No offense but you are missing the most important point here.
I don't believe anyone is against enforcement of laws. But the fact
remains that cameras will not stop anyone from driving like a maniac.
Is a matter of fact the cameras appear (no study provided) to reduce
the law enforcement presence on the roads which in my opinion
is actually a very bad thing.
Someone who is doing 20 mph over the speed limit may not give a damn
if he/she gets a picture taken but that person will be compelled to care
when is cuffed in the back of the police car and being charged with
criminal
speeding.
BTW, most of the tickets aren't validated against the make and model
of your
vehicle so anyone can make a mockup of your license plate and speed
getting you tickets left and right. You will have to explain that
it's not your car.
So in my view Sped Cams are just an inadequate substitution for real
law enforcement.
- Greg
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)