FUCK YA SPEEDING CAMERAS

[JoboPooks]

The crime has already been committed in both cases. If you where to flash your lights and prevent them breaking the speed limit before they do so then this is prevention (in the same way as if you warn someone before they steal something you have prevented the crime.) If however they are already speeding then they have already broken the law (in the same way as someone who hides the evidence of their theft.)

Entrapment would be if a police officer travelling at the speed limit waved you to go passed, then stopped you for speeding. Stooping someone from preventing crime is not making the person commit the crime. Nice idea though.

As I have said I don't think the evidence would be enough to convict in a court.

How do you stoop someone???

[legaleagle]

Ah this is a legal term for stopping someone. It is nothing to do with my fingers being too fat

[State-Property]

If however they are already speeding then they have already broken the law.

I agree, but my point is HOW would I know if they were speeding? Surely it's only a 'crime' (in the case of speeding) if there is a victim or a 'grass' (police)? Someone slowing down (for whatever reason) is causing no harm, indeed quite the opposite. After all, there are many instances of electronic sensors saying "slow down" when it senses a vehicle exceeding whatever the set limit is...

What's the difference - apart from, as I mentioned before, lack of state revenue?

If I saw someone breaking into a house and shouted "stop that, the police are coming" and they did.... have I done something wrong??

[Geronimo]

The crime has already been committed in both cases. If you where to flash your lights and prevent them breaking the speed limit before they do so then this is prevention (in the same way as if you warn someone before they steal something you have prevented the crime.) If however they are already speeding then they have already broken the law (in the same way as someone who hides the evidence of their theft.)

Entrapment would be if a police officer travelling at the speed limit waved you to go passed, then stopped you for speeding. Stooping someone from preventing crime is not making the person commit the crime. Nice idea though.

As I have said I don't think the evidence would be enough to convict in a court.

How do you stoop someone???

You make the Stoopee stand with their heels facing each other, leaving their feet at the quarter to three position, you then stick you hand in the waist band of their trousers/skirt, press the large knuckle of the other hand into the nape of their neck, forcing them to bend forward into a stoop whilst singing the 1800 century American-Irish Balled gospel song " Bend over Mary and ill drive you home so your widowed mother wont weep"

[legaleagle]

strawmansarah in your example if you knew the police where on their way and you warned the burglar of this fact then yes potentially you are committing an offence. The difference is you could go to court as a witness and the individual could still be convicted. In the case of the speeder your evidence is not admissible as you are in no way able to judge their speed. Unless you where travelling the same way as them in which case you could be called as a witness.

The crime of speeding requires no victim. You are guilty of it if you are caught going through a speed camera over the speed limit on a deserted road in the middle of no where. The technical issue is that you have seen the speed camera/ police and have alerted the other driver to their presence which has allowed them to avoid prosecution.

I will say again that I don't think that this case would meet the evidential test for a court. (unless they could prove that the driver was speeding before hand such as if a police officer had seen him just before you flashed them.)

[Geronimo]

Like I say the word of a police officer only counts for more because they do good statements,

Do you really believe that!

[Geronimo]

Which means that they are just trying to prevent prosecution not speeding.

But isn't the stopping of speeding the foremost and ultimate aim? And if the people flashing are actually causing that quicker than the police shouldn't they be commended rather than convicted.

[legaleagle]

Geronimo Yes I believe both that police officers have the benefit of having made a statement about the event (having been trained what should go into it and having practiced giving evidence) and the fact that in most cases police officers do not live in a special category of witness. It may have been true once (along with clergy which people keep mentioning) that they where believed above everyone else but I have never found this.

Have a read of my previous posts for the reason that people warning criminals of the police's presence can lead t conviction. Although I will say once again that this is in my opinion something that if it was contested would not meet the evidential standard for court.

[frogmanbrabs]

If the Police are so concerned with motorists speeding then why don't the government introduce restrictions on the top speed a car can legally travel at?

[legaleagle]

frogmanbrabs an interesting point. I am assuming you are referring to a restrictor on the engine. I think this is already something that vans have and certainly lorries have them. I personally don't think it will be long before cars are restricted as to how fast they will go.