OT: Speed Cams

[Josef Lowder]

On 4/2/09, Joshua A. Andler <scislac at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 10:55 -0700, Josef Lowder wrote:
>  > There is no sensible basis for opposing photo radar speed limit enforcement.
>
> Give me a break... if the people don't want it, and the government is
>  supposed to work for the people, that is a sensible basis.

That is absurd.  It is not, by any logic or reason, sensible to oppose
enforcement of laws that exist to protect human life.  If any given
law is improper or needs to be modified in some way, then it is
reasonable for "the people" to seek to change the law.  However,
unless and until any given law is changed, it is certainly not
"sensible" to oppose enforcement of any laws that have been
established to protect human life and safety.

The bottom line in this matter is simply whether (A) there should be
enforcement of established laws or whether (B) blatant disregard for
established laws should be tolerated.

Your premise seems to be "B," that if "the people" do not want
enforcement of any given established law, then it is "sensible" for
them to just ignore, disregard, and/or disobey it at will.

My premise is "A" that all laws that have been established by
governing authorities in a civilized society should be enforced.

Which is sensible, and which is clearly not sensible?

>  > Opposition to photo radar is tantamount to advocating legalization of
>  > murder and/or manslaughter in any form by any means.
>
> Wow... that is probably the most absurd oversimplification I've seen on
>  this list so far. Murder and Manslaughter have very different
>  definitions and legal implications.

I agree that murder and manslaughter have very different definitions
and legal implications.

However, the fact that they have different definitions and legal
implications does not in any way make the underlying premise
incorrect.  That foundational premise is that for anyone to cause the
death of another person by reckless driving (including exceeding
posted speed limits) is manslaughter.  And part two of this premise is
that if anyone knowingly and intentionally facilitates the commision
of a fatal act such as manslaughter, that can be shown to be murder in
the second or third degree.

Therefore, it is most assuredly *not* either "absurd" or an
"oversimplification" to point out that failure to maintain and
vigorously enforce established safety laws by all means possible is
tantamount to advocating legalization of murder and/or manslaughter.

Those who argue against enforcing established laws clearly do not have
any reasonable, sensible, or justifiable basis for their arguments.