GreenShed wrote:
timtjf wrote:
In theory correct, however no one can see the laser and only the operator can see the red dot, in the sighting scope, all that can be seen after the event is the cross hairs, which can only ever be accurately aligned at a one distance and if the operator targets vehicle at different distance to his alignment distance the cross hairs do not indicate the centre of the laser.
You are demonstrating an empty challenge here, typical of what I mention above. You make a claim with no demonstration of magnitude or significance so it will be disregarded. The alternative would be to explain by how much the cross-hair alignment would be out at say 800m when they were correctly aligned at say 600m. The answer is "not much". so why not say that or more correctly don't even mention it because it cannot be significant.
The reality is that it is not significant at all when the operator has evidenced that they do not and have not used the cross-hair for targeting.
timtjf wrote:
The we have a considerable number of operators using the cross hairs as their aiming mechanism and not the correct method by using the red dot
Do we really? Where is your evidence of that? No evidence = No reasonable doubt. Again, the court is likely and rightly in my opinion to disregard such an empty statement.
timtjf wrote:
Whereas the red dot/laser alignment should not got out, it makes the assumption that they were correctly aligned originally.
The assumption that they were "correctly aligned originally" is entirely reasonable. Where is your evidence that they were misaligned? You must bring such evidence or you have only a baseless assumption.
Can you bring evidence that the alignment is typically defective or once aligned is prone to becoming misaligned? Have you any evidence that operators have difficulty in performing alignment verification? It would seem not so again there is nothing of substance with which to raise any doubt that can be considered reasonable by a reasonable person.
timtjf wrote:
These checks are NEVER carried out correctly because operators are not taught correctly and do not understand what the beam footprint is and if you do not understand the footprint it is impossible to check the alignment is correct.
You have, in this statement brought evidence of something at last. Congratulations. The problem for you is it is evidence that you do not understand the alignment mechanism.
Once again, reasonable doubt is not established by wild accusations, you need evidence. I acknowledge some courts have been persuaded by wild accusations but that's another story and the reason they continue to be made.
600mtr alignment for the red dot/cross hairs, come on be reasonable
Try red dot/Cross hair alignment at 16mtrs enforcement at 160mtrs = red dot/cross hair misalignment horisontal 1.2mtrs vertical misalignemnt 0.25mtrs these are facts from an actual case.
Are these misalignments insignificant??????????????????????????
As for operators not carrying out the checks correctly try this
A prosecution expert has stated the following in evidence
Put the instrument in tt' mode by pressing "Test/Options" button twice.
Pull the Trigger to generate the audible test tone.
Listen to the tone. Strong signal is a high pitch. Weak signal is low pitch.
Select a telegraph pole, lamp post or similar as a target with the sky as the background at not less than 50 metres distance.
Scan the target
gently both vertical and horizontal listening to the tone changes.
I have seen countless incidents where operators have carried out this check so fast if you blinked you would miss it.
This is operating under the "Don't do as I do do as I say"
I find it rather hypocritic that the defence have to bring evidence that something was not done, whereas the prosecution only have to say "this was done" oras Greeashed has put it "It is reasonable to assume that it was carried out correctly"
After over 20 years of giving evidence I believe that criminal courts do not assume, it is only in civil vourt that the balance of probability come in to it.