Dnia Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:28:21 +0100, Tomasz Finke napisał(a):
> W dniu 2011-12-02 01:06, J.F. pisze:
>> Natomiast dalej w tej calej sprawie to jak rozumiem poszlo o to ze nie moze
>> byc tak, ze "policjant ma zawsze racje".
>> A to dopiero Sad Najwyzszy Montany przyznal, dwie nizsze instancje i
>> prokurator nie widzialy w tym nic zdroznego :-)
>
> Ale to jest konsekwencja przyjętej filozofii prawa drogowego: albo
> traktujemy dopuszczalną prędkość jako mierzalną wielkość fizyczną
> i wpisujemy ją do kodeksów, albo traktujemy uznaniowo. W tym drugim
> przypadku policjant musi być (prawie) ostateczną instancją
> rozstrzygającą, bo inaczej nam się wymiar sprawiedliwości zakorkuje.

No i widzisz - SN Montany w koncu uznal ze tak nie moze byc.
Byc moze pomoglo mu to:

The Attorney General gave the following response to the following question
during argument before this Court:
Q.What speed would have been reasonable and prudent at the locations where
he was cited?

A.Again, that would be depending upon the-it will always be a question of
judgment at the time based on the conditions at the time, if there were
heavier traffic. I cannot give you a number that would have been reasonable
and prudent at that-it ultimately may come down to a question to be
determined by the jury. The officer will exercise his best judgment in
applying the statute.

[... highway patrol men and women ..]
Q. And I understand there are no specific guidelines provided to them to
enable them to know at what point, exact point, a person's speed is a
violation of the basic rule?

A. That's correct, Your Honor, because that's not what the statute
requires. We do not have a numerical limit. We have a basic rule statute
which requires the officer to take into account whether or not the driver
is driving in a careful and prudent manner, using the speed.

Q. And it's up to each of their individual judgments to enforce the law?

A. It is, Your Honor, using their judgment applying the standard set forth
in the statute

Q. Well, if I'm driving down the interstate highway through Montana on a
clear day on a dry road with little traffic in the area, at what speed can
I assume that I'm complying with the law, or is that up to whichever one of
those 190 officers are on duty at that location at that time?

A. It depends, Your Honor, because it will depend upon the application of
the statutory factors. Where are you on the interstate highway on a clear
road?

Q. Let's say that I've got a vehicle that's new, there are no problems with
the brakes, there are no problems with the steering, it's a clear day, the
road is dry, the traffic is light, there are no other conditions which make
it dangerous for me to travel at a high speed. At what speed can I be
assured that I'm not violating the law?

A. Your Honor, my response will be, it depends. There is no numerical
limit that I can cite you because it will depend where you are. And it
will depend on an officer's discretion ultimately. And it will depend
upon your own judgment in the operation of your vehicle.

Q. So I just don't know?

A. You don't know, but you have a lot of good guidance provided in the
statute. But to provide you with a number, the legislature hasn't given
one, and if they do not give us one, we will continue to apply the
statutory factors in every circumstance.

28. It is evident from the testimony in this case and the arguments to the
Court that the average motorist in Montana would have no idea of the speed
at which he or she could operate his or her motor vehicle on this State's
highways without violating Montana's "basic rule" based simply on the speed
at which he or she is traveling. [...]

No i byc moze bardzo dobrze, bo to chyba naprawde wk* jesli cie policjant
zatrzyma, mowi ze jechales za szybko, a sad uznaje ze "policjant ma zawsze
racje".

Widac i tam sady ch*, bo logicznie to by wystarczylo "jechal pan za
oskarzonym? dal pan rade? nie bal sie pan ze kogos zabije ?
To uznajemy ze predkosc oskarzonego byla dobra, a pan masz do wyboru:
zabieramy panu PJ za niedostowanie predkosci do warunkow, czy przyznaje sie
pan do falszywych zeznan " :-)

J.