Dan Masters wrote:
>I was in traffic court once when a guy tried that. He had a Firebird, but the
>officer wrote "Camaro." He told the judge he couldn't see how he could be
>guilty if he didn't own a Camaro. The judge looked at him rather sternly and
>asked:
>
>"Were you driving the car?"
>
>"Yes"
>
>"were you speeding?"
>
>"yes"
>
>"Guilty!"
>
>That was the end of that.
And that's as it should be. And I would never SERIOUSLY consider such a
ridiculous defense, either. However, I would point out that these days, it
would appear that the TRUTH of what happened is no longer important. The
only thing that's important is whether or not you can "Beat The System" and
get away with it... like for instance, oh... lessee... PERJURY and
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!
Sorry, just couldn't resist!
Pete Chadwell
1973 TR6
|