Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


JameZ last won the day on September 26 2016

JameZ had the most liked content!

About JameZ

  • Rank
    Veteran Member
  • Birthday September 27

MTA Information

  • MTA Account

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Discord

Recent Profile Visitors

13,198 profile views
  1. [STATE] The People v. Lucy Belshaw

    "Your honor. The defense still fails to see how the original traffic stop is reasonable in any light for reckless driving. The argument that I am trying to make here is that, if Miss Belshaw was indeed recklessly driving, an actual collision would have occurred, instead of Miss Belshaw actually hitting the brakes and stopping her vehicle. Miss Belshaw stopped in the correct lane after a right turn, if she was recklessly driving, she would have continued further and instead hit the wall, or collided with another vehicle. I definitely agree with what you said, your honor, regarding that not all information have to be present to initiate an investigation, however in this situation there was clearly none prior to the stop taking place. If we were to go by this logic, then we are basically implying that anyone's vehicle that makes a tire screech is suspect of reckless driving, which rather seems absurd. Your honor, I ask you please to review the statement again that was given in Exhibit 4, and compare it with the circumstances in that situation. A statement is not always truthful, and we can utilize common sense in this situation to judge if that stop was reasonable or not." (( @ThatGuy @Lewis @Zebulon @Jordang ))
  2. [STATE] The People v. Lucy Belshaw

    "Your honor, The defense suggests the prosecution to do better research. In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that have modified the rules concerning Miranda Rights, there are two basic prerequisites where the police has to issue a Miranda warning to a suspect; which as I have already mentioned in detail already; the suspect is either in police custody, or the suspect is under interrogation by the police. Miss Belshaw was under police interrogation during the time of the incident, which Exhibit 4 clearly proves. There was no reason for Agent Murdoch to question my client other than what he established as "reckless driving" to his own understanding. Therefore these were not voluntary admissions, it is just illogical for my client to admit to a crime and then argue it the next minute with other officers. The prosecution has not provided any real evidence of my client committing any crime, and the defense still believes that the traffic stop was not legal. There is no evidence that proves that my client was recklessly driving in any manner. Tire screeches can mean a lot of things, and as has been previously mentioned. My client only lost control of her vehicle due to the snow storm that occurred during the time. Was there even any legitimate investigation by the police to check the tire marks to see the braking distance? Anything that can actually prove that my client was indeed trying to put her life in danger by reckless operation of her vehicle? The prosecution is basing their case on a statement that was given by my client that was not obtained through legal means, the defense still stresses that the motion of suppression is to be considered." (( @ThatGuy @Lewis @Zebulon @Jordang ))
  3. [STATE] The People v. Lucy Belshaw

    "Objection, your honor. Regardless of whether Miss Belshaw was a law-enforcement officer or not, the law is still the law, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals must be Miranadized before a police interrogation, and this applies to all cases. The prosecution does not get to say when an interrogation has began officially or not, Agent Murdoch was there as a law enforcement officer for one sole purpose, that is questioning Miss Belshaw regarding her apparent reckless driving. Which is what he then proceeded by doing by asking Miss Belshaw questions. We are yet again going in loops. " (( @Lewis @ThatGuy @Zebulon @Jordang ))
  4. [STATE] The People v. Lucy Belshaw

    "Objection, your honor. The prosecution is clearly disregarding what was originally argued. I will repeat myself again, Miranda rights are required to be read when a police interrogation occurs beforehand. And as I have already established, the questioning of Ms.Belshaw technically falls under police interrogation, as the statement in Evidence 4 can support. Agent Murdoch mentioned that he approached Ms.Belshaw to question her regarding her apparent reckless driving. I believe we're going in circles right now, and the prosecution is not giving any valid arguments against that, but keeps insisting for a reconsideration of the motion of suppression." (( @Lewis @Zebulon @ThatGuy @Jordang ))
  5. [STATE] The People v. Lucy Belshaw

    "Your honor, This is not what the original narrative by Agent Murdoch clearly says. If we go back to Exhibit 4 again, Agent Murdoch suspected Ms.Belshaw of reckless driving because... He heard a screech of tires and what sounded like a vehicular collision? Then he clearly mentions that this established reasonable suspicion for him to accuse Ms.Belshaw of reckless driving, which was the INITIAL reason for the stop. This is rather poor judgement and it does not constitute in any manner reckless driving. Agent Murdoch began to interrogate Ms.Belshaw as he apprehended her vehicle. The prosecution is using Terry v. Ohio as a case-law in this courtroom, however that mainly speaks about the 4th Amendment which protects individuals from illegal searches and seizures, not the 5th Amendment which is our main concern here. And if we were to question the legality of the stop, your honor. There is no proof that constitutes reckless driving in any manner in the first place, the defense believes that this was a misjudgement by Agent Murdoch since there are no reasonable grounds to constitute this, which falls under the fruit of the poisonous tree, redeeming the stop and what has derived from it inadmissible in court." (( @Lewis @ThatGuy @Zebulon @Jordang ))
  6. [STATE] The People v. Lucy Belshaw

    "Objection, your honor. The defense would like to motion for a suppression of evidence as Ms.Belshaw's Miranda rights were clearly infringed. The Miranda rights as specified in Miranda v. Arizona. These rights apply when an individual is in police custody, or under interrogation. Once a police officer begins to ask questions that may implicate involvement in a crime, an interrogation has begun. Ms.Belshaw was technically detained upon being approached as instructed in Exhibit 4 by Agent Murdoch himself, where he states the initial reason for the stop was her "apparent reckless driving". We can establish by that, that Ms.Belshaw was indeed being interrogated when apprehended by Agent Murdoch. The prosecution is trying to deceive the court into another understanding at this point, this clearly does not match the original narrative that was given by Agent Murdoch, if we go over the statement once again your honor: However, Agent Murdoch is claiming otherwise during the cross-examination where he claims that the stop was initiated when "he instructed her to pull over". This clearly proves that Agent Murdoch is not being truthful here, and is rather attempting to deceive this court into another understanding." (( @ThatGuy @Lewis @Jordang @Zebulon ))
  7. If it's scripted already, then I don't see why it shouldn't be implemented.
  8. Are the values in the GUI vehicle-bound or how exactly? Like would anyone who enters that same cruiser see the same stuff? Does it also function the same where as if you are an occupant, you also have to activate the speed camera for yourself? Sorry if there are too many questions, but I think that this should've been cleared out in the original announcement.
  9. @Chaos @yannickboy15 - Does the speed camera still log things somewhere, though? In case they are required for in-character stuff. For example, if you're required to post evidence of the speed camera logs. Other than that, nice update.
  10. TWSPC News Update: 19/02/18

    Name: j Comment: oh god that juana smacks, any1 got her number lol
  11. Lets MG nametags!

    Yep, this is what I meant. I believe any way to trace someone is logged.
  12. Lets MG nametags!

    To anwer your question, UAT members can be on-duty, however hidden. They'd be on duty, but their nametags can be seen as normal. However I believe that is also logged.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, and follow our Guidelines.