On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:23:07 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:53:23 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

Most people are when disagreeing you.
I shouldn't have deviated from my original
stance since, as it turns out, I was right about
it.
See:

http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/75PA3368.html

Pay particular attention to 3368 (c) number 4.,
which states:

"No person may be convicted upon evidence
obtained through the use of devices
authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless
the speed recorded is six or more miles per
hour in excess of the legal speed limit.

Why did you snip the obvious? I'll tell you why, it directly contradicts
what you claimed.

I snipped nothing from that passage.


You certainly did. You snipped paragraph (1), which authorizes the use
of "a mechanical or electrical speed timing device", devices that are
-not- limited by paragraph (4). IOW, if the cop -can- bust for doing
56 in a 55 zone if he uses a mechanical speed timing device (e.g, the
speedometer in his own vehicle).

So what were you saying about knowing the law?





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----