Re: [s-d] An exercise

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think that - if your word seemed credible enough, of course - your
argumentation would have been valid. Now, whether valid argumentation
results in the defense working is another story ;-)

Billy Pilgrim

On Nov 30, 2007 7:06 PM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I went to district court today to fight over a ticket for "failing to
> yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk". The police officer didn't show
> up, so I was found not guilty without having to argue (lol to the
> people before me with a similar ticket, plead guilty, and had to pay a
> fine!).
>
> Anyway, I think participating in nomic got me in an argumentative mood
> and I actually think I had a valid defense. It was anti-climatic that
> I didn't get to argue. The law is:
>
>
> http://michie.lexisnexis.com/maryland/lpext.dll/mdcode/216f9/22f07/22fce/22fd9?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_tr21-502
>
> My defense is that the pedestrian was another police officer loitering
> in the crosswalk in the adjacent lane. He was also standing next to an
> orange traffic cone for some reason. I feel this does not fit the
> criteria of 2(i) [other lane] or 2(ii) [was not approaching]. Do you
> think this defense would have worked or would the judge have
> complained that I wasted his time and issued me the fine and point?
>
> - Hose
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss