FML : Today, the traffic court judge didn't believe my three witnesses and two security cameras that proved I was innocent. He claimed a cop would never lie,...

178

Today, the traffic court judge didn't believe my three witnesses and two security cameras that proved I was innocent. He claimed a cop would never lie, and that the dashboard security cameras, which the cop brought in, were somehow edited by me. I was fined $1,000 and my license was suspended. FML

I agree, your life sucks

You deserved it

thelistman says more :

Also, for the whole story, I had three other people in the car with me when I was caught "running a red light" by 2 cops who were both behind me. I was clearly in the middle of the intersection when the light turned yellow. I have a feeling that the judge was in a shitty mood that day. This was my first ticket I've ever received, and I've been driving for seven years. Even if I was guilty, I don't know why my fine was $1,000 with a license suspension when the original ticket was $75, and no other tickets on my record. This judge is going down.

By thelistman - / Saturday 10 October 2009 01:58 / United States

Transportation

Add a comment

You must be logged in to be able to post comments!

Create my account Sign in

Top comments

By Muffinish | 0

#613310 - Saturday 10 October 2009 12:54

I am about 90% sure that the judge is sleeping with the cop.

By sarcasticsteve | 0

#613304 - Saturday 10 October 2009 12:43

Oh wow that really sucks. You should apply for an immediate appeal and find yourself a decent lawyer.

Comments

By Bobskoo | 0

#613301 - Saturday 10 October 2009 12:35

hurray for justice. or perhaps on the other hand not.

brkn_hearted | 0

#613401 - Saturday 10 October 2009 15:05

dude, just appeal to a higher court for the obvious lack of competency on the judge's part

nihilanth | 0

#613405 - Saturday 10 October 2009 15:09

Welcome in the USA

Vaetrus | 0

#613518 - Saturday 10 October 2009 16:48

#27. It was a hick judge. Go toss a skunk into his trailer.

silvermoonstar3 | 2

#613584 - Saturday 10 October 2009 17:48

appeal. See if you can get a judge in another state, where judges tend not to do that.

isodufff | 0

#613656 - Saturday 10 October 2009 18:49

FUCK THA POLICE

PaperShreds | 0

#613754 - Saturday 10 October 2009 20:14

@57: So you're telling him to have sexual intercourse with the very police officer who made this tragedy befall him? While at the same time posting a completely useless post in reply to something completely irrelevant?

I feel sorry for the wasted binary code.

DameGreyWulf | 0

#613938 - Saturday 10 October 2009 22:00

Damn you 27, I was going to say "Welcome to Illinois"
Definitely appeal OP, don't sit for that shit.

Spicy_Eyes | 0

#613960 - Saturday 10 October 2009 22:13

@ #57: Next time you're in trouble call a crack head.

FarSide | 22

#614069 - Saturday 10 October 2009 23:08

Yep. That's the Chicago way.

Bet you voted for Obama too. YDI douchebag.

FarSide | 22

#614079 - Saturday 10 October 2009 23:10

...which will be a narc officer....

GreenHacker | 0

#614833 - Sunday 11 October 2009 6:58

I hope you learned your lesson. Don't tamper with evidence. You totally deserved it

jimmydadean | 0

#616773 - Monday 12 October 2009 8:23

YES

austo97 | 0

#825813 - Friday 5 February 2010 1:10

straight from the underground , young nigga got it bad on me uz I'm brown

fuck the police!

poezpoee | 0

#1023500 - Tuesday 8 June 2010 4:37

yeah deffinantly take that shit higher fuck america

tribridags | 0

#1508799 - Thursday 7 October 2010 0:26

fuck dosnt always mean sex....mabye the op is a dude...or and girl if there is a girl officer

rcbarnes | 24

#4085685 - Saturday 25 February 2012 10:13

This is a good case to get that judge thrown off the bench. Fight for it!

By sarcasticsteve | 0

#613304 - Saturday 10 October 2009 12:43

Oh wow that really sucks. You should apply for an immediate appeal and find yourself a decent lawyer.

FarSide | 22

#614095 - Saturday 10 October 2009 23:16

Yes!

By all means go hire an Attorney for $2,500 and file a $250 Case Filing fee, plus a $1,000 Bond fee (to guarantee the initial fine is paid if you lose the appeal). And then, you have a 20% chance of overturning the conviction.

Listen stupid. Take the $2,750 you would spend on trying to overturn a hopeless case and buy yourself 2750 Lotto tickets. You have a better chance of winning your $1,000 back....

responses | 0

#1166916 - Saturday 31 July 2010 17:49

this^

Krennicus | 0

#2728498 - Tuesday 21 June 2011 8:10

People like you are the reason the system stays so corrupt; sitting on your hands saying, "Well it's easier of you just bend over and take it."

By Muffinish | 0

#613310 - Saturday 10 October 2009 12:54

I am about 90% sure that the judge is sleeping with the cop.

elisa_sanchez91 | 0

#614089 - Saturday 10 October 2009 23:14

LMFAO! and the other 10%? He's fucking the OP's wife.

BarcodeDragon | 0

#3124180 - Wednesday 17 August 2011 8:07

True.

733yoda_fml | 19

#6139326 - Tuesday 9 December 2014 1:53

Agreed.

By Sigmund_fml | 0

#613319 - Saturday 10 October 2009 13:07

go to the next level of jurisdiction!!

White667 | 0

#613341 - Saturday 10 October 2009 14:04

The problem here is any extra law stuff will cost more than $1000. Iit all depends on the importance of having a licence and whether the difference is worth it, because if you he gets a decent lawyer then he'll win (from what his told us) but it may cost him a little, is all.

skesky04 | 0

#613555 - Saturday 10 October 2009 17:19

well if what he is saying is true then it doesn't sound like he needs a lawyer too badly, but i would say to appeal to a higher court and try to go after the judges job since he is obviously too corrupt to be in any state of power in this country

avoidthegirl | 6

#613687 - Saturday 10 October 2009 19:23

Yeah but if you're going to take the judge's dumb ass to court, you can also stipulate in your case that he has to pay all of your court fees when you win the case.

What a fucking dumbass judge... he deserves to be disbarred if he's living in some fantasy land where cops are model citizens.

FarSide | 22

#614121 - Saturday 10 October 2009 23:27

You know dogshit about US and State law your moron. Trying reading a Civics 101 textbook and stop trying to pass your GED via MTV News.

By john_bell | 0

#613320 - Saturday 10 October 2009 13:08

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment

sicklittlegames | 0

#613327 - Saturday 10 October 2009 13:27

She/He says he didn't. That's what this whole FML is about, dumbass.

glotch | 0

#613346 - Saturday 10 October 2009 14:06

Did you read the original post at all?

FPsLife | 5

#613394 - Saturday 10 October 2009 15:00

Get some reading comprehension before calling people a dumbass...

john_bell | 0

#613766 - Saturday 10 October 2009 20:21

You guys are well smart, you all know what sarcasm is.

See I did it again, hopefully this time you can understand. Sorry I can't type slower, so please just read slower then go back to putting you fingers in plug sockets.

Luckster | 0

#613782 - Saturday 10 October 2009 20:26

You can't READ sarcasm you moron!

4bbaf9d3caaa8f84 | 20

#613786 - Saturday 10 October 2009 20:31

what you said can't be interpret as sarcasm even if you do say it slower

suck_on_this | 0

#613919 - Saturday 10 October 2009 21:45

You guys are all obviously severely mentally impaired. Learn to read the English Language and learn to recognize a little thing that's called a "context clue".

perfectphlaws | 0

#613946 - Saturday 10 October 2009 22:03

lol

FarSide | 22

#614125 - Saturday 10 October 2009 23:30

You are a fucking moron if you ONLY listen to one-side of the story shit-for-brains!

You always make up your mind after knowing 1/2 the story?

john_bell | 0

#614211 - Sunday 11 October 2009 0:15

I said to read slower so your debilitated brain could understand my point, obviously it couldn't.

piles_of_fail | 0

#614451 - Sunday 11 October 2009 2:10

......you fail @ sarcasm. simple as that.

john_bell | 0

#615156 - Sunday 11 October 2009 12:08

Well you fail at life.

piles_of_fail | 0

#615809 - Sunday 11 October 2009 20:46

oh wow, soooooo original [/sarcasm]

doritoninja | 4

#1579775 - Thursday 21 October 2010 4:55

hey John-bell, how 'bout a nice cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP?!

WoldowJR | 25

#6104108 - Wednesday 29 October 2014 22:01

It's not that we didn't pick up on the sarcasm, it's that the statement you based your comment on ("that'll teach you not to...") is heavily used in a non-sarcastic manner, and does not structurally work as sarcasm because stressing any word in that sentence with a sarcastic tone would only make the statement sound more earnest.

By Hadley_fml | 0

#613321 - Saturday 10 October 2009 13:13

See if you can get this appealed, it sounds like a mistrial to me.

FarSide | 22

#614129 - Saturday 10 October 2009 23:32

you know what you sound like with that opinion? Ignorant.

DarkScythe951 | 4

#3117001 - Tuesday 16 August 2011 7:04

STFU ASSWIPE

deathfyre8 | 13

#6037420 - Thursday 14 August 2014 17:11

That was uncalled for, 157.

By mich99 | 0

#613324 - Saturday 10 October 2009 13:22

put it on the news because the juge CANT do that is illegal

SheriffBart | 0

#613712 - Saturday 10 October 2009 19:47

In a bench trial, the judge is trier of fact. That means he gets to decide which evidence he beliees and how much weight he gives it. So yes, he CAN do that, and no, it's not illegal. Even if the OP manages to get it overturned on appeal, the judge won't face civil or criminal liability for it. You fucking tard.

Puolukka | 4

#613728 - Saturday 10 October 2009 20:05

No offense, but any country where TWO surveillance videos show that a person is NOT guilty, yet the judge still finds them guilty, should overthink their court and justice system.

How can he just look at a video and say "Yea, I see that you didn't do it, but I don't believe it" WTF?

SheriffBart | 0

#613787 - Saturday 10 October 2009 20:31

You're giving the OP far too much benefit of the doubt. Usually, when people claim a video clearly and conclusively shows them to be innocent, it does no such thing. The problem is most likely not in the Illinois justice system, but in the OP's expectations for a pair of ambiguous videos.

americayay | 0

#614020 - Saturday 10 October 2009 22:57

Thank you number 70. Everyone on these things always assumes the OP is entirely innocent. If they're not lying about the whole thing.

FarSide | 22

#614111 - Saturday 10 October 2009 23:22

The judge heard BOTH sides of the case. WE only heard one side.... and that was from the LOSER of the case.

Damn, there is an over abundance of ignorant liberals on this post. No wonder Mr "Nobel Peace Prize" is your President.