Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brucelee
I still don't follow YOUR logic. Where is it written that the police have to employ some particular methdology to enforce speeding laws? In the very old days, they just tailed you. Later they set up radar traps. Then, well, you get the picture.
Using your logic, police should not be able to use any superior technology catch other criminals as well. This would not be "sporting of them" I guess. At the same time, we should be able to buy all of the latest detectors, right?
I think the terrorists must read these boards and laugh their butts off.
|
Hi,
To be sure, it's a complex issue with many gray areas. But, I do think that the Police should not have many of the things available to them at the moment, including this technology. For one thing, what's next? Legislation which prohibits manufacturers to produce a car which will exceed the speed limit or some arbitrary upper limit? This technology is also already on the shelf, but wait, then the State could not profit or produce revenue from scofflaws... I guess that one's safe for now. A Free Society cannot impose so much constraint on it's Citizens that it effectively ceases to be a Free Society - no one thing accomplishes this, but every little thing, such as these technologies, inch us closer to that day.
And let's face it, exceeding the speed limit is not the only way a motorist can break the law. Much more revenue could be had were the Police to crack down on those not signalling turns, driving with burnt out bulbs, rolling stopsigns, not using seatbelts, using cell phones, driving on bald tires, and any number of other infractions, which in sum may impose a greater threat than a few speeders. But these are much more difficult to catch (there'd need to be more Police actually doing their jobs rather than waiting for a Radio Call to action).
And, for OHBoxster, I was able to successfully argue that the speed trap which caught me doing 34MPH in a 30MPH zone was entrapment as the Motorcycle Officer used a Radar Gun at the bottom of a steep hill. A nearly blind curve leads to this decline and I was driving my wife's late Lincoln Continental. I argued that the car travelling the proper limit would pick up speed naturally on this decline and that even if the motorist saw/felt the increase in speed and attempted to apply the brakes, that the car could have easily increased 4MPH in speed
and that the Officer would have no indication whatever from in front of the car whether the Driver was attempting to limit his speed as the brake lights would not have been visible. The Judge asked if I was an Attorney, when I said I wasn't, he said I should be, that I had clearly made my case and ruled the Officer acted inappropriately in selecting the sight for the trap and in issuing me the citation, despite protests from the Officer, and the citation was dismissed. There were however over a dozen citations given on this day at that sight and they were not dismissed, most I assume were simply paid...
Happy Motoring!... Jim'99