archer wrote: Sorry VL..this battle is just a small example of a bigger problem..
Some people just don't think the laws apply to them...and that is a battle worth fighting.
You come up with the strangest takes on what others are saying. I have not seen Bear say that the law should not apply to him. What I have seen him say is that there is not a reason, other than revenue, for Morrison to have that section of 285 fall within their jurisdiction at all. That is quite different from what you are attempting to allege.
archer wrote: Sorry VL..this battle is just a small example of a bigger problem..
Some people just don't think the laws apply to them...and that is a battle worth fighting.
You come up with the strangest takes on what others are saying. I have not seen Bear say that the law should not apply to him. What I have seen him say is that there is not a reason, other than revenue, for Morrison to have that section of 285 fall within their jurisdiction at all. That is quite different from what you are attempting to allege.
Right...so you are arguing that people shouldn't have to obey a law because they disagree with who is enforcing that law? Are you all dizzy yet from spinning illegal behavior (speeding) into everyone elses fault but your own? If you want to deny Morrison the revenue...don't speed. Simple.
archer wrote: Sorry VL..this battle is just a small example of a bigger problem..
Some people just don't think the laws apply to them...and that is a battle worth fighting.
You come up with the strangest takes on what others are saying. I have not seen Bear say that the law should not apply to him. What I have seen him say is that there is not a reason, other than revenue, for Morrison to have that section of 285 fall within their jurisdiction at all. That is quite different from what you are attempting to allege.
Right...so you are arguing that people shouldn't have to obey a law because they disagree with who is enforcing that law? Are you all dizzy yet from spinning illegal behavior (speeding) into everyone elses fault but your own? If you want to deny Morrison the revenue...don't speed. Simple.
Archer...Stop
You are deluteting all your other arguments here with this nonsense..This is your friend talking now. Listen
Vice Lord wrote: Archer, you need to pick your battles better..These speed traps are disgusting, especially when you consider the bump in insurance premiums becuase of the questionable violations..Its a trap..
Traps and tricks are never good
Sorry VL..this battle is just a small example of a bigger problem..
Some people just don't think the laws apply to them...and that is a battle worth fighting.
photo-fish wrote: It's only a trap or a trick if you fall for it. And you will only fall for it if you break the law. Seems pretty simple.
You two are just dead wrong on this one..I pay these guys to Serve and Protect, not Trick and Entrap.
They are protecting people, from other people that drive to fast.
So what do you think IS a good deterence to keep people from driving at dangerous speeds. Why even have a posted speed limit? What in your opinion is "too fast".
You're just wrong and thats all there is to it...
END OF SUBJECT
Mods: Lock the thread please
nice try VL......
why can't any of you who object to having Morrison make money on your bad behavior let us know what would be a good punishment? Really......are you all saying that there should be no consequences for speeding? what's next.....it's OK to drink and drive? Is it only breaking the law if you agree with the law, but you are free to break any laws you disagree with? That ought to make life interesting in this country.
Don't carry things to the ridiculous extreme now Archer..You start to sound like one of them when you do that..Thats a trap...If they absolutely need people to suddenly slow down to 35 right there maybe they need to put up a big flashing sign saying so..I've seen those before..It's says RADAR CONTROLLED ZONE or something like that..
