Re: Speeding?

["uhhhh.." <stupid@dkfj.com>]

Dan Masi wrote:
> 
> On Feb 3,  3:51pm, Alexei M Voloshin wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Speeding?
> > It doesn't matter which way it goes. Just the fact that reading was
> > inaccurate is enough.
> 
> ummmm.... enough for *what*?  This argument is worthless.  It's not
> an argument that is germane only to laser; radar suffers the same
> flaws of trigonometry, and if you win a speeding case based on this
> argument, it will set a precedent that'll toss out *all* laser *and*
> radar tickets ever issued in the US.  Nice dream.  Ain't gonna
> happen.
> 
> Dan Masi
> '96 A4Q
> 
> > Alex
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Robert Myers wrote:
> >
> > > At 04:27 PM 2/3/97 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Lazer guns are harder to defeat that microwave guns, however there are a
> > > >few arguments:
> > >
> > > ---snip---
> > >
> > > >- If he was to the side of the rode, due to the geometry of the
> > > >situation, his reading has to be off and that makes it inaccurate.
> > >
> > > But the inaccuracy is in *your* favor.  In this instance, his reading will
> > > be low, not high.  Don't go near this particular argument.

Funny someone should mention the old triangulation trick.  I tried to 
use it about a year ago (doing 70 in a 50) on camp pendleton marine 
corps base.  I went to court and when I presented my case, the 
magistrate didn't give me any speech about precedents, she just said "I 
don't care, you were still speeding."  B*tch.  Of course, that is a 
military court, not a REAL court.  I tell you, let me see her behind 
walking across the road one of these days, I'll give her a permanent 4 
rings tatoo in her arse.

Aaron LaPointe
85 4ksq 300,000+miles