From: kk@mcnc.org (Krzysztof A. Kozminski)
Subject: Re: Another lying police incedent...
Organization: MCNC Center for Microelectronics, RTP, NC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:46:03 GMT

ARRRGH, these attributions are too long ...

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.

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".

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...

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 ...

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).

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"

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.

KK
-- 
"Legalize freedom.  Vote libertarian"