Another police department caught with a quota.

In article >,
"jaybird" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "jaybird" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "jaybird" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "jaybird" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > "jaybird" > said in rec.autos.driving:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>> So tell me, Jaybird, if there is a wall of cars going 3 MPH,
> >> >> >> >>> why
> >> >> >> >>> set
> >> >> >> >>> the speed limit at the ridiculously high 55 MPH? Hitting a wall
> >> >> >> >>> at
> >> >> >> >>> 55
> >> >> >> >>> MPH isn't much better than hitting the wall at 70 MPH - either
> >> >> >> >>> way
> >> >> >> >>> you're still dead. Why not make the speed limit 5 MPH? Wouldn't
> >> >> >> >>> that
> >> >> >> >>> be a lot safer?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>Not really.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Why not?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because 5mph is not reasonable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And a speed limit that almost everyone disobeys is?
> >> >>
> >> >> It depends. Check your state's requirements on setting speed limits
> >> >> and
> >> >> find out which part the 85th is used in. I know that here they get
> >> >> the
> >> >> 85th
> >> >> first, then factor in other conditions listed by TXDOT.
> >> >
> >> > As we've discussed, there's simply no need to factor in other
> >> > conditions
> >> > unless they cannot be perceived by drivers on a particular stretch of
> >> > road.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Are you familiar with the legal significance of the "reasonable man"?
> >>
> >> Very familiar. Almost all criminal law is based on the premise of what a
> >> reasonable person would perceive to be occurring.
> >
> > No. That's not it at all. If you think it is, give a concrete example.
>
> Reasonable suspicion is the first example off the top of my head. The
> "reasonable man" is a form of legal fiction, by definition, that represents
> what the average Joe would think. In order to show reasonable suspicion
> that a person can be detained, for example, you must show that a reasonable
> person would see what you see and think that an offense might be occurring.
>


You're starting to get it.

It also forms an important basis for determining culpability in civil
cases. When judging someone's actions the concept of what a "reasonable
person" would do is used to determine whether someone has acted without
due care for the safety of others, for instance.
> ---
> jaybird

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "jaybird" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "jaybird" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> > "jaybird" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > "jaybird" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>> So tell me, Jaybird, if there is a wall of cars going 3 MPH,
>> >> >> >> >>> why
>> >> >> >> >>> set
>> >> >> >> >>> the speed limit at the ridiculously high 55 MPH? Hitting a
>> >> >> >> >>> wall
>> >> >> >> >>> at
>> >> >> >> >>> 55
>> >> >> >> >>> MPH isn't much better than hitting the wall at 70 MPH -
>> >> >> >> >>> either
>> >> >> >> >>> way
>> >> >> >> >>> you're still dead. Why not make the speed limit 5 MPH?
>> >> >> >> >>> Wouldn't
>> >> >> >> >>> that
>> >> >> >> >>> be a lot safer?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>Not really.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Why not?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Because 5mph is not reasonable.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And a speed limit that almost everyone disobeys is?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It depends. Check your state's requirements on setting speed
>> >> >> limits
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> find out which part the 85th is used in. I know that here they get
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> 85th
>> >> >> first, then factor in other conditions listed by TXDOT.
>> >> >
>> >> > As we've discussed, there's simply no need to factor in other
>> >> > conditions
>> >> > unless they cannot be perceived by drivers on a particular stretch
>> >> > of
>> >> > road.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you familiar with the legal significance of the "reasonable
>> >> > man"?
>> >>
>> >> Very familiar. Almost all criminal law is based on the premise of
>> >> what a
>> >> reasonable person would perceive to be occurring.
>> >
>> > No. That's not it at all. If you think it is, give a concrete example.
>>
>> Reasonable suspicion is the first example off the top of my head. The
>> "reasonable man" is a form of legal fiction, by definition, that
>> represents
>> what the average Joe would think. In order to show reasonable suspicion
>> that a person can be detained, for example, you must show that a
>> reasonable
>> person would see what you see and think that an offense might be
>> occurring.
>>
>
>
> You're starting to get it.

I have a good grasp of it.... had to apply it in real situations many times
over the years.

>
> It also forms an important basis for determining culpability in civil
> cases. When judging someone's actions the concept of what a "reasonable
> person" would do is used to determine whether someone has acted without
> due care for the safety of others, for instance.

Sounds reasonable. )

---
jaybird

On Mar 20, 11:47 am, "jaybird" > wrote:
> "Mike T." > wrote in message
>
> reenews.net...
>
> >> They're not supposed to. They are illegal and unconstitutional.
>
> >> ---
> >> jaybird
>
> > And yet they do, In almost every police force in the U.S.A. Yours
> > excluded, I'm sure. Just as long as you realize that your squad is the
> > exception, and FAR removed from reality. -Dave
>
> In the event of a vast conspiracy such as that, my family and I choose not
> to place ourselves in a situation to fall victim to such things.
>
> ---
> jaybird

When the minorities were (probably with good reason) complaining about
being overticketed, I wrote to the police union suggesting that all
they had to do was to go to any stop sign and write tickets for every
white middle-age woman who went through that sign - they all do in San
Diego.
The union never got back to me.

Signed: That obnixious dummy who actually comes to a full stop just to
**** off any PO who happens to be watching.

(ne time, when they were behind me I did it three times, once at the
first sign, then six feetlater at the line then 8 feet later at yet
another stop sign that somehow got twisted around and was facing me.

"Studemania" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Mar 20, 11:47 am, "jaybird" > wrote:
>> "Mike T." > wrote in message
>>
>> reenews.net...
>>
>> >> They're not supposed to. They are illegal and unconstitutional.
>>
>> >> ---
>> >> jaybird
>>
>> > And yet they do, In almost every police force in the U.S.A. Yours
>> > excluded, I'm sure. Just as long as you realize that your squad is the
>> > exception, and FAR removed from reality. -Dave
>>
>> In the event of a vast conspiracy such as that, my family and I choose
>> not
>> to place ourselves in a situation to fall victim to such things.
>>
>> ---
>> jaybird
>
> When the minorities were (probably with good reason) complaining about
> being overticketed, I wrote to the police union suggesting that all
> they had to do was to go to any stop sign and write tickets for every
> white middle-age woman who went through that sign - they all do in San
> Diego.
> The union never got back to me.

It is against the law to stop a person solely on the basis of race. Go
away, troll.

---
jaybird

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> "jaybird" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>It is against the law to stop a person solely on the basis of race. Go
>>away, troll.
>
> And, of course, no one would EVER do anything illegal, right?
> ESPECIALLY a cop.

How naive are you? People are not infalliable and they violate laws. Your
sarcasm is noted, but does nothing to add anything positive to the thread.

---
jaybird

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "jaybird" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>>
>>>It is against the law to stop a person solely on the basis of race. Go
>>>away, troll.
>>
>> And, of course, no one would EVER do anything illegal, right?
>> ESPECIALLY a cop.
>
> How naive are you? People are not infalliable and they violate laws. Your
> sarcasm is noted, but does nothing to add anything positive to the thread.

Does just making an honest mistake because of a poorly designed
intersection get a regular guy off the hook? no. Do police officers
purposely and with no good reason do what they ticket others for and
worse? Yes.