RadioBanter - View Single Post

February 17th 05, 03:16 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:40:48 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
There is no rule, unwritten or written that requires the officer to
ignore a speeder. To wit...the portion you conveniently snipped shows
how your claim is not across the board and is an exception, as it
pertains ONLY when traveling in areas with posted speeds LESS than 55,
whereas the the posted interstate (65 MPH) speeds, of which Pa. finally
raised from 55 not too long ago, are the speed LIMITS imposed by the
state of Pennsylvania.

There are still many limited access roads

which are posted at 55.

You're roving. There are also many local and city roads where the speed
is 35. Not relevant to the maximum speed limit imposed by the state.

In fact, the majority of places where they

allow 65 are those areas where the highway is
not in a "congested" (meaning densely

populated) area.

Regardless, you are citing the exception. Once again, you can cite no
rule requiring the officer to give a window of ANY speed in regards to
the states maximum imposed speed limit.

In most others, it's still 55.

On the interstates in Pa, the maximum speed is 65 MPH. See above.

Not on all of them.

Yes, on ALL of them. If you are going to try and say portions of the
interstates have reduced speeds and try and invoke this as your point of
reasoning for saying "not all of them", you really have issues and can't
stand to be shown you are wrong. ALL interstates have reduced speeds in
some areas.

I live and travel them on a daily basis.

(snip)

Your personal experiences are null, void, and irrelevant to the facts.
You not only proved this with your claim that you "USED forensics" in
your reasoning and repair approach to radios, but affirmed it by setting
forth the amount of time you spent in radio as some sort of self-styled
litmus test when comparing yourself and knowledge to other ops, then
turned around and not only made the claim that roger beeps were illegal,
but willfully, stubbornly, and defiantly clung to such ignorance, even
when taught better by several other hammies.

You can expect me to tell you how the fish are
running inTampa Bay so don't you try to tell

me about the roads in my state. You know

nothing about it.

Crystal: BALL,,,there's so many things Dave needs to know,,,Crystal-Ball
-
That's NOT what it says. Here is the interpretation for you,
Dave,,,,where the POSTED speed limit is 55 or LESS is the ONLY manner
where it applies.it is a specific exception. Once again, the maximum
posted speed limit on Pa interstates is 65. There is NO law or rule, or
even "unwritten" as you claim, that REQUIRES the officer to GIVE any
leeway at all.

Read it again. I realize that comprehension

has always been your weak spot, but try

separating the paragraph into parts.

The first part:

"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."

Nowhere in that sentence is there a specific

speed limit listed. That means that this applies
to 65 MPH roads and using RADAR. This

statute states that LEO must give a 5 MPH

grace. How much more clear can it be?

The next part is a FURTHER restriction:

Restriction to WHAT? There must be a prior
item in order for it to be FURTHER, and the prior item is exactly what
it relates.

"Furthermore, no person may be convicted

upon evidence obtained through the use of

devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an

area where the legal speed limit is less than

55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less
than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal

speed limit."

This part specifically refers to the conditions

that (a) the road is posted at less than 55, and
(b) are using devices authorized in paragraph

3 (normally VASCAR). In this case they have

to give you a 10 MPH grace.

No argument. Try and remain relevant, Davie. One would think that after
each and every person reminding you to stay on topic, you would get an
inkling.

"This paragraph shall not apply to evidence

obtained through the use of devices

authorized by paragraph (3) within a school

zone."

Once again, you demonstrate, to people with

normal comprehensive ability, that you can't

understand what you read.

Normal people do not insist roger beeps are illegal after being taught
better. Normal people do not prefer to focus on the personal lives of
usenet posters, as you claimed you prefer to do. Normal people do ot
accuse all they disagree of taking sides with others and conspiring
against them. Normal people do not accuse any and all criticism of
coming from conspiratorial plotters.

It's no wonder you jump to the wrong

conclusions over and over again in the scant 4
years that you have been polluting this

newsgroup.

Your heart is on your sleeve through no fault of your own.

Your pattern of habitual incomprehension is all
the more apparent if one walks through

Google for a few minutes.

Ahh,,the inability to exert control to the point you can remain focused
has always haunted you. Get some help, Davie, as your predilection of
the nuances of poster's lives has consumed you beyond what you can even
comprehend.

This is my last word on the subject.

Well, that IS you pattern throughout google posg history. When it sinks
in to your angry and misguided soul that you are wrong on a matter, you
abandon the subject like you do your custody issue.

If you won't take Pa. law as evidence

Oh, everyone takes the law as evidence, Davie, trouble is, your
communication deficits prevent you from processing logic and the law,
resulting in claims like "Roger beeps are illegal" based on your
inability to locate absence of proof.

that a minimum of a 5 MPH grace exists, then

that's not my problem. I've been driving for 29

years now

(snip)

Again, your personal experiences mean nothing. Hell, you hold the time
spent in radio as some sort of weird and twisted badge of honor and have
said as much all throughout your permitted usenet life among our fine
group, but it hasn;t prevented you from the ignorance that haunts you
daily and manifests itself in bizarre and unexplained quotes from
yourself such as "roger beeps are illegal" .

I know several cops who confirm this. I could

name them, but it wouldn't prove anything

since you don't know them.

Then why bring up the issue? Oh, that's right, because your desperation
dictates you need all the false support you can lend yourself at times
like this.

I could just as easily make up names.

..well go ahead, because these imaginary playmates that you told the
group not only exist, but agree with you that roger beeps are illegal,
should certainly have names.

David T. Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"