On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:29:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

That's a far cry from you claiming it was a "requirement" the Pa. police
*give* you the extra speed of a few miles per hour. Nevertheless, you
illustrate once again you speak of things you know nothing of (the law)
and do not need Frank to make you reverse your earlier position. Since
you realized your error, there is no need to provide you with the Pa.
vehicle code. Flip-flop.

You're right. 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.
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 paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of
devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone"



So what were you saying about knowing the law?


Ouch.

Vinnie S.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:12:12 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:12:10 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
David T. Hall wrote:
In Pa. they are required to give 5 MPH to take

care of "Speedometer" and speed measuring

inaccuracies

I am glad you availed yourself the facts of the matter and reclarified
your bull**** above with:

Well, in all honesty, it mostly is at the cop's

discretion,

It's more of an unwritten rule in Pa., that they

"give" you 5 MPH,

That's a far cry from you claiming it was a "requirement" the Pa. police
*give* you the extra speed of a few miles per hour. Nevertheless, you
illustrate once again you speak of things you know nothing of (the law)
and do not need Frank to make you reverse your earlier position. Since
you realized your error, there is no need to provide you with the Pa.
vehicle code. Flip-flop.

You're right.


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.

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 paragraph shall not apply to

evidence obtained through the use of devices

authorized by paragraph (3) within a school

zone"


That 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. Once again, so you are no longer confounded and
suffering and blaming me for your ignorance,, Pa. has no rule OR law,
that requires a LEO to give a window of 5 mph (or ANY speed) to speeders
in excess of the state speed limit, which happens to be 65 MPH.

So what were you saying about knowing the

law?

David T Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

Just that you have a devil of a time comprehending it and blame others
for your ignorance.

From: (Vinnie=A0S.)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:29:58 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:
That's a far cry from you claiming it was a "requirement" the Pa. police
*give* you the extra speed of a few miles per hour. Nevertheless, you
illustrate once again you speak of things you know nothing of (the law)
and do not need Frank to make you reverse your earlier position. Since
you realized your error, there is no need to provide you with the Pa.
vehicle code. Flip-flop.

You're right. 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.
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
paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of
devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone"

So what were you saying about knowing the

law?


That your position still doesn't understand that Pa has no law or rule,
written or otherwise, requiring officers to give you a window of ANY
speed when in excess of the state speed limit.


(Ouch.)
(Vinnie S.)

Ha! Vinnie is feeling your pain.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:12:12 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

True to form, you

Ahhh,,,,unable to defend the topic, junior does what all unskilled and
uneducated louts do,,,they attack the chatter. Dave, you have always
been a lid and have one hell of a time debating void of emotion. Get
educated, junior.

show up to pick yet another

bowl of nits.

So sorry you feel persecuted again, Junior, yet, illustrating your
self-contradictory claims has a rather unnerving effect on you. Call it
whatever your bruised ego dictates, you talk sideways.

Nonetheless, you are picking nits. As you

always do.

Pay attention. Pointing to your inability to discuss a topic without
focusing on the poster is presenting an obstacle you have yet to
overcome. Such is the way with those suffering massive communication
deficits.

-
Not relevant. Your claim that is was a requirement degraded to your
current claim it is now a "unwritten" requirement, yet, according to
you, 'friends' of yours are cops who affirmed both your claims. Well,
Dave, you are full of **** again. I posed your question to several LEOs
in a traffic forum and you are wrong. Need the
URL? Care to join me where you can be educated by actual Pa. leos?

That's interesting. Your adoration with me has

made you go through the trouble of actually

seeking out and finding these mythical LEO's,

just to pose this question.


Adoration is you invoking my name over the weekend no less than seven
times when speaking to other newsgroupies about topics of which you are
unable to focus. As you stated
last week, you "prefer" to focus on the chatter as opposed to the topic.
You would "rather" talk about me as opposed to radio, as I fascinate
you, so. Adoration, indeed.


Which you did and got a reply back in less

than a day. Wow.

Actually, I think it came the same day.

I'm sure this "group" in the same place as that

fictitious military group that you tried to snow

Frank with.


But of course, This is the same manner in which you are "sure" roger
beeps are illegal, and that other people among these pages suport such a
learned ignorant contention.

But sure, go ahead and give it to me.


Tell ya' what, Dave..just to keep you honest (and screaming like a
school girl), I'm going to give it to anyone in this group that emails
me and requests it. Of course, you are free to provide for your claim
first, and I will provide for my claim, secondly, to you. I know you
have problems with proper etiquette and communications, but that is the
manner in whcih society operates. Stomping your foot and throwing
tantrums about "twisted did this to me" and "twisted did that to me"
don't cut it, junior. You want claims provided for when you demand,
provide for your own claims you amde first.

If nothing else, it'll be good for a laugh or two.


Not nearly as good as the one that all of amateur radio is enjoying with
you maintaining roger beeps are illegal and that others agree with
you...only, you are struggling with providing for a single person who
agrees with you.
_
No, you haven't been told that by any Pa. cop, and the LEO forum serves
to illustrate your degeneration caused by pathological lies.

Prove it.


You initiated this "prove it" game, you provide for your claim, first.

Provide the URL.

Prediction: nothing will result.


You know yourself, well, Dave, now if only you could learn to like
yourself, you may have a chance at living like normal society does.

David T Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:10:52 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

But sure, go ahead and give it to me.


Tell ya' what, Dave..just to keep you honest (and screaming like a
school girl), I'm going to give it to anyone in this group that emails
me and requests it.

Ha ha ha!! Ho Ho Ho!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!

You are so predictable.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

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. Read it again S-L-O-W-L-Y..


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 paragraph shall not apply to
evidence obtained through the use of devices
authorized by paragraph (3) within a school
zone"


That 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. 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.
In most others, it's still 55.


Now, Read the statute again, slowly this time:

"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."

That applies to all speeds.


The following paragraph applies specifically to speeds below 55:

"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."

Which means (for the cognitively impaired), that when using a method
other than RADAR (Which usually means VASCAR) on a road where the
posted speed is less than 55, they must give you 10 MPH leeway, or an
additional 5 MPH over what the previous paragraph called for..

The minimum that they have to give you on any road and with any speed
measuring device is 5 MPH. On certain other roads and with non-RADAR
speed devices, they have to give MORE.

The only exception to this rule is:

"This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use
of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school
zone"


A school zone is the only place where they can pop you for less than 5
MPH over.


Pa. has no rule OR law,
that requires a LEO to give a window of 5 mph (or ANY speed) to speeders
in excess of the state speed limit, which happens to be 65 MPH.

I just posted it. If you can't comprehend it, that (as usual) is your
comprehensive deficiency showing.

Now go ahead and try to spin the school zone angle in another feeble
attempt to prove me wrong.

Don't fret though. The statistical probability is that you'll
eventually find something you can ding me with someday. It's just that
today isn't it.

Now where is that LEO group?


Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:56:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

(Ouch.)
(Vinnie S.)

Ha! Vinnie is feeling your pain.

Actually that pain is from your foot being firmly implanted in your
mouth (yet again).

Where's that LEO group twist?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

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 =----

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

snip
I snipped nothing from that passage.


After reading it again I noticed that you also snipped part D from
that subsection, which requires proper calibration of all speed timing
devices, and declares that proof of such calibration "shall be
competent and prima facie evidence of those facts in every proceeding
in which a violation of this title is charged". So if there the device
has been calibrated as required under that part, there can be no legal
challenge of its accuracy. This is in direct contradiction to your
claim that "The courts have a history of throwing out speed citations
for small amounts, due to the potential for inaccuracies in both the
car speedometer and the speed measuring devices."

Maybe -you- should read it again.....S-L-O-W-L-Y.





----== 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 =----

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:50:23 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


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).

Again, I snipped nothing from the passage that I was excerpting to
make my point. I provided the link to the whole statute, but I only
copied paragraph 4, since that is the one which pertains to this whole
subject. For the sake of brevity and bandwidth, I chose not to copy
the WHOLE thing. That's why I also posted the link. If, as you are
implying, I was attempting subterfuge, would I have provided the link?


So what were you saying about knowing the law?

I can at least READ it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"