[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

The circular firing squad: Mueller targets turn on each other

Retired cop, arrested by Bloomfield PD, fatally shoots himself inside police headquarters

LAWSUIT CLAIMS SHEILA JACKSON LEE FIRED A STAFFER TO COVER UP A RAPE

18 U.S. Code § 1622 - Subornation of perjury

New York Bill Allowing Abortions Up to Birth Says a Person is Only “A Human Being Who Has Been Born”

Feds say ‘star’ DEA agent abroad stole millions

Black People Dismantle "White Privilege"

Liberals Threaten to Terrorize and Imprison Trump Supporters

William Barr’s ‘Deep State’ resume: Cover-ups, covert ops, and pardons

Innocent Marine Vet Falsely Arrested, Brutally Strip Searched in Horrific ‘Punishment’

Oklahoma Cops Jail Four Men for Transporting Legal Hemp

Watch a Florida Cop Botch a Drug Field Test on Video, Then Arrest an Innocent Man

Vigilante Anarchist Bus Driver, git 'er done

Racist Bitch Kamala Harris Tries to Bully Kirstjen Nielsen then Kirstjen Gets Fed Up And Fights Back!

Assad points to attempts to divide Church of Antioch in Syria, Lebanon

Trump Cancels Pelosi's Brussels Junket (Gov Shutdown, no jet)

Despite ban, N.H. lawmakers say they will continue to carry guns in the State House

Gun Owners of America Funds Challenge to National Firearms Act in U.S. Supreme Court

War Whores Scramble To Say Syria Attack Means Troops Must Remain

Volunteers Kicked Out of Nat’l Park for Cleaning It During Shutdown—Without a Permit

William Barr’s Connection to Ruby Ridge, Defending FBI Snipers

The 100th Anniversary of the Ratification of the Amendment That Led to Prohibition Is a Reminder of the Lasting Damage Bad Policy Can Do

Are You Suffering From Toxic Masculinity? Know The Warning Signs

Hillary Clinton ran weapons into Libya for the Obama administration, while Michael Flynn was targeted because he knew the details

Beto O’Rourke Suggests America Should Ditch the Constitution

Potential US presidential contender thinks YOUR money is in the “wrong hands”

POLICE lie to Uber Driver/Attorney

The Danger Within: Border Patrol Is Turning America Into a Constitution-Free Zone

Plants Are Growing on the Moon for the First Time (Chinese cotton plantation)

Laura Loomer Brings Illegal Immigrants To Nancy Pelosi's Home. Pelosi Has Police Remove Them

P&G’s Gillette ad asks men to shave their ‘toxic masculinity’ and a big backlash ensues

Chemtrails Exposed: The Deep State And The New Manhattan Project

Reality Beyond Belief

Oregon bill would cap magazines to 5 rds, ration ammo to 20 rds/month

Nobel Prize-Winning DNA Pioneer James Watson Stripped Of Titles For Insisting Race And IQ Are Linked

Trump’s shutdown trap?

Free Speech Is Dead in Canada: The Persecution of Christian Activist Bill Whatcott

The Unique Pleasures of Watching Alexa Deny Children What They Want

Police visit father after he joked on Facebook about feeding five-day-old baby hot sauce

Big Pharma’s Worst Nightmare, Survey Finds Most Medical Pot Users Quitting Prescription Drug Use

Cops Raid Innocent Family With No Warrant, Drag Them From House and Beat Them

'McJesus' sculpture sparks outrage for Christians in Israel

Kasich Looking to Join Fake News Brigade After Governorship (third party, bipartisan kind of ticket)

The Bounty ... Pitcairn Island --- Fletcher Christian's Descendants

Rand Paul to have hernia surgery in Canada

The World Wildlife Fund Now Controls The US Beef Industry!

Missing Uncle Much?

Ocasio-Cortez’s Twitter Baby Prattle: “Who dis?” “Who dat”—WHO CARES?!

‘I Cannot Comply’: A Second Amendment Advocate’s Fight Against the City of Boulder, Colorado

30 Democrats in Puerto Rico with 109 lobbyists for weekend despite shutdown


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Exaggerating Cop Testimony
Source: From The Trenches
URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... pholds-exaggerating-cop/216062
Published: Jan 12, 2018
Author: The Newspaper
Post Date: 2018-01-12 15:27:58 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 192
Comments: 15

The Newspaper

A police officer’s exaggerated testimony can still be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last week. The justices overruled a three-judge panel of state Court of Appeals that had previously tossed the evidence gathered by Bloomfield Police Sergeant George Rascon, whose description of events of November 11, 2008, failed to match what the judges saw from dashboard camera footage. Sergeant Rascon said motorist Jennifer Martinez raced to the intersection of Sycamore and North Third.  

“And at the four-way stop sign the vehicle just went past the stop sign completely into the lane of traffic, southbound lane of traffic,” he testified. “She stepped on her brakes completely and she made a complete stop, but it was in the middle, in the lane of traffic.”

At trial, the lower court judge expressed surprise when comparing the officer’s version of events to the dashcam video.

“Alright, well you know after hearing Sergeant Rascon’s testimony I was certainly confused as to why the defendant would file the motion to suppress because he made it sound very clear why, why he stopped and that there was reasonable suspicion, but I think it just goes to show you really need to review the video in every case,” the trial judge observed. “And in this case after reviewing the video, I truly find the truth somewhere in between both positions. I certainly didn’t see Sergeant Rascon’s testimony that there was, she stopped in the middle of the intersection, I don’t think that was the case.”

The Court of Appeals found that the officer’s stretching of the truth made his testimony unreliable, and the video itself made it impossible to determine whether there was a legitimate violation of law. Motorist Jennifer Martinez came to a full stop at that intersection, but there were no lines painted on the ground. From the angle of the video, the three-judge panel simply could not tell whether she stopped too far into the intersection, or not, so they threw out the case. The Supreme Court justices disagreed last week, insisting that the bar for reasonable suspicion was so low that it justified a traffic stop in this case and that the appellate court should have deferred to the trial judge.

“The district court resolved the parties’ factual dispute in favor of the state, finding that defendant drove too far into the intersection before slamming on her brakes and coming to a stop,” Justice Barbara J. Vigil wrote for the high court. “We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred by reweighing the evidence on appeal and failing to view the facts in the manner most favorable to the prevailing party.”

A copy of the decision is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:   New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1/4/2018)


Poster Comment:

A police officer’s exaggerated testimony can still be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last week.

Huh? What - isn't that called "perjury"? Apparently when a cop lies on the stand it's simply "exaggeration". When a serf does it - he charged with a felony.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

Justice Barbara J. Vigil should be expelled from the bench for deliberate erosion of law.

rlk  posted on  2018-01-12   18:03:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0)

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Exaggerating Cop Testimony
Another headline....another bold face lie.
Author: The Newspaper
Another bold face lie. The author is not “The Newspaper.” The author is a “BLOGGER” writing for a blog that calls itself “TheNewspaper.com.”

Here is a listing of the other cop-hating fabrications on the same blog:

  • New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Exaggerating Cop
  • Utah: Cop Cannot Provoke A Violation To Justify A Traffic Stop
  • Tasered Motorist Sues Ohio Town
  • Pennsylvania Cops Settle After Sober Man Jailed For DUI
  • National Motorists Association Takes On Ride Sharing Privacy
All cop-hating yellow journalism articles.
A police officer’s exaggerated testimony can still be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last week.
No, that’s not what the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court on 1/4/2018).

The Supreme Court justices ruled that a police officer’s testimony can be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense and that running the stop sign “justified a traffic stop in this case and that the appellate court should have deferred to the trial judge.”

A police officer’s exaggerated testimony can still be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last week.

Huh? What - isn't that called "perjury"?

Huh...No, that’s called TRYING to inject your PERSONAL OPINION into three court rulings.
A police officer’s exaggerated testimony can still be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last week.
That’s called a ruling with the officer testifying as to what he saw.
Apparently when a cop lies on the stand it's simply "exaggeration". When a serf does it - he charged with a felony.
No. Obviously the law is the same for all. You can find cases where police officers and “serfs” were convicted of perjury as well you can find cases where police officers and “serfs” were not charged with perjury when some felt they should be....all equally under the same laws.

Apparently you are attempting to inject a biased opinion to serve your cop-hating agenda and it is not working. A police officer can charged with perjury if it is discovered that they have lied. There was absolutely no proof the police officer lied on the stand in the case here and therefore perjury was never any consideration except in some reporters cop-hating mind.

You have a right to your opinion, as warped as as wrong as it is....however you cannot negate a court ruling because YOU personally believe a police officer testified in a manner you consider untruthful (exaggeration) and self-declare that the police officer committed perjury. You cannot do this simply because you did not agree with the verdict. It is a repeatedly proven scientific fact many people can have many different interpretations of the same event. That does not make them all perjurers.

Uh, BTW....I find nowhere in the yellow journalism article is the fact mentioned that the woman stopped was definitely DRUNK when she ran the stop sign and she was found guilty of DUI. Why do you suppose the cop-hating so called “reporter” conveniently left that bit of important information out of the article....huh?

It must really suck for you to find court decisions involving the conduct by police officers which you disagree with.

Oh, you poor baby ...

Gatlin  posted on  2018-01-12   18:08:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Gatlin (#2)

Another bold face lie.

A copy of the decision is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:   New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1/4/2018)

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2018-01-12   20:08:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Deckard (#3) (Edited)

Another bold face lie.

A copy of the decision is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1/4/2018)

i read the decision, thank you. The decision is not “the” bold face lie. The decision is the proper administration of the law and insured there was fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law. It was not the kangaroo court system you try repeatedly and fail to invoke on this forum. It was fairness and moral rightness in a system of law in which every person receives his/her due process from the system.

The BIG LIE was the one told by the blogger who tries to imitate a “reporter” in his trashy blog he calls The Newspaper when he wrote:

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Exaggerating Cop Testimony
The New Mexico Supreme Court did not uphold “exaggerating cop” testimony. That was NOT a charge. What the Supreme Court justices actually did was that they ruled that a police officer’s testimony can be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense and that running the stop sign “justified a traffic stop in this case and that the appellate court should have deferred to the trial judge.”

A copy of the decision is available at New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1/4/2018) for you to try to understand and comprehend the ruling and its true meaning.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-01-12   20:34:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Gatlin (#4)

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Exaggerating Cop Testimony

A more accurate title would have been "New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Perjurious Cop Testimony"

After all - he did provide false testimony that was shown to be a lie by the video.

Oh wait - maybe the camera lied.

Yeah - that must be it.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2018-01-12   20:48:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Deckard (#5) (Edited)

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Exaggerating Cop Testimony

A more accurate title would have been "New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Perjurious Cop Testimony"

“Accurate” is the KEY word....and both hose titles are fictitious titles designed to implant a hidden assumption so readers can consider it a recognition of reality....it is prejudice.

After all - he did provide false testimony that was shown to be a lie by the video.
That’s simply not true and you know that. Read the decisions.
Oh wait - maybe the camera lied.
Cameras don’t lie....those who post yellow journalism definitely do lie.
Yeah - that must be it.
Videos must be interpreted. and the district court viewed the dash dash-cam video and concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop.

Yeah – that WAS it.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-01-12   21:22:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Deckard (#0)

The Supreme Court justices disagreed last week, insisting that the bar for reasonable suspicion was so low that it justified a traffic stop

Just like when cops get shot or ambushed... and they knew the dangers of the job when they started... it is what it is. When the highest courts rule in favor of the officer... it is what it is.

Suck it up, you whiney bitch.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2018-01-12   21:46:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: GrandIsland (#7)

When the highest courts rule in favor of the officer... it is what it is.

Isn't that kinda' like gettin' an "Outta Jail Free Card?" Isn't that embarrassing to society and set precedence for social class grief?

buckeroo  posted on  2018-01-12   21:52:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: buckeroo (#8)

gettin' an "Outta Jail Free Card

You play monopoly too much, Belize ball sniffer.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2018-01-12   21:58:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: GrandIsland, yukon's best bud (#9)

buckeroo  posted on  2018-01-12   22:09:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Deckard (#6)

Here is the end of this story.

The woman was drunk and ran a stop sign.

She was tried for DUI....she lost, she was convicted.

She challenged running the stop sign charge all the way up to the New Mexico Supreme Court...she lost there too.

Whine away all you want to....but this is the end of the story.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-01-12   22:22:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Gatlin (#11)

The woman was drunk and ran a stop sign.

She was tried for DUI....she lost, she was convicted.

DickTard likes to lick the boots of a criminal.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2018-01-12   22:39:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: GrandIsland (#12)

The woman was drunk and ran a stop sign.
She was tried for DUI....she lost, she was convicted.
DickTard likes to lick the boots of a criminal.
Good one....yes, he does.
Jail birds of a feather flock together.
I wonder what DickTard’s rap sheet really looks like.
People that have the same morals often tend to group.
That is no doubt why he is so protective of criminals.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-01-13   0:32:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Deckard (#0)

From the angle of the video, the three-judge panel simply could not tell whether she stopped too far into the intersection, or not,

Wait a minute. The cop was actually there. He saw her come to a stop in the intersection. He issued a ticket.

Along comes a three-judge panel which reviews the video and says, "Geez. From this angle we can't tell. So toss the case."

Take a lesson from football instant replay --if the video is insufficient to overturm the ruling on the field, the play stands.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-01-14   8:39:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Gatlin (#11)

The woman was drunk and ran a stop sign.

Gosh. The article never said that. Now the whole story makes more sense.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-01-14   8:41:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com