Hey, there! Log in / Register

Braude admits he's a stupid Masshole, appeals ticket on technicality

The Herald reports on Big Mouth Jim Braude's day in court; Braude acknowledged driving the wrong way on Morrissey Boulevard but said his ticket should be dismissed because a state trooper mailed him the ticket rather than handing it to him. The trooper testified he was more concerned at that point about protecting the life of the British prime minister - at whose car Braude seemed to be aiming.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

He just mentioned this on WTKK. He called UniversalHub a "dumb conservative website." HA!

up
Voting closed 0

Do he?

up
Voting closed 0

Braude just read the headline on the air - no plug, alas.

up
Voting closed 0

I should've gone with my initial inclination for a headline:

"Braude admits he's a dumb schmuck."

up
Voting closed 0

Braude - Admits he's a giant douche. :-P

up
Voting closed 0

Braude acknowledged driving the wrong way on Morrissey Boulevard

DING DING, we have the most basic error committed in traffic court (reportedly): admission of guilt directly to the judge/magistrate.

but said his ticket should be dismissed because a state trooper mailed him the ticket rather than handing it to him

Yeah, um...guess what? Doesn't matter, because you just admitted you broke the law.

Also, I'm disappointed he hasn't posted something charming here. Psst, anonymous postings are allowed (if filtered.)

up
Voting closed 0

Yep, case closed.

up
Voting closed 0

More than 10 years ago, I got a ticket for running a red light mailed to me, which I received on Christmas Eve. Such a wonderful gift, right?

See the thing is, the ticket was for running a red light somewhere on Tremont in Boston. The day the ticket was issued, I was indeed driving- from Amherst to Cape Cod, and not by way of Boston. The officer wrote down the plate wrong of the actual offending car. Now, they did drop it (after my mom called and yelled at the officer), but had they not, I would have had to have either paid the ticket, which would have affected my insurance (I was only 19, so that would have been a really big deal), or driven from Amherst to Boston to go to court to fight the ticket Neither is really a good option for an economically challenged college student- or anyone else, for that matter.

I agree that the guy was a jerk, but that law is an important way to protect people who own cars (you don't even have to drive it yourself to get a ticket!).

up
Voting closed 0

Some states have buttloads of red-light cams and speeding cams that send out tickets by mail. Unlike handing a ticket to an operator after viewing his/her license and registration and interacting with him/her, it's pretty tough to prove who was operating a car that's caught on camera. You can get a clear photo of my license plate where it would be absolutely clear that it was the same numbers as on my plate, but even the best photo doesn't *prove* that that person driving the car who looks an awful lot like me is in fact me. Or that the plate is genuine.

In the states where cams are common practice, the the registered owner of the vehicle is presumed guilty. From what I've read on auto forums, it's not that hard to appear in court and basically get it dismissed by saying "prove it," but as JodieI'vefallenandIcan'tlogin explained, it would be a waste of her time and the municipality's time and the officer's time for her to have to go in and say "you can't prove it was me."

And yes, video footage is used in convicting people of holdups and things, but a hell of a lot more investigation goes into this rather than just saying "yep, that looks like you on the film -- you're guilty."

This state doesn't expressly outlaw mailing a ticket based on an officer's observations, but it's not a routine practice, either. There aren't stoplight cameras at every light sending out hundreds of tickets. Because it just isn't worth the time and money to hold extensive trials to ensure that it really was that person on the film.

http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

If the cameras are set up right, the photos show not only the license plate, but the car itself. The state has no need to prove it was you operating your car. If you weren't driving it, it's your business to collect from whoever you let drive it. It's your problem if you lend your car to deadbeats.

In more forward-thinking places, it's considered a better use of police time and tax money to have them go arrest violent criminals or something rather than spend their days setting up speed traps.

up
Voting closed 0

Parking tickets go to the owner of the vehicle, yes. They also don't go on a criminal record and can't possibly keep someone from getting a job or anything of the like.

Should moving violations be the same way, where you're automatically responsible for them without any witness? Where do we draw the line? If someone with the same make and model as my car with something that looks like my license plate attached to it, say, robs a bank and is caught on camera, should I be held responsible for that unless I can find the person?

http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

There are three problems here:

1. Can you be responsible for the use of your car?

2. Does driving too fast result in increased risk to others and to your car?

3. Are the penalties for traffic violations appropriate?

My answers to these questions:

1. Cars are dangerous instruments. If you allow your car to be used recklessly, then you are morally responsible.

2. I'm not sure it always does, but insofar as it does, if you tend to loan your car to people who drive too fast, then you should pay for creating that risk. Your choice results in your responsibility.

3. I'm not sure they always are. I think the way that the laws are enforced creates an unreasonable burden on the "busted," while not creating general compliance with the law.

One of the common kinds of insurance fraud is insuring a car to the person in the family who has the lowest risk profile (say, an aunt or a grandmother), although it is actually used by the person with the highest risk profile (say, a teenage boy).

It's nice to try to fob off your responsibility, either by saying "hey, it wasn't me driving my 1.5 ton hunk of metal! Don't blame me!" or by pretending that your car isn't being driven by the teenager. But both are unethical and irresponsible. Blaming the law or trying to escape your responsibility on a technicality are likewise unethical.

There is a big problem in this country with the way traffic laws are enforced. It's a roulette. They're mostly not enforced, but then by chance every once in a while you get busted and pay a huge penalty. More even enforcement would be a good way to even the burden and increase compliance. Automated systems would be an economical and fair way to increase enforcement.

Meanwhile, don't lend your car to deadbeats who drive like maniacs. You are morally, if not always legally, culpable if something bad happens as a result.

up
Voting closed 0

than just the "same make and model" and some numbers on the plate.

Im betting very few people go to jail for bank robberies because of a mixup with a plate. Although that does happen.

A few years a go a girl was killed somewhere in Boston and a witness saw that the car was a red ford pickup with specific numbers as the last three digits. State police found several trucks that could have matched up the description for trucks around boston. My uncle was contacted and interviewed because he had a truck that fit the profile with the same numbers. He was told there were about 25 other people being interviewed for the same thing. In this case, the cops did their homework and deduced that my uncle was not the one driving. You should hope they do the same for every case like this

up
Voting closed 0

two years (or more) of increased insurance premiums too?

up
Voting closed 0

Traffic divisions for large police departments make money for the towns and state on these speed traps. 8 hours of speed traps with 10 vehicles being pulled over each hour (if everyone was fined for the minumun speeding) would bring in $8,000 in fines.

With an acutal human being doing the enfrocement (assuming it is done fairly) should knock down the number of appeals by a huge number.

Some speed traps dont make sense and are just there so cops can meet a quota. That is a seperate problem.

up
Voting closed 0

doing something illegal and you werent driving, you have several options.

1) Find out who was driving your car and have them step forward and admit it was them driving. The courts will find that person responsible and fine them for the offense

2) If they dont to step up and take the heat to go to court, you can sell them out and bring their information to court and let them know it was them driving. The court then should still fine the person driving the car.

3) If it really wasnt your car then do some homework and find out where you were. I mean, if the cop is going to make the whole thing up theres not much you are going to do either way.

I mean, you can't really give the old "I wasn't driving, prove it that I wasn't" if the cop has specific facts that the car was yours. (type, color, model, significant marks, race/gender/profile of driver). Also, most often you will find the offending person lives near the offense. If the violation happens in Newton, and the vehicle comes back to someone 2 blocks away, chances are you have the right car. If the vehicle comes out of Pittsfield then maybe there was some sort of mistake. It is up to officers to record other observations about the redlight instead of just the registration. Especially if the ticket is going to be mailed. Maybe someone was in the crosswalk and could come forward as a witness?

up
Voting closed 0

First of all, Braude sounds like a first-class ass-clown.

Secondly, in some places, although I'm not sure that this practice is still in use, I do recall hearing sometime ago about how some places also have a set up where excessive speed is detected by invisibe means (mostly likely radar), so, if a person's driving through an area that does have this sort of invisible excessive speed detection, then s/he will come home from their travels to find their ticket waiting in the mail for them. There was also some debate as t o whether or not this practice was unconstitutional, but that's hard to know. Cameras....not sure about

up
Voting closed 0