Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto

In article .com>,
"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.

Don't be dense. A road closed for improvement is a reasonable limitation
on our freedom to travel it, because traveling it while there are
workers on it would be impractical.

>
> > 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.

A government is not a private facility, is it?

--
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."