-Use of obsence language 

- Riotous behaviour 

these charges is to silent other drivers from speaking out. 

Rass what charge they would file against GNI members.

(4)  Use of Obscene Language...… this is freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution.

Mitwah posted:

(4)  Use of Obscene Language...… this is freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution.

Freedom of Speech must be exercise with some responsibility and should not be aggressive in a fighting tone. 

This guy is a lawyer and should have conduct himself better. 

He looked and sounded like he was highly intoxicated. 

Interesting to see how this develops in the court.

He may get suspended from the local bar and a fine. He may also lose his drivers license!

He guh cuss up bad bad!

Lose Driver's License for what??

Dave posted:

Mitwah posted:

(4)  Use of Obscene Language...… this is freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution.

Freedom of Speech must be exercise with some responsibility and should not be aggressive in a fighting tone. 

This guy is a lawyer and should have conduct himself better. 

That's your opinion and he has already apologised for his behaviour.

Here is why the case will be thrown out.

The Attorney contended that the officer had no right to stop him, since there was no “reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”

Baseman posted:

He may get suspended from the local bar and a fine. He may also lose his drivers license!

He guh cuss up bad bad!

Most lawyers exude arrogance. They feel they're gods and not accountable to anyone. I know an older Italian attorney who yells and screams at his clients to scare them into telling the truth.

He probably knew that his car had no fitness and his tint was too dark and that's why he behaved that way to get out of the ticket.

The charges are fine except the one for riotous behavior. That's stretching it a bit. I don't think he "rioted", just cursed out the officer.

Mitwah posted:

Dave posted:

Mitwah posted:

(4)  Use of Obscene Language...… this is freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution.

Freedom of Speech must be exercise with some responsibility and should not be aggressive in a fighting tone. 

This guy is a lawyer and should have conduct himself better. 

That's your opinion and he has already apologised for his behaviour.

Here is why the case will be thrown out.

The Attorney contended that the officer had no right to stop him, since there was no “reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”

 

There was probable cause. The officer suspected that his tint was too dark. He was just trying to BS his way out of a ticket, claiming that the cop couldn't see him because he was behind a truck.

Baseman posted:

He may get suspended from the local bar and a fine. He may also lose his drivers license!

He guh cuss up bad bad!

Nah, that would be too extreme. This is a simple traffic offense and should be treated as such. Guyanese only mekkin a big ting about it cause they are bored and have nothing better to do and find stuff like this to talk about on Facebook.

Mars posted:

He probably knew that his car had no fitness and his tint was too dark and that's why he behaved that way to get out of the ticket.

The charges are fine except the one for riotous behavior. That's stretching it a bit. I don't think he "rioted", just cursed out the officer.

 

I agree. 

Mitwah posted:

Dave posted:

Mitwah posted:

(4)  Use of Obscene Language...… this is freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution.

Freedom of Speech must be exercise with some responsibility and should not be aggressive in a fighting tone. 

This guy is a lawyer and should have conduct himself better. 

That's your opinion and he has already apologised for his behaviour.

Here is why the case will be thrown out.

The Attorney contended that the officer had no right to stop him, since there was no “reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”

 

How can the Attorney justified the officer has no suspicion to stop him when he refuse to put his window up ( a dark tint on the front window which is not allow in Guyana, a offence he’s now charge with ) he was also driving with expired documents. Perhaps the driver action of driving, to hide behind the trucks cause the police to stop him in the first place.

Ok I am done, looks like we gon decide the man faith here. 

Which man? Ryan @$%^&*% Crawford??

Mars posted:

Mitwah posted:

Dave posted:

Mitwah posted:

(4)  Use of Obscene Language...… this is freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution.

Freedom of Speech must be exercise with some responsibility and should not be aggressive in a fighting tone. 

This guy is a lawyer and should have conduct himself better. 

That's your opinion and he has already apologised for his behaviour.

Here is why the case will be thrown out.

The Attorney contended that the officer had no right to stop him, since there was no “reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”

 

There was probable cause. The officer suspected that his tint was too dark. He was just trying to BS his way out of a ticket, claiming that the cop couldn't see him because he was behind a truck.

He did challenge the cop to measure the tint.  I would like to know the what law or section of the charges for tint. The one from 1999 regulates the importation of vehicles with tint.

Mars posted:

He probably knew that his car had no fitness and his tint was too dark and that's why he behaved that way to get out of the ticket.

The charges are fine except the one for riotous behavior. That's stretching it a bit. I don't think he "rioted", just cursed out the officer.

 

Poor chap just doing his job. This Ryan needs to be made an example of.

Dave posted:

Mitwah posted:

Dave posted:

Mitwah posted:

(4)  Use of Obscene Language...… this is freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution.

Freedom of Speech must be exercise with some responsibility and should not be aggressive in a fighting tone. 

This guy is a lawyer and should have conduct himself better. 

That's your opinion and he has already apologised for his behaviour.

Here is why the case will be thrown out.

The Attorney contended that the officer had no right to stop him, since there was no “reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”

 

How can the Attorney justified the officer has no suspicion to stop him when he refuse to put his window up ( a dark tint on the front window which is not allow in Guyana, a offence he’s now charge with ) he was also driving with expired documents. Perhaps the driver action of driving, to hide behind the trucks cause the police to stop him in the first place.

Ok I am done, looks like we gon decide the man faith here. 

Wanna bet the charges will be thrown out?

Mitwah posted:

He did challenge the cop to measure the tint.  I would like to know the what law or section of the charges for tint. The one from 1999 regulates the importation of vehicles with tint.

Either the cop didn't have a meter to measure it or he was intimidated by the obnoxious behavior of RFC and didn't bother to do it. However, that doesn't mean that the cop had no right to stop him. By simply looking at his windows, the cop suspected that he was over the limit. That's all that is needed to stop him, suspicion of committing a crime. I don't know the section for the tint law but they must be in place for them to charge him, considering the visibility of this case.

Tint violation is probable cause for a stop.  He refused to wind up window.  Isn’t that like refusing a breathalyzer?

Mitwah posted:

Dave posted:

Mitwah posted:

Dave posted:

Mitwah posted:

(4)  Use of Obscene Language...… this is freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution.

Freedom of Speech must be exercise with some responsibility and should not be aggressive in a fighting tone. 

This guy is a lawyer and should have conduct himself better. 

That's your opinion and he has already apologised for his behaviour.

Here is why the case will be thrown out.

The Attorney contended that the officer had no right to stop him, since there was no “reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”

 

How can the Attorney justified the officer has no suspicion to stop him when he refuse to put his window up ( a dark tint on the front window which is not allow in Guyana, a offence he’s now charge with ) he was also driving with expired documents. Perhaps the driver action of driving, to hide behind the trucks cause the police to stop him in the first place.

Ok I am done, looks like we gon decide the man faith here. 

Wanna bet the charges will be thrown out?

Nah, no betting with Guyana justice system 

Mars posted:

Mitwah posted:

He did challenge the cop to measure the tint.  I would like to know the what law or section of the charges for tint. The one from 1999 regulates the importation of vehicles with tint.

Either the cop didn't have a meter to measure it or he was intimidated by the obnoxious behavior of RFC and didn't bother to do it. However, that doesn't mean that the cop had no right to stop him. By simply looking at his windows, the cop suspected that he was over the limit. That's all that is needed to stop him, suspicion of committing a crime. I don't know the section for the tint law but they must be in place for them to charge him, considering the visibility of this case.

A few years ago there was a big write up in one of the dailies about the cops being the biggest violators of the tint. I don't know if Ramjattan ever got the law changed to allow a 50% density. 

Leonora posted:

He looked and sounded like he was highly intoxicated. 

If so, one charge would have read:

Drunk and disorderly.

Sparrow: https://youtu.be/QBPwZXwi3qg

Ryan Effing Crawford for President.