You can write all you want but nothing has been out of line.
So telling somebody they are "hallucinating" isn't offensive or defamatory? Lots of people said insulting things in that thread. I even had people call me dumb, amongst numerous other things.
Focusing on only the trollable parts of my posts, in itself, would be against those rules.
Traffic law compliance are strict liabilities .. ie intent is not needed ... if you did it, your guilty
Yet, if you can prove your speedometer was malfunctioning you can be found not guilty. If you speed up to pass someone on a single-laned highway and get a speeding ticket...
What does intent have to do with my argument.
Also how did the person in the other thread get out of their charges using the same defense, despite the fact that they were clearly guilty of the crime?
lol.
what is necessity defense?
The fact is that you were told that the fact you didn't think your car would continue running after a stop is an excuse for not stopping is not going to be a defense.
That may be the case, and for the sake of argument I will grant it to you. But what about the further argument that being stopped at that place may have been a danger to myself and others?
That changes the situation considerably, and doesn't warrant a glossing over.
the troll doing the baiting by your constant broken record repeating of the same lame excuses
True. But i can't help it if people are presenting me with lame arguments that do not follow. Anyway, i wasn't the one who chose to focus on the "complete stop" portion of my original post, ignoring anything else I may have said of validity.
I just chose to argue it because I realized nobody else had an acceptable argument.
provided the statute says something else, is also in error.
But i argued what the statute actually says. It doesn't say anything about coming to a complete and total stop. The definition which people thought said that, was inapplicable because it only applies when stopping is prohibited. Furthermore, even if we were to grant that definition as applicable, at the end of the defintion it says, "except when
necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic." Which would support my defense. If I had stopped there, it would've been a conflict with other traffic.
i didn't really roll either. Like I said, its questionable from the video whether or not the ticket is for not coming to a complete stop or because I came to a complete stop slightly past the limit line.
I don't know what you expect to hear, but you're not going to hear anyone tell you that your invented stories are going to any credence either in the TBD or in front of a judge.
How did that other guy get out of his charges by saying he was scared for his life, then?
Whether the court will buy it or not is something we cannot say.
Oh i see. because i thought I read two threads full of everybody saying they won't buy it.
