From: ashaw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (andrew.shaw)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos
Subject: Re: Another lying police incedent...
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:11:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbfsb.1992Jul24.161141.7939
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Jul23.174603.12736@mcnc.org>, by kk@mcnc.org (Krzysztof A. Kozminski):
> ARRRGH, these attributions are too long ...
> 
I agree.

> In <1992Jul22.172310.13893@cbfsb.cb.att.com> ashaw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com writes:
>>From (Krzysztof A. Kozminski):
>>> (andrew.shaw) writes:
>>>>From (Bill Campbell):
> BC>> [ it is illegal for the cop to be driving over the speed limit ->
> BC>>   argument about trusting in cop's calibrates speedo - kk ]
> 
> AS>If I were the judge and heard "I was driving in the left lane, passing
> AS>people, [ remainder of the argument Andrew Shaw made up as a straw man
> AS>deleted - kk ]" I would have trouble keeping a straight face.
> 
> KK The proper argument is: "when my speedometer was showing 55*),
> KK everybody was passing me**), including a police car which was
> KK NOT in emergency/pursuit, hence since he was supposed to obey
> KK the same law, and his speedometer is calibrated ... etc"
> KK 
> KK *)  ... or whatever the speed limit is ...
> KK **) ... in 95% of highway traffic situations obviously true ...
> 
> AS>I didn't think she was prepared to make up a completely bogus story.
> AS>If she was, then I don't understand why she would be so irate about 
> AS>the supposed injustice.
> 
> First: she started this thread about 8 follow-up levels earlier.  I was
> commenting on your strawman set up in response to what appeared to be a
> fairly generic remark by Bill Campbell, generic just by tha fact that
> arguments similar to his show up in this group several times a year.

I know, because the whole entrapment debate started because I could
not see how she could be entrapped from the front.  OK, then we had
the BC argument as to how she could be entrapped from the front. I
have tried to make the following points:
1.	She was not, in fact, entrapped, since she was already speeding
	and not keeping right.
2.	Insofar as she wanted to blow up the courthouse due to her moral
	outrage at having the police officer lie, then clearly she herself
	would not be prepared to lie in turn, lest she be hypocritical.
3.	Given the foregoing, she would have had to try to make the case
	for entrapment while telling as much of the truth as possible,
	the only variation being the "miscalibrated speedometer".
4.	The argument is therefore not a straw man on my part, but what
	she would have had to say to meet the above constraints.  Clearly
	I did not think it would fly.  Neither, of course, does anybody
	else, which is why the argument for entrapment has required more
	and more lies to support.

> Second: nothing bogus above.  Unless she *never* drives 55.  OK, so modify
> the statement to be patently true by expanding the time reference:
> "... usually, when my speedo shows the highway's posted speed limit,
> everybody seems to be passing me".

As above, this is patently *not* true.  She realized she was doing 70
and dove into the right lane.  What is she going to claim her
"miscalibrated speedometer" registered at this point, 85?  (We are
agreed that she cannot say she didn't dive into the right lane, nor
that she did so for any reason other than a sudden awareness of speeding,
are we not?)

> Third: the cop lied (about pacing somebody else).  While not advocating
> perjury, I see it quite fair to defend yourself aginst a lie by bringing
> up general truths, whether they pertain to the specific situation or not.
> If their presence in the argument influences the judge, it's his reasoning
> problem, and not mine...

Absolutely.  The problem, though, is that you want her to bring up
general *untruths*.  Her speedometer was not miscalibrated, people
don't always pass her at 55, etc, etc.

> AS>She herself said that she was already speeding, so I don't know what
> AS>your ** above refers to.  Certainly 95% of the time people are not
> AS>passing *me* on the highway.
> 
> Then, (discounting the hypothesis that you live in a parallel universe
> :-), I don't believe you do the speed limit.  As federal (? I think)
> statistics reported here several weeks ago (by r.welty ?), the
> non-compliance with 55 mph limit is ~85%, and with 65 mph is ~50%.  So
> if you're going 55, almost everybody you see WILL pass you, because
> you're not gaining much on anybody of the 15% crowd that goes 55 or
> less and hence most of them remain out of your sight.  In fact, if the
> entire compliant 15% were going exactly 55, then *everybody* you saw
> (except perhaps for a few other 55 mph cars in the immediate vicinity)
> would pass you ...

Of course.  I never claimed I did the speed limit.  In fact, I am the
one who opposed the notion that cruisers should observe the limit, as
their doing so tends to cause congestion.

> To be accurate, I was talking about " 95% of traffic situations", which
> I implicitly assumed to be understandable as "95% of encounters with
> other cars" rather than "95% of the time" you inferred, but even in the
> latter case, unless you drive at unusual hours with no traffic around,
> or perhaps in an area that is an aberration when compared to the
> average over the US, if you don't see youself passed most of the time,
> then there is no way I can believe you do speed limit.  I had a chance
> to drive a couple thousand miles in several trips in the NC/VA/MD/DE/NJ/NY
> area (Ryder truck with a 55-limit governor), and passed FIVE cars in
> ~2000 miles when I fancied to count them (and got passed by several
> thousand of others).

Now who's setting up a straw man?  I never claimed I did the speed
limit.  Nor did I think you meant 95% of the number of hours I spend
on the highway.  At the time, I did not understand your "95% ... obviously
true", and said so.  I now realize that this, your second footnote,
was supposed to be inserted in *her* argument, unlike the first footnote,
("or whatever the speed limit was") which was an editorial remark.

> AS> [That someone dumb enough to be entrapped in such a fashion should
> AS>  consider that flashing lights are a necessary precondition for
> AS>  police speeding is inconsistent].
> 
> So what are you trying to say?  That the fact that the entrapee is smart,
> makes entrapment a legal practice?  Or that the cop got this flash in his
> head, "hey, a superior intellect is following me, no way she couldn't
> realize I am conning her into a violation"

No, no, of course I'm not arguing that.  What I am arguing is that since
she was not, in fact, entrapped, she has to make her counterfactual
entrapment defence believable.  We all agree that the whole case hinges
upon her (supposed) belief that the cruiser was going the speed limit.
Now, what basis does she have for believing that?  Obviously not the
"miscalibrated speedometer", which is registering 75 at 70.  Obviously
not the other cars, whom she had (in fact) been passing before, and
now was passing even faster.  Not even the cruiser itself, which was
also passing the other cars, leading to two possibilities:
1.	Every car on the road, including her, had a miscalibrated
	speedometer.
2.	The cruiser *was not doing the speed limit*.
Now you and I know that Occam's Razor leads us to conclusion 2, but
we want her to argue conclusion 1.  So, what basis does she have
for concluding universal miscalibration as opposed to gratuitous
police speeding?  Merely this: that she "knows" that the police are
not allowed to speed unless their lights are flashing, and she also
"knows" that as protectors of the public they never do anything they
are not allowed to do.  But how does she know the flashing light rule?
Most people think that a cruiser can be driven at whatever speed the
police find appropriate.  Ah, but our victim had, *before the incident*,
researched the laws governing police behaviour and thus knew that the
unflashing cruiser "could not be speeding".  This indicates a degree of
preparation and thought.  It is my contention that this very preparation
and thought is inconsistent with the picture of one who is so unworldly
as to believe:
1.	Every car has a seriously miscalibrated speedometer
2.	The police never speed without flashing lights
Thus, to me, this inconsistency dooms the defence.

As an aside, as long as we are making snide remarks about how the
police can possibly estimate the intelligence of this driver, how
can he have entrapped her without, in fact, thinking "Hah! This
inferior intellect will not realize that I am conning her into
a violation"?  Apart from the fact that he had been observing
her (lack of) driving intelligence since before he passed her.

> KK> You gotta be kidding or your standards of sophistication are unusually
> KK> low.  Like the concept of 'everybody being equal under the law' was
> KK> never discussed in the elementary school...
> 
> AS> And you still believe this to be true?
> 
> If a principle is being consistently broken by morally corrupted
> individuals, it still does not make this principle invalid.

I agree completely.  The fact that the principle exists, however, is
no guarantee that it will be followed.  That is, although all may
be equal under the law, and although we are (still) a nation of laws,
the law is, in the end, administered by men.

> 
> KK
> -- 
> "Legalize freedom.  Vote libertarian"

Do you remember when John Anderson said, "The only way [Reagan]
can cut taxes, increase military spending, and reduce the deficit,
is with mirrors?"
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving