Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc
Actually if you believe Skip, then Little field was not operating beyond the limits in proposed law.
Can anyone seriously argue that if Littlefield had been sober and maintained a proper watch that 28 MPH was "unreasonable" on that normally clear night? If 28 MPH is unreasonable on a normal night, then the Marine patrol operates unreasonably pretty much every night. So Littlefield would not have been quilty of violating the HB-847 if it existed at the time.
|
Another explanation that 28 is less than 25.
This is really very funny
The opposition repeatedly insists that Littlefield is guilty, guilty, guilty of BWI. Yet at the same time they insist he would be innocent, innocent, innocent of speeding if there had been a speed limit.
Why is it so important that was not speeding, but is guilty of BWI? Can anyone imagine a reason? Could it be because that fits the opposition agenda?