I’m Not Gonna Waste Your Time, I’m Guilty.

Summary

In this transcript, a woman named Joanne faces multiple traffic violations, including parking tickets and red-light violations. Initially, she doesn’t want to see the evidence, believing she’s guilty and wanting to save time. However, after some discussion, the judge explains that there’s confusion at the location, leading to dismissing two violations. Upon reviewing the third, Joanne admits guilt. The judge reduces the fine and gives her extra time to pay. By the end, Joanne changes her stance and wants to see all the evidence, appreciating the judge’s fairness.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker greets Joanne and highlights a problem they are facing.
• 🚗 The speaker mentions having multiple issues they weren't aware of, specifically five violations.
• 🚦 Three of these violations are red light violations at the same location, Allen Avenue and Terminal Street.
• 🙅 The speaker expresses reluctance to look at the violations initially, assuming they would be found guilty.
• 👀 The judge insists on reviewing the violations and dismisses two because the driver was past the first stop line when the light turned red.
• 📉 The judge explains that there are two stop lines at the location, which causes confusion, and bases the dismissal on this.
• 😅 The third violation is discussed, and the speaker acknowledges that they ran the red light.
• 💸 The judge reduces the fine by $85 due to a technicality and gives the speaker a month to pay.
• 🙋 The speaker, who initially didn't want to see the violations, changes their mind and now wants to review all of them.
• 👍 The session concludes with the speaker appreciating the judge’s fairness and expressing willingness to comply with the fine.

Q & A

What issue does the speaker initially raise at the beginning of the conversation?

The speaker mentions that they have five issues they were unaware of, including parking tickets and violations.

What type of violations is the speaker being questioned about?

The speaker is being questioned about three red light violations at the intersection of Allen Avenue and Terminal Street.

How does the speaker initially respond to the idea of reviewing the evidence?

The speaker initially refuses to look at the evidence, stating that everyone else who looked at it was found guilty, so they do not want to see it.

Why does the judge insist on looking at the evidence for the red light violations?

The judge insists on reviewing the evidence because the intersection has two stop lines, which can create confusion, and the judge wants to determine whether the speaker crossed the first stop line before the light turned red.

What is the outcome for the first two violations reviewed by the judge?

The first two violations are dismissed because the speaker was past the first stop line when the light turned red.

How does the speaker react after the first two violations are dismissed?

After the first two violations are dismissed, the speaker changes their attitude and expresses interest in reviewing all of the evidence.

What is the outcome of the third violation?

For the third violation, the judge notes that the speaker went through the red light but decides to give them a break since the violation occurred within 0.1 seconds of the light turning red. The fine is reduced to $85.

How much time does the judge give the speaker to pay the reduced fine?

The judge gives the speaker a month to pay the $85 fine.

Why does the speaker initially claim they do not want to see the evidence?

The speaker initially claims they do not want to see the evidence because they feel guilty and want to avoid wasting time.

How does the speaker's attitude change by the end of the interaction?

By the end of the interaction, the speaker expresses a desire to see all the evidence, acknowledging that they should have been more thorough from the beginning.