Speaking with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Karen Riley, the San Diego Superior Court commissioner who heard the case, says her decision last year to vacate Krioukov's ticket for not coming to a complete stop "was not based on his physics explanation...It was based on the officer's view ... The officer, wasn't close enough to the intersection to have a good view." Krioukov's talk, later detailed in a four-page paper he published online titled "The Proof of Innocence," argued a confluence of events and physical phenomena, such as the difference between observing lateral and angular acceleration, that Riley said mostly escaped her.
Except: Krioukov's main point was the same: The officer observing the intersection didn't have a good view of the stop sign, and what viewpoint he did have was blocked for a moment by a passing car when Krioukov stopped his Toyota Yaris.
Even if the causes of the resolution are in dispute, it's clear Krioukov's physics defense still followed some old legal rules: If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts. And if the facts and law are both against you, confusing everyone with science can't hurt.
Image: Illustration/Flickr photo via thecrazyfilmgirl
- Politics & Government
- San Diego Superior Court