Nanuk wrote:

Moreover I can't see what would be useful in the manual other than the testing and operation portion of the manual.

Shouldn't the defendant be allowed to read the operation manual so the he/she can understand how it was supposed to be used? Are we expected to believe that the officer followed procedure just because he said he did?

Nanuk wrote:

IMO at least part of the reason they don't disclose the entire manuals is to save the court time as the defendant would be asking countless questions that the officer couldn't testify to turning a 15 minute speeding ticket trial into a 2 hour trial, in the end having he same evidence admitted.

The police, the crown and the JP are complicit in denying me a right to defend myself by not disclosing the operator manual of the device that accused me. Denying me that right turns it into a money grab and that just plain ticks me off. IMO, every time a defendant sticks to his/her guns and requests the complete manual one of two things will happen 1) the crown will drop the charge or 2) the JP's conviction will be overturned on appeal.

My driving record and my insurance premiums and my job are not something to be trifled with and I will go to great lengths to defend them when I have reason to.

If it takes 2 hrs then it takes 2 hrs. If you can't do the time, don't lay the fine.

argyll wrote:

So everyone should be allowed to speed all they want and only be charged when they hit something?

I am not affiliated with any "Freeman on the Land" group, but simple answer to your question is yes as that is what the common law says that our country is supposedly formed on.

jsherk wrote:

argyll wrote:

So everyone should be allowed to speed all they want and only be charged when they hit something?

I am not affiliated with any "Freeman on the Land" group, but simple answer to your question is yes as that is what the common law says that our country is supposedly formed on.

I'm completely surprised by that response. Just so I'm clear, you're saying that there should be no enforcement of any kind until someone gets hurt. A complete free for all. Can you really think that is the way to go ? Enforcement keeps speeds down so that when there are collisions the damage is not that great. Imagine every 19 year old going 40, 50, 60 Kim's an hour over the existing speed limits. They do it fine for weeks, months years but it is only time until they lose control or someone pulls out in front of them....after all they've been allowed to pull out without really looking for so long because it's fine so long as they don't hit someone.

Perhaps I am misreading your position but surely to goodness you can't think this is the answer.

(And what common law are you referring to ...... that's a regular freeman argument but I've yet to have it explained to me)

"a complete free for all"

Are you SURE that's what is going to happen? Of is it just something you dreamed up? Do you have any evidence of this happening? Or, do you think common sense will prevail?

"Enforcement keeps speeds down"

Are you SURE about that? If that was true, then eventually enforcement would grind down infractions to zero. Yet, that isn't so. Aren't infractions going up each year? That's proof that tickets don't work.

Yes I am sure about that. If there was no enforcement people would drive faster.