Caught driving 200 km/h on public roads - $235,000 Ferrari taken away

[oddjob2021]

... and thanks for the video. I watch that stuff too. this one's good

im actually surprised that with all the media and off topic you bring to us, you didnt get to see that vid, at least when it was very popular. i guess you cant catch everything, its against nature. i also liked the video, you say 'that stuff' do you have a similar one?

[BK63AMG]

Tough lesson learned...I'm not sure I can agree with the govt. taking the cars from them...I think that is definitely a gray area...but there are consequences for every decision we make. Losing their cars may end up being the best thing that ever happened to these drivers.

[Sonny]

Ouch. Glad you got it reduced (wtf is unsafe door opening btw lol) and I'm sure it will end up cheaper than the insurance hike could have been. I personally despise traffic cops and thoroughly enjoy the various 'never talk to the police' videos on youtube. It really never, ever helps you out unless the cop is planning on letting everything go. One of the more interesting points I picked up was from a law professor talking about your Miranda 'warning'. Although everything you say can/will be held against you, nothing you say to the police can be used for you. Apparently it falls under hearsay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

So, the reason that what you say can be used against you is because your statement can be admitted against you by your party opponent (the government, the people, whatever). This admission qualifies as either an exception or exemption (exception in CA, for instance, but an exemption under the Federal Rules of Evidence--same effect) to the hearsay rule.

Why can't you typically admit your own statements made to the police? Because admissions (i.e., any statement made by a party to a case -- civil or ciminal) can only be introduced into evidence by a party's opponent. Statements that you make can be introduced by your opponent. But you are not your own opponent, so you can't admit your own statements, unless the statements qualify for admission under other exceptions, but not the party-opponent admission exception/exemption.

Your own statements can be instroduced by you, for instance, if they are not used for a hearsay purpose (e.g., to show intent).

[Sticky]

So, the reason that what you say can be used against you is because your statement can be admitted against you by your party opponent (the government, the people, whatever). This admission qualifies as either an exception or exemption (exception in CA, for instance, but an exemption under the Federal Rules of Evidence--same effect) to the hearsay rule.

Why can't you typically admit your own statements made to the police? Because admissions (i.e., any statement made by a party to a case -- civil or ciminal) can only be introduced into evidence by a party's opponent. Statements that you make can be introduced by your opponent. But you are not your own opponent, so you can't admit your own statements, unless the statements qualify for admission under other exceptions, but not the party-opponent admission exception/exemption.

Your own statements can be instroduced by you, for instance, if they are not used for a hearsay purpose (e.g., to show intent).

Nice post.

[Sonny]

^ Thanks.