 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / August 2006Still waiting to find out why Gibson wasn't charged for doing 87 in a 45
I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with having an open bottle of liqour in his car and that's it. 87 mph in a 45 zone is a super-violent crime. No way it should be ignored. It's tempting to say mel bought his way out, but then why not buy out of the DUI charge too?? Loco laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE proud (and obvious) graduate of the South Hampton Institute of technology polluted rec.autos.driving with this nonsensical crap: > I just did another <snip of nothing important> > too?? And before you say anyting about not addressing the issue, TINI.  SignatureF ools & B umbling I diots > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ignored. It's tempting to say mel bought his way out, but then why not > buy out of the DUI charge too?? It's because idiots like you think that 0.12 is a much more serious crime than doing nearly twice the speed limit in a 45 zone. HTH - a.shole! > > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's because idiots like you think that 0.12 is a much more serious > crime than doing nearly twice the speed limit in a 45 zone. Why was it 45 mph? We aren't talking a school zone. This was at 2am and it was a freeway. The police never pay attention to dangerous driving, they just care about things like, you got a few mph over some arbitrary limit let's ticket. Signature"That's one of the tragedies of this life, that the men who are most in need of a beating up are always enormous." -+Preston Sturges, "The Palm Beach Story" >> > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have >> > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Why was it 45 mph? We aren't talking a school zone. This was at 2am and >it was a freeway. It's not a freeway. It's a road with residences typically stretched all along the west side of the road. Your car port might opens onto that road, for instance. People often walk across the road. Going 87 mph on it stands an EXCELLENT chance of killing people. I've driven on that road many times, and I don't recall ever seeing anyone going 87 mph on it. Gibson is suicidal. The police never pay attention to dangerous driving, >they just care about things like, you got a few mph over some arbitrary >limit let's ticket. > >> > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > >> > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that road, for instance. People often walk across the road. Going 87 > mph on it stands an EXCELLENT chance of killing people. Not where Mel was at (near Moonshadows). There are driveways approximately every .1-.15 miles (and sometimes .25 miles). It was 2 a.m. NO one crosses that road at 2 a.m. Or at any other time, in that area. Except for complete idiots. There's no beach access right there (you'd need to turn west and go down to the beach road), and there's NOTHING on the other side of the road that's accessible (unless you're trying to break into the Malibu Racquet Club or the garden businesses). There are a couple of residential streets leading east, but no crosswalks. > I've driven on that road many times, and I don't recall ever seeing > anyone going 87 mph on it. Gibson is suicidal. Oh really? Well, I drove it nearly every day for 10 years. I've been passed by people doing over 80 many, many times. Some of them were people I knew. Ever seen the motorcycle nonsense? Well, we do. When I was a kid, it was even worse. It's a place where, at night, there's virtually no traffic and people really open up the throttle. It's fun, too. Suicidal? Maybe - but really, really fun. If not, you weren't paying attention. I have almost never seen people driving AT the speed limit, especially from Town Center up to the Rock. It's posted 55 - everyone goes at least 65 till they hit the big curve (where they sometimes shoot off into the sea - happens about once a year, always exciting for them, I'm sure). Do you remember - at all - the guy in the expensive car - the Ferrari? The investigation shows he was going 120 mph. That was about 4 months ago. So perhaps if you were in the area more often, you'd understand just how fast people go there - at night. It's used for illegal speed racing by teenagers from Venice up to Santa Barbara, a sport that has regained popularity recently. Perhaps Mel thought he'd just blend in. You must have been there during the day. And perhaps you didn't go past Malibu proper. > The police never pay attention to dangerous driving, > >they just care about things like, you got a few mph over some arbitrary > >limit let's ticket. I'm curious - where are you all getting the 87 mph as a fact? Since there was no ticket...where's the proof? The cop is still on administrative leave, AFAIK. A. >> > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have >> > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >they just care about things like, you got a few mph over some arbitrary >limit let's ticket. Few mph???? HAHAHA. He had the limit doubled, you idiot. Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 08 Aug 2006 23:59 GMT Hi. This is the meow-send program at usenet. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver any clue to the following address: laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeton2001@yahoo.com> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. >Few mph???? HAHAHA. He had the limit doubled, you idiot. He's still got a way to go; I've tripled the limit on occasion. --- "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973 SignatureEl Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker: > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/008d032d86999983?hl=en& Ragnar wrote: > Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're > the Fool. This is no joke. > >> > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > >> > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Few mph???? HAHAHA. He had the limit doubled, you idiot. He did. I'm talking about you. You claim that a few mph over some made up arbitrary limit is a "violent crime". You are nuts. Signature"That's one of the tragedies of this life, that the men who are most in need of a beating up are always enormous." -+Preston Sturges, "The Palm Beach Story" >> >Why was it 45 mph? We aren't talking a school zone. This was at 2am and >> >it was a freeway. The police never pay attention to dangerous driving, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >He did. I'm talking about you. You claim that a few mph over some made >up arbitrary limit is a "violent crime". You are nuts. Well of course the limit is arbitrary in a certain sense. Same with DUI - why is .08 so special? But you have to draw the line somewhere and you criminals can't avoid prosecution just be saying the line is arbitrary. HELL - suppose somebody impregnated your 15 year old daughter and tried to avoid prosecution by saying "drawing the line for statutory rape at anything under 16 is arbitrary." THINK As for speeding being violent - only an idiot would question that. Speeders kill innocent people EVERY DAY in america. Case closed. Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 10 Aug 2006 03:31 GMT Hi. This is the meow-send program at usenet. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver any clue to the following address: laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeton2001@yahoo.com> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. >>> >Why was it 45 mph? We aren't talking a school zone. This was at 2am and >>> >it was a freeway. The police never pay attention to dangerous driving, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Well of course the limit is arbitrary in a certain sense. Same with The way the limits are set now is arbitrary, which explains their uselessness. >DUI - why is .08 so special? But you have to draw the line somewhere >and you criminals can't avoid prosecution just be saying the line is >arbitrary. HELL - suppose somebody impregnated your 15 year old >daughter and tried to avoid prosecution by saying "drawing the line >for statutory rape at anything under 16 is arbitrary." THINK Think? Everyone else is; when are you going to start? >As for speeding being violent - only an idiot would question that. You really need to look up the definition of violent. Only an idiot wouldn't know the definition of "violent." >Speeders kill innocent people EVERY DAY in america. Case closed. Actually, inept drivers kill themselves daily, and this is a good thing. For every moron that dies, the average IQ of the American populace increases. BTW, just because your mind is closed doesn't mean the case is! :-) --- "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973 SignatureEl Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker: > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/008d032d86999983?hl=en& Ragnar wrote: > Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're > the Fool. This is no joke. > > > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > > > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > they just care about things like, you got a few mph over some arbitrary > limit let's ticket. PCH isn't a freeway. It's a four lane divided highway with no central median. But, it's true that the 45 mph was only a tiny stretch (probably half a mile) and the rest is 55 or 60. It's routine for nearly everyone to drive 65-70 on that stretch, especially at night in uncrowded, clear conditions. In California, it's difficult to make a speeding ticket stick if the person is driving at the rate that others are driving in the same area under similar circumstances. Which is as it should be. The police are trained to pull over possible DUI's in that area, not speeders - like you and I, most people don't care about "speeding" on an unoccupied road. Speeding is a symptom of DUI (I always like the ones who are going slow in the fast lane - they get pulled over stat, here, for possible DUI - and the ones who have their heads out the window so they can "see" get pulled over first). The area where Mel was stopped is notorious for drunk driving (and head on accidents due to drunks). It's not all that inhabited, but has several bars and restaurants. The cop was hoping to nab a DUI, not a speeder. Mel should get a helicopter. A. > -- > "That's one of the tragedies of this life, that the men who are most in > need of a beating up are always enormous." -+Preston Sturges, "The Palm > Beach Story" > > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > HTH - a.shole! Obvoiouly the Malibu PD believes in equal justice, I never get pulled over when doing 90 in that location, but I don't drink. I just leaving 911's et al in the dust of my 1996 Fleetwood. Eric Rapidly becomming the armourer to the stars! >> > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have >> > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Eric >Rapidly becomming the armourer to the stars! If you are seeing Malibu PD you might want to cut back on your drinking. The LA County Sheriffs provide contract law enforcement for Mailbu. > > > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > > > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Eric > Rapidly becomming the armourer to the stars! Hey, neighbor! Your experience is the same as mine. I might even have seen you - as the 911's strike me as pretentiously incapable of handling the road at those speeds, out there. A. >> I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have >> gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >HTH - a.shole! I never said that, you liar. I think just the opposite in fact. > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with > having an open bottle of liqour in his car and that's it. Cut him some slack, man, the Jews started all the wars. > 87 mph in a 45 zone is a super-violent crime. Do you even know what "violent" means? > No way it should be > ignored. It's tempting to say mel bought his way out, but then why not > buy out of the DUI charge too?? Geez, give him a brake, he stomped on the gas an extra bit after taking a swig from his paper bag. Could've happened to anyone. Signature"That's one of the tragedies of this life, that the men who are most in need of a beating up are always enormous." -+Preston Sturges, "The Palm Beach Story" >> 87 mph in a 45 zone is a super-violent crime. >> >Do you even know what "violent" means? Only an idiot like you would say speeding is NOT a violent crime. Speeders kill innocent people every day. > >> 87 mph in a 45 zone is a super-violent crime. > >> > >Do you even know what "violent" means? > > Only an idiot like you would say speeding is NOT a violent crime. > Speeders kill innocent people every day. Lots of speeders don't kill anyone and speed itself isn't violent. In fact, it alone isn't indicative of the potential for an accident. Signature"That's one of the tragedies of this life, that the men who are most in need of a beating up are always enormous." -+Preston Sturges, "The Palm Beach Story" >> >> 87 mph in a 45 zone is a super-violent crime. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Lots of speeders don't kill anyone and speed itself isn't violent. In >fact, it alone isn't indicative of the potential for an accident. HAHAHA. Now there's a stupid argument. If you illegally shoot a gun at someone, you're gonna be charged with a violent crime even if you miss them. Same thing with speeding . THINK Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 10 Aug 2006 03:42 GMT Hi. This is the meow-send program at usenet. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver any clue to the following address: laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeton2001@yahoo.com> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. >>> >> 87 mph in a 45 zone is a super-violent crime. >>> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >at someone, you're gonna be charged with a violent crime even if you >miss them. Same thing with speeding . THINK Still haven't learned the definition of "intent", mortard? ROTFLMAO. --- "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973 SignatureEl Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker: > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/008d032d86999983?hl=en& Ragnar wrote: > Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're > the Fool. This is no joke. > HAHAHA. Now there's a stupid argument. If you illegally shoot a gun > at someone, you're gonna be charged with a violent crime even if you > miss them. Same thing with speeding . THINK Really? Tell that to Dick Cheney. Perhaps the reason Gibson wasn't charged with speeding is because the officer didn't do what was required to establish that charge in court. I know the CHP requires a 3/8 of a mile pace of a vehicle to establish speed, don't know if that's written in the law. In any event, the officer could have decided for any of several reasons to light up the cherries and pull him over immediately, rather than waiting to get a pace. Or maybe it's part of some vast Australian conspiracy. That's no more nutty than the crap that Gibson spouted that night, or that LBMHB spouts every day of the year. Bo Raxo >Perhaps the reason Gibson wasn't charged with speeding is because the >officer didn't do what was required to establish that charge in court. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >cherries and pull him over immediately, rather than waiting to get a >pace. The California Vehicle Code has no required distance to pace for speed violations. One second, one mile, it's all the same. There's nothing in the vehicle code about pacing. You may estimate speed or use the break-away method (match the vehicle's speed, take your foot off the gas and when the vehicle starts to pull away, that's the speed you cite) - all upheld by appellate courts. Since I don't recall anyone else posting this to explain 22350VC and 22348-9VC, here it is. 22350VC is the basic speed law. You can only go as fast as conditions (vehicle, roadway, weather, etc.) allow. The reason it doesn't say that in the vehicle code is that California, like all the rest of the states, enforce their laws as governed by case law, i.e., the law is what the courts say they are. Courts, all the way up to the US Supreme Court have said 22350VC means you can't go faster than conditions allow. 22348-9VC, maximum speed laws have been interpreted by courts as you can't go faster than the posted limit, not one mile an hour over. Skip >Or maybe it's part of some vast Australian conspiracy. That's no more >nutty than the crap that Gibson spouted that night, or that LBMHB >spouts every day of the year. > >Bo Raxo > >Perhaps the reason Gibson wasn't charged with speeding is because the > >officer didn't do what was required to establish that charge in court. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > off the gas and when the vehicle starts to pull away, that's the speed > you cite) - all upheld by appellate courts. It's not in the vehicle code. Every single law enforcement agency, however, is required by law (by POST in fact, look it up) to have stated procedures on how it clocks speeders. LE agencies may not simply guess. They have to have their procedures on the books, and proof that every single traffic cop has passed multiple tests on those procedures. In some one-mule towns, the procedures are quite hilarious and rely entirely on eyeballs of the cop. Where I live, not only must either pacing or a radar gun be used, but the person ticketed must be going at least 5 mph faster than the "flow of traffic" even if the flow of traffic is already over the limit. In fact, the West Hills police station has had a couple of lawsuits (which they lost) because of their remarkably random enforcement of various traffic laws. You can read the code all you want, but it is the local D.A. who ultimately determines which cases will really be prosecuted. The cops know this. The commanders at the stations are not amused when a cop tries to bring charges that are unsupportable. In this case, I think the cop merely forgot to write up - because he was so upset that Mel figured out he was Jewish, apparently. I can understand him being upset, but since he forgot - he forgot. You can hardly base a case which is entirely on "eyeball" evidence on a person who forgot to mention what he saw in an official report, while providing details about the speech acts of the criminal. In Malibu, in particular, the judges have been quite stern with the cops about not using pacing unless the pacing is well-established. The cop needs to trail for a certain distance, as study after study shows that cops' estimates of speed, without pacing, are not going to result in convictions on appeal. Think about it. A cop, sitting at rest, SEES you go by, and never paces you - just peels out and turns on the red lights? You slow down, pull over - but he never gets close enough to actually clock how fast you WERE going? That's bullshit. There's no way that the average cop can estimate the actual speed of a car passing by in the manner - not down to 87 mph. Why not 90? Or 85? Or 80? If you do get ticketed in California in this way, be sure and go to traffic court. The cop will NOT show up and the charges will be dismissed. Unless it's Tulare or Visalia. > Since I don't recall anyone else posting this to explain 22350VC and > 22348-9VC, here it is. 22350VC is the basic speed law. You can only [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 22348-9VC, maximum speed laws have been interpreted by courts as you > can't go faster than the posted limit, not one mile an hour over. And the Business and Professions Code governs how procedure works in police stations. Read that too - and then read the P.O.S.T. and other statements regarding regulation of police conduct in California. A. > Skip > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > >Bo Raxo > Think about it. A cop, sitting at rest, SEES you go by, and > never paces you - just peels out and turns on the red lights? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > speed of a car passing by in the manner - not down to 87 mph. > Why not 90? Or 85? Or 80? Quite true. A few years ago I went past a parked cruiser on the breakdown apron just before the northbound entrance to the MacArthur tunnel on Park Presidio in SF, doing something in the low 120s on my Blackbird. Take the Marina ramp, and on that short stretch of freeway I see a CHP car with the front end diving, making me pretty sure he was taking a u-turn to come after me. Slowed to 40, waited for the CHP car, pulled over nicely. Chippie asks me if I know how fast I was going. "Yes, sir." And how fast was I going? "Can't say, sir." But you said you knew how fast you were going. "Yes, sir. Digital speedometer, big display, easy to read, sir." So how fast were you going? "Can't say." They tried everything to get me to admit, including the old "dude, this is a nice bike, c'mon, how fast were you flying?" nice cop routine. The admission wasn't going to happen, and I left without a ticket. > If you do get ticketed in California in this way, be sure and > go to traffic court. The cop will NOT show up and the charges > will be dismissed. Unless it's Tulare or Visalia. Dream on. I've had this work in one SoCal county (radared doing 35 or 40 over the speed limit), and got lucky once in Marin county. My many, many other traffic court appearances for speeding in nearly every Bay Area county has had the cop show up, they're very thorough about that. Bo Raxo > > HAHAHA. Now there's a stupid argument. If you illegally shoot a gun > > at someone, you're gonna be charged with a violent crime even if you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cherries and pull him over immediately, rather than waiting to get a > pace. You're right, of course. The cop used the speed as a signal to check for DUI. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this is explained to El Pollo Loco, she wants to ask "why" again and again. The existential angst in her question cannot be answered with facts. And I'm still waiting to hear if the cop attempted to use pacing or a radar gun to establish Mel's speed. Ms. Know-It-All should tell us. A. > Or maybe it's part of some vast Australian conspiracy. That's no more > nutty than the crap that Gibson spouted that night, or that LBMHB > spouts every day of the year. > > Bo Raxo >> HAHAHA. Now there's a stupid argument. If you illegally shoot a gun >> at someone, you're gonna be charged with a violent crime even if you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >cherries and pull him over immediately, rather than waiting to get a >pace. Hey stupid. They got a new thing out now. It's called a radar gun. THINK. >I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have >gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >ignored. It's tempting to say mel bought his way out, but then why not >buy out of the DUI charge too?? You can blame California law if you like. The speeding is a lesser included offense of the DUI. The open container of alcohol is considered a separate violation, the same as if a concealed weapon or a bag of heroin had been found in the vehicle; hence, the filing of a 2nd charge. Skip >>I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have >>gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Skip Oh get outa here. That can't be true. Included offense, my a.s. > >>I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > >>gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Oh get outa here. That can't be true. Included offense, my a.s. But it IS a lesser included offense, and the penalties state so clearly. The judge has the OPTION of fining the person from $1 up to something like $10,000. The judge looks at those included offenses and tallies it up. In fact, in observing traffic court in Malibu, I've noticed that the judge in fact sits there with a calculator and tabulates all the included offenses, then explains to the defendant why she's adding even more to the fine. The more lesser included offenses there are, the steeper the additional fine is. She also mentions attitude. For example, she said to one guy last week, "I am fining you an additional $500 in the hopes that you will understand that your attitude toward the police must change, do you understand?" The guy said, "Yes, your honor," very quietly. He was quite vociferous out in the hall, before court. But those extra fines quieted him down right away. He was speeding, had no insurance and no registration. Another guy, who had no driver's license and the same charges against him was fined less, as he brought to court proof of his earnest attempt to acquire a driver's license after his arrest. A. >offenses there are, the steeper the additional fine is. She also >mentions attitude. For example, she said to one guy last week, >"I am fining you an additional $500 in the hopes that you will >understand that your attitude toward the police must change, do you >understand?" So much for freedom of conscience. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > >gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a bag of heroin had been found in the vehicle; hence, the filing of a > 2nd charge. Let me make this as clear as I can for you, LBVH: In California, it is only against the law to violate a posted speed limit that is less than the state maximum when you scare or endanger someone. Read CVC 22350. All of us Californians who have been driving for more than a couple of years (or ever gotten an in-town speeding ticket) have. It's in the DMV handbook. Those of us who took Driver Ed learned it in high school along with Newton's force equations and how to conjugate Spanish verbs. Also, Skip is right about CVC 22350 being a lesser included charge under DUI. DUI *implies* bad driving. Driving so fast as to scare or endanger people or property is a form of bad driving. If we reach the reasonable conclusion that the bad driving was due to the fact that Mr. Gibson was under the influence, we just charge him with the crime that carries the bigger penatly that has the same implications. In effect, you can't charge him for speeding twice (which is what the "lesser included" business is about). You may think that doubling the speed limit is worse than diriving under the influence, but the law doesn't agree with you. Similar things happen in a bank robbery. Since Bank Robbery is a separate crime, you can't charge the Armed Robbery or the Assault or the Burglary or the Grand Theft. If someone is forcibly detained, there may be a False Imprisonment charge. If someone is made to walk even two steps under threat, there may be a Kidnapping charge. These are not lesser included offenses. Neither False Imprisonment nor Kidnapping is implicit in a bank robbery. You seem to care more about the fact that the guy was going fast (probably *way* too fast) than the fact that he was in the possession of a two tonne lethel weapon while not in proper control of his faculties and judgement. I'm willing to give cops (and responsible citizens) a gun so that he can protect us. But I don't think that psychos should even be allowed boxcutters. Who knows, they may hijack a plane and crash it into a building. In much the same way, I'm not opposed to sober a person with a Porsche who is late for a surfing tournament driving 87 MPH down the PCH provided that they either slow down when they get close to me or find a safe place to pass me (I'll keep it under 130 km/h on that stretch of road, thank you). On the other hand, someone who is drunk *won't* slow down or find a safe place to pass me, they'll just do things without proper regard for my safety. That's can't be tollerated. I also don't blame Gibson for his dumbass remarks. I've said some pretty dumbass things while under the influence myself. I know that, I would probably impune the heritage of the cop that was taking me in if I were in his condition and situation. I just wouldn't be driving in that condition! >In California, it is only against the law to violate a posted speed >limit that is less than the state maximum when you scare or endanger [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >learned it in high school along with Newton's force equations and how >to conjugate Spanish verbs. Basic Speed Law 22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. I don't see anything there about being able to go faster than the posted speed limit. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > >In California, it is only against the law to violate a posted speed > >limit that is less than the state maximum when you scare or endanger [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I don't see anything there about being able to go faster than the > posted speed limit. The posted speed limit in California is the competent authority's best reckoning of what CVC22350 would specify. In fact, CVC22351-5 *require* posting in accordance with CVC22350. The standard for rebutting the presumption that the speed that you were driving was safe (and in compliance with CVC22350) is simply "competant evidence". A standard below even "preponderance of the evidence". > > >In California, it is only against the law to violate a posted speed > > >limit that is less than the state maximum when you scare or endanger [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > compliance with CVC22350) is simply "competant evidence". A standard > below even "preponderance of the evidence". Nope. Section 22348 says "Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit." It is thus illegal to speed. Section 22351-a states "The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof:" and gives certain default limits, such as 25 MPH "on any highway other than a state highway." And, section 22349 states "{a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour. "(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a higher speed by the Department of Transportation or appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey." There are other speed-limit laws in the section which set limits for certain types of roads. All statutory text from http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm Thus, where speed limits are established by law, exceeding those speed limits is a violation of the law. Section 22350 clearly exists to require drivers to drive at a safe speed given the prevailing driving conditions. For example, on a highway that has a speed limit set at 70 mph, you can be cited for speeding per section 22350 even if you're only going 70 if it's nighttime, foggy, and there's a driving rainstorm. Section 22350 is not a "get-out-of-speeding-free" card. By your interpretation of the law, section 22350 would make all of the other specific speed limit laws redundant and of no effect. That's not a correct way to interpret statutes. Finally, there is no "CVC22351-5". - geoff >> In California, it is only against the law to violate a posted speed >> limit that is less than the state maximum when you scare or [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I don't see anything there about being able to go faster than the > posted speed limit. The section that states the conditions referenced by Mike is 22351 which then references 22350 (as he did). The basic speed law rarely, if ever, makes mention of posted speed limits. It is the basic catch-all for poor (in the cop's case) or exemplary (in the driver's case) road/weather conditions. Signature--Andy -------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Tompkins Software Engineer Beaverton, OR http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways -------------------------------------------------- > >> In California, it is only against the law to violate a posted speed > >> limit that is less than the state maximum when you scare or [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > catch-all for poor (in the cop's case) or exemplary (in the driver's > case) road/weather conditions. I was in the middle of posting a better reply than this, but my computer booted im my absences (a software push). Basically, 22351-5 (That's 22351 through 22355, for Bill) are all about "Good guesses about how to comply with 22350" and, as such are *guidelines*. Basically, the 22350 is the law in California everywhere. The State maximum as outlined in 22348c, 22349, and 22356 specify numerical limits. These tend to be too high for most roads. I, for instance, wouldn't want someone driving 55MPH (the state maximum for that type of road) through my Condo Complex where we have an 8 MPH speed limit or on the approach street where there is a posted 15 MPH speed limit, but those limits are only good guesses about what the law is. They give reasonable notice that "If you drive a whole lot faster than this, it is probably illegal." Far from being a "get out of speeding ticket free" law, it imposes a burden on every driver not to hit, scare, or endanger people or property regardless of how much of a hurry you might be in. The thing that Bill isn't reading is that "If it isn't unsafe and isn't over the state maximum, it isn't illegal". The laws permitting signing of PF speed lmits specifcally say to local authorities "Post reasonable limits or they don't hold up in court". > >I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > >gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a bag of heroin had been found in the vehicle; hence, the filing of a > 2nd charge. Is an open container a partly filled container that is opened but not one that has its contents removed entirely? Because imagine: --"Herro, arfacer. Wat caan wee do fur yoo?" --"I pulled you over because you were doing 87 in a 45 zone, erratically changing lanes, driving without lights at 2am and tossing debris of some sort out at oncoming traffic. Is that an open container?" --"Naw, it's a em-tea." --"OK, is that one an open container?" --"Naw, it's an em-tea, twoo." --"Have you been dumping those out while we talk?" --"Ar yoo a Djoo? Da Djoos rule the wirld, yoo know." --"Why is there two inches of beer on your floorboard?" --"Day sart ell da wares." --"Well, Mel, since all the bottles and cans and flasks and jugs in here are empty, I'm going to let you off with a warning." --"I twold yoo I own Malibu." Signature"That's one of the tragedies of this life, that the men who are most in need of a beating up are always enormous." -+Preston Sturges, "The Palm Beach Story" (!!) >I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ignored. It's tempting to say mel bought his way out, but then why not > buy out of the DUI charge too?? The reason it was 45 on those roads is because they are windy (PCH). A good sports car can take them safely at over 85. I do that all the time. >>I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have >> gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The reason it was 45 on those roads is because they are windy (PCH). A good >sports car can take them safely at over 85. I do that all the time. Ah yes - another criminal who thinks laws are for other people. No doubt you also drive drunk since " you can handle it". HAHAHA > >>I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > >> gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ah yes - another criminal who thinks laws are for other people. No > doubt you also drive drunk since " you can handle it". HAHAHA Sorta like you think it's ok to drive 41mph in a 25mph zone, or 60 in a 55, hypocrite? > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ignored. It's tempting to say mel bought his way out, but then why not > buy out of the DUI charge too?? Still waiting for you to answer my post in the other thread where I EXPLAINED why he wasn't charged 'in criminal court' with speeding. Not only are you terminally stupid, you seemingly can't read also. Harry K >> I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have >> gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Harry K I don't respond to haters. >>> I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have >>> gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I don't respond to haters. But... Never mind. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > >> I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > >> gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I don't respond to haters. To point out the obvious to you. You just did. You also responded several times to 'haters' above. That adds 'liar' to your list of handicaps along with stupid and others. Harry K >> >> I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have >> >> gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Harry K Liar. As i explained above i do NOT respond to haters and that's goes double for you!!! THINK you illogical ignoramus. > >> >> I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > >> >> gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Liar. As i explained above i do NOT respond to haters and that's goes > double for you!!! THINK you illogical ignoramus. You did it again, you illogical ignoramus. THINK. Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 10 Aug 2006 00:28 GMT Hi. This is the meow-send program at usenet. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver any clue to the following address: Larry <x@y.com> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. >> >> >> I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have >> >> >> gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >You did it again, you illogical ignoramus. THINK. As many posts as Loco Laura has made and you think it's capable of thinking? --- "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973 SignatureEl Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker: > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/008d032d86999983?hl=en& Ragnar wrote: > Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're > the Fool. This is no joke. >>> I don't respond to haters. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Liar. As i explained above i do NOT respond to haters and that's goes >double for you!!! THINK you illogical ignoramus. But... Nevermind. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 10 Aug 2006 00:27 GMT Hi. This is the meow-send program at usenet. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver any clue to the following address: laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeton2001@yahoo.com> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. >Liar. As i explained above i do NOT respond to haters and that's goes >double for you!!! THINK you illogical ignoramus. Your very post proves you're a liar. Thanks for playing, sh.t for brains! --- "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973 SignatureEl Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker: > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/008d032d86999983?hl=en& Ragnar wrote: > Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're > the Fool. This is no joke. http://www.gribblenation.com/room.jpg > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ignored. It's tempting to say mel bought his way out, but then why not > buy out of the DUI charge too?? > I just did another search and the extreme speeding crime seems to have > gone down the memory hole. He was charged with DUI and also with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ignored. It's tempting to say mel bought his way out, but then why not > buy out of the DUI charge too?? I explained this to you a couple of times. You don't really want to understand Malibu, do you? You simply want to make your same obsessive point. First of all, since he was NOT charged - explain how you know he was going that fast. The cop who made the detailed report should have ticketed him initially - according to procedure. The fact that he didn't, and it was a MV code violation makes it very problematic under California law for him to "remember" to write the ticket later. Cop apparently "forgot" to do it - to put it into terms you could understand. The DUI is SO much more serious (and will result in the suspension of the driver's license anyway, plus the judge will tack on fines involving all the other little details, if they can be proved). Judges have a great deal of latitude in assessing the fine for the overall crime. BTW, I met the traffic court judge in Malibu Court last week. She seems quite fair. I doubt you'd like her. An interesting, small detail is that the point where Mel was actually pulled over was posted at 55 mph - the 45 mph zone is quite short in Malibu. While the cop might have clocked him in the "town" zone, he couldn't catch him until out of town. Where are you getting the 87 mph number? Do you have access to the radar gun? Was it done with radar? Or by following? The rules of evidence are quite different for each, in California. Are you familiar with them? I don't know where you live, but it's quite possible that you don't understand the severity of the penalty for DUI in California - and that prosecutors here typically go for DUI convictions uber alles, focusing intently on that conviction and getting the stiffest penalties. Speeding, here, just isn't that big a deal. So don't move to California. I can think of a place nearby, though, where the traffic is always slow and people drive slowly even if there's open road and NO speed limit: Mexico. You'd love it. A. >The DUI is SO much more serious (and will result in the suspension >of the driver's license anyway, plus the judge will tack on fines >involving all the other little details, if they can be proved). Judges >have a great deal of latitude in assessing the fine for the overall >crime. Liek hell it's more serious. We're not talking about 70 in a 55 here. Have you ever driven a car?. Do you even know what a car is, you ignoramus??? > >The DUI is SO much more serious (and will result in the suspension > >of the driver's license anyway, plus the judge will tack on fines [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Have you ever driven a car?. Do you even know what a car is, you > ignoramus??? Hey retard. It's not about speed, or are you too much of an ignoramus to know that? >>The DUI is SO much more serious (and will result in the suspension >>of the driver's license anyway, plus the judge will tack on fines [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Have you ever driven a car?. Do you even know what a car is, you > ignoramus??? Gibson Shmibson, he didn't do nuffin anyway. G > >The DUI is SO much more serious (and will result in the suspension > >of the driver's license anyway, plus the judge will tack on fines [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Have you ever driven a car?. Do you even know what a car is, you > ignoramus??? Are you an idiot? We're talking about the PENALTIES. Let's see. He'd be likely to get a fine of about $350 for the speeding. He may get a fine of $10,000 for the DUI - if there are enough included lesser offenses. Is it really possible that you just can't get how the legal system works? 10,000 dollars vs 350 dollars. Do you see the difference? Judges don't fine the maximum in drunk driving cases....hardly ever. They start totalling up all the included lesser offenses, then tack on whatever they think a "penalty" is. Are you getting it - at all? I doubt it. Where do you live? If you live in California and you don't get it, you must not have graduated high school. A. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.