Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto
 

Coming onto northbound I-280 at the Page Mill interchange*, around 5:00
in the evening. Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of
around 75-80mph (the posted speed limit is 65). There's a cop in front
of me on the onramp, so I get a nice clear view of what happens next.

The cop immediately floors it onto the freeway, pulls up behind the
first car he comes to, and hits his lights. Bang, a speeding ticket for
this hapless commuter. He was a danger to no one; I imagine that he was
just trying to get home to the wife and kids after another tough day at
work. He wasn't doing anything different from thousands of other cars on
the freeway. Now he's into the state for hundreds of dollars, not to
mention the future insurance costs. That's food out of his family's
mouths; clothes off their backs. And for what? So Joe Cop could make his
quota this month?

(Judy and Carl, here's a pre-emptive STFU for you.)

* yes, I realize that 99% of the readers will have no clue where this
is.

--
Bob

"Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
...
(the posted speed limit is 65).

Nuff said!

In article >,
"Thomas Avery" > wrote:

> "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> ...
> (the posted speed limit is 65).
>
> Nuff said!

"Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around 75-80mph"

The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no one.

Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
principles?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article >, Thomas Avery wrote:
>
> "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> ...
> (the posted speed limit is 65).
>
> Nuff said!

Yet the will of the people says something entirely different. Why are you
not objecting to the fact that there is a obvious disconnected between
law and the will of the people in this nation?

Instead you support the control freaks, whom if they are able to create a
law by hook or by crook, by saying everyone has to obey their will.

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >,
> "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
>
> > "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > (the posted speed limit is 65).
> >
> > Nuff said!
>
> "Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
75-80mph"
>
> The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no
one.
>
> Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
> understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
> principles?

If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the
posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want
to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever
you want.

>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
> if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article .com>,
"Furious George" > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > (the posted speed limit is 65).
> > >
> > > Nuff said!
> >
> > "Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
> 75-80mph"
> >
> > The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no
> one.
> >
> > Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
> > understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
> > principles?
>
> If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the
> posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want
> to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever
> you want.

We all have the right to use the roads. We have a duty to do so in a
manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in a
manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor vehicle
can cause.

Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires there to
have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A victim
can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless behaviour,
and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one is
*not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be.


Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the speeds in
question every day without the slightest incident (and since what
incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other factors
than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit), there
is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the posted
limit) as a form of endangerment.

That you wish to throw away your rights shouldn't have any effect on the
rest of us.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Furious George" > wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > (the posted speed limit is 65).
> > > >
> > > > Nuff said!
> > >
> > > "Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
> > 75-80mph"
> > >
> > > The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no
> > one.
> > >
> > > Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
> > > understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
> > > principles?
> >
> > If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including
the
> > posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you
want
> > to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to
whatever
> > you want.
>
> We all have the right to use the roads.

Says you. When the government closes the road for repaving, are they
violating the rights of everyone.

> We have a duty to do so in a
> manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in a
> manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor
vehicle
> can cause.
>
> Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires there to

> have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A
victim
> can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless
behaviour,
> and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one is
> *not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be.
>
>
> Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the speeds in

> question every day without the slightest incident (and since what
> incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other factors

> than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit),
there
> is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the
posted
> limit) as a form of endangerment.

Tell that to the cinema manager: "There is no prima facie basis for
declaring outside food a form of endangerment." It's the same thing.
If you don't like the facility rules, then feel free to not use the
facility.

>
> That you wish to throw away your rights shouldn't have any effect on
the
> rest of us.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
> if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Furious George wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>In article .com>,
>> "Furious George" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>(the posted speed limit is 65).
>>>>>
>>>>>Nuff said!
>>>>
>>>>"Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
>>>
>>>75-80mph"
>>>
>>>>The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no
>>>
>>>one.
>>>
>>>>Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
>>>>understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
>>>>principles?
>>>
>>>If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including
>
> the
>
>>>posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you
>
> want
>
>>>to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to
>
> whatever
>
>>>you want.
>>
>>We all have the right to use the roads.
>
>
> Says you. When the government closes the road for repaving, are they
> violating the rights of everyone.
>
>
>>We have a duty to do so in a
>>manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in a
>>manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor
>
> vehicle
>
>>can cause.
>>
>>Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires there to
>
>
>>have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A
>
> victim
>
>>can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless
>
> behaviour,
>
>>and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one is
>>*not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be.
>>
>>
>>Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the speeds in
>
>
>>question every day without the slightest incident (and since what
>>incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other factors
>
>
>>than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit),
>
> there
>
>>is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the
>
> posted
>
>>limit) as a form of endangerment.
>
>
> Tell that to the cinema manager: "There is no prima facie basis for
> declaring outside food a form of endangerment." It's the same thing.
> If you don't like the facility rules, then feel free to not use the
> facility.
>

You mean the public facility that our tax dollars pay for and maintain?
Not the same thing at all.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Furious George wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> >>In article .com>,
> >> "Furious George" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>In article >,
> >>>> "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>(the posted speed limit is 65).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nuff said!
> >>>>
> >>>>"Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
> >>>
> >>>75-80mph"
> >>>
> >>>>The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no
> >>>
> >>>one.
> >>>
> >>>>Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
> >>>>understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
> >>>>principles?
> >>>
> >>>If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you
> >
> > want
> >
> >>>to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to
> >
> > whatever
> >
> >>>you want.
> >>
> >>We all have the right to use the roads.
> >
> >
> > Says you. When the government closes the road for repaving, are
they
> > violating the rights of everyone.
> >
> >
> >>We have a duty to do so in a
> >>manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in a
> >>manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor
> >
> > vehicle
> >
> >>can cause.
> >>
> >>Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires there
to
> >
> >
> >>have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A
> >
> > victim
> >
> >>can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless
> >
> > behaviour,
> >
> >>and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one
is
> >>*not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be.
> >>
> >>
> >>Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the speeds
in
> >
> >
> >>question every day without the slightest incident (and since what
> >>incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other
factors
> >
> >
> >>than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit),
> >
> > there
> >
> >>is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the
> >
> > posted
> >
> >>limit) as a form of endangerment.
> >
> >
> > Tell that to the cinema manager: "There is no prima facie basis
for
> > declaring outside food a form of endangerment." It's the same
thing.
> > If you don't like the facility rules, then feel free to not use the
> > facility.
> >
>
> You mean the public facility that our tax dollars pay for and
maintain?
> Not the same thing at all.

Yes exactly. The public paid for the roads so the public makes the
rules. If you don't like the rules build your own road.

>
> nate
>
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Furious George wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Furious George wrote:
> > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > >
> > >>In article
.com>,
> > >> "Furious George" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Alan Baker wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>In article >,
> > >>>> "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>"Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>>>(the posted speed limit is 65).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Nuff said!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>"Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
> > >>>
> > >>>75-80mph"
> > >>>
> > >>>>The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting
no
> > >>>
> > >>>one.
> > >>>
> > >>>>Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't
you
> > >>>>understand that all of our laws have to obey certain
fundamental
> > >>>>principles?
> > >>>
> > >>>If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use
(including
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > >>>posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe
you
> > >
> > > want
> > >
> > >>>to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to
> > >
> > > whatever
> > >
> > >>>you want.
> > >>
> > >>We all have the right to use the roads.
> > >
> > >
> > > Says you. When the government closes the road for repaving, are
> they
> > > violating the rights of everyone.
> > >
> > >
> > >>We have a duty to do so in a
> > >>manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in
a
> > >>manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor
> > >
> > > vehicle
> > >
> > >>can cause.
> > >>
> > >>Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires
there
> to
> > >
> > >
> > >>have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A
> > >
> > > victim
> > >
> > >>can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless
> > >
> > > behaviour,
> > >
> > >>and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one
> is
> > >>*not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the
speeds
> in
> > >
> > >
> > >>question every day without the slightest incident (and since what
> > >>incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other
> factors
> > >
> > >
> > >>than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit),
> > >
> > > there
> > >
> > >>is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the
> > >
> > > posted
> > >
> > >>limit) as a form of endangerment.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tell that to the cinema manager: "There is no prima facie basis
> for
> > > declaring outside food a form of endangerment." It's the same
> thing.
> > > If you don't like the facility rules, then feel free to not use
the
> > > facility.
> > >
> >
> > You mean the public facility that our tax dollars pay for and
> maintain?
> > Not the same thing at all.
>
> Yes exactly. The public paid for the roads so the public makes the
> rules. If you don't like the rules build your own road.

Exactly. The public makes the rules.

nate