🚀 go-pugleaf

player1@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:

>>>In principle I agree with this however if the policy's intent is to
>>>legislate a law so others can break the law then we've gone too far.

>>For once, you are right.  They should just raise the limit by 20mph an
>>post a minimum at the current limit.  But, it is easier to just have
>>conflicting laws that the police their descretion to descriminate
>>with.  Plus, the cops like that better.  Not that they have to worry

>Now that's a scary thought. You're saying something akin to "make
>everything illegal, then we can bust whomever we don't like..."

I break at least one law a day.  I don't know anyone that drives every
day that doesn't break at least one law a day.  Everything is already
illegal, so why would they need any more laws to make criminals out of
us?

>>about having reasons anymore, since it was declared that abiding by
>>traffic laws in unusual enough to warrant reasonable suspicion...

>Declared where? I must say that to me this sounds like a "Very Bad Thing."

It was a finding that was publicized in the Dallas paper because it
was in reference to a Texas case that started not too far from Dallas.
There was a cop that pulled over the only non-speeding car on the road
because that was unusual behavior.  The judge ruled that following the
laws with the laws being so uniformly disregarded was sufficient for
reasonable suspicion.

I don't see why it is a big deal, though.  In TX they can pull you
over just to check and see if you have a license...

>>Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


For email, remove second "y" from Gumbyy@ticnet.com