Xref: utzoo rec.autos:15714 sci.electronics:5302 misc.consumers:8894
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!sei.cmu.edu!rsd
From: rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito)
Newsgroups: rec.autos,sci.electronics,misc.consumers
Subject: Radar sickness Was: Legal ?s
Message-ID: <8626@aw.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 22 Feb 89 17:43:31 GMT
References: <257@celerity.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu
Reply-To: rsd@ae.sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (Rich D'Ippolito)
Followup-To: ANYWHERE BUT SCI.ELECTRONICS!
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa
Lines: 50

In article <257@celerity.UUCP> dave@whoops.UUCP (Dave Smith) writes:

>[much trash deleted]

Can't you guys be nice and keep this bs out of sci.electronics?


>The point is that you are accused, judged and a verdict rendered 
>instantaneously, by a machine with no judgement.  

This is just plain silly.  Neither the policeman nor the machine are
required to use the kind of judgement you require -- that's what the judges
are for.  The policeman merely has the option to cite or not to cite when he
sees a violation.  If you read the citation, you will see that it is NOT a
conviction!


>Suppose that you were
>racing to the hospital with an injured person.  Had a policeman decided to
>pull you over for speeding, he would look in the car after stopping you
>and probably escort you down the freeway with lights and sirens.  Instead,
>you have to go to court afterwards and _prove_that_you_are_innocent.  

No, you're NOT innocent -- you DID break the law!  Whether or not one of
society's judges will deem it excusable and not require any penalty is the
way this system works.  Does a verdict of "justifiable homicide" mean no one
was killed?


>The
>burden of proof has been laid on the defendant, who now has to prove that
>he/she was speeding for good cause.

You always had to justify breaking any law.  Sheesh!


>[...] If speeding was something that only a few people did, these gadgets
>wouldn't be necessary.  Since it's something nearly everyone does, the laws
>must be wrong.  In either case the machines are unnecessary.

Please take this crap away from here and spend some time studying law.


Rich
--

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideas have consequences.                                    RSD@sei.cmu.edu
Richard Weaver
---------------------------------------------------------------------------