|
There is no way. In order to pace a vehicle, he has to be within reasonable distance to confirm that both his car and mine are traveling at the same speed. Pacing is typically done with undercover cars that people dont see so it is effective and accurate. It is especially accurate at night because it is more difficult to see a police cruiser. His statement on the ticket simply says "Paced in excess of 60MPH". Pacing by definition is not an estime. It will have a specific velocity of which he doesn't have. If I had slowed to 20MPH when I saw him, he would have caught up to me well before 23rd which is where he caught me. The key to eliminating any of these variables you speak of is in the officer's own testimony. The question will have to be asked, "Officer, how fast were you going to catch me?"
If he cannot answer than question alone, my argument will be, "If you dont know how fast you were going, then how would you know how fast I was going if you are basing my velocity on that if your own,which is a requirement defined by the pacing method?" So he HAS to give a velocity. From that velocity he gives (granted he tells the truth, which he probably will because my witness will be of concern to him because he wont know what my witness knows), then the math will leave him trying to explain something that couldn't have happened. As for these drastic changes in velocity as being arguments on his side, if he wants to entertain the possibilities I will be happy to demonstrate what the effects would be on the actual distance we covered. If he tells the truth, which is what I hope to convince him to do with the presence of a witness, presenting the truth that I wasn't speeding will be easy. All I need him to do is tell the truth and I will be just fine. IF he doesn't tell the truth, there are several things he could "stretch" but many of them I have a witness that could potentially prove him otherwise. His best interest will be to tell the truth and get it over as painlessly as possible. I'd love to prove him a liar and win, but I'd rather him tell the truth and lose so as to save face and learn a ery valuable lesson.
: and slammed on the brakes immediately after seeing the cop and slowed to 20 mph hoping he wouldn't catch you, then you would still be considered speeding and he wouldn't have to go 120mph to catch you, and you cant prove him different.
: He could easily attest to that and maybe say the sqealing of the tires was not you spinning out but you braking instead, so I would start with the bov/ witness thing and if that went nowhere, hope by then the cop will have said enough to the effect of how you were speeding, that way when you threw the actually mathematics into it, he couldn't go back on his previous statements. good luck.
[ ashleypowers.com ]
[ agpowers@bellsouth.net ] When pigs dance, you better get it on video...
|
