> apparently it was unsuccessful.
>>>>>
>>>>> One last type of "appeal" process is called "post-conviction
>>>>> relief." Most states have enacted their own form of habeas
>>>>> corpus and coram nobis relief statutes. If you are still under
>>>>> the terms of your conviction -- that is you are incarcerated or
>>>>> on probation/parole -- you may be able to seek relief under
>>>>> the "post-conviction" statute of your state. It is always a long
>>>>> shot and a last resort. A majority of states place a time limit
>>>>> on when you may seek "post-conviction" relief. You will need to
>>>>> find out if you are still eligible to file a petition for relief
>>>>> or if the time has run out. Each state's "post-conviction"
>>>>> petition process is different.
>>
>> Well, C.
>>
>> If you look at the response under your last you will find an answer
>> to your question.