Originally Posted by
Nightshade
Your logic is flawed because if this were the case a burglar who was seen breaking into a house and running away were reported by a neighbor then the cops would have no reason to arrest or even investigate the crime because they didn't see it happen.
Why do you think this is any different aside from one being a traffic violation and the other being a felony crime?
still 2 totally different examples
now you have physical evidence again , not just someone saying they saw something.
you break into a house and unless your a world class burglar there is going to be obvious evidence ... broken glass, fingerprints ... shit knocked over.
i drive by you at 120 when the speed limit is 75 ... you call the cops and they do pull me over later, not breaking the law ... what physical evidence besides you saying i was speeding do they have? none.
sure they can ticket me but that ticket sure as hell aint holding up in court. so the cops get you to stand up in court and say it was my car, so i get my passenger to stand up in court and say i wasnt speeding ... now you have two conflicting arguments. and this is the point where the cops would need to have concrete proof of the charge. but as it so happens they pulled me over and i wasnt speeding they have no hard evidence
how does the judge rule on that?