Holy entrapment batman!

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
This isn't a secret military tribunal here, its a state legislature which votes on laws, passes laws, laws are signed by the governor, and then they are published.

Nice strawman there.

They manage to run public campaigns to inform of seat belt enforcement ("Click it or ticket.") or anti-drunk driving media blitzs. Why would they not do so for this instance?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's not my fault your ignorance makes me cry.

Boo hoo. Have some tissue.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
They manage to run public campaigns to inform of seat belt enforcement ("Click it or ticket.") or anti-drunk driving media blitzs. Why would they not do so for this instance?

What percentage of criminal laws passed do you suppose receive media attention or media campaigns? 2%? Usually I only hear about laws in the media when they are wacky (Indiana spent an inordinate amount of time last session working to outlaw bestiality)

When you agree to take advantage of your driving privileges, you impliedly consent to following traffic laws. Perhaps instead of allowing renewals with payments, the state should require all renewals to take the written exams annually, so that citizens would be forced into learning the laws.




As an aside, I (as a citizen) receive the latest state bills via a mailing from my state rep and senator (yes, 2 copies of the same book) after each session is completed, and before the laws go into effect.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Thanks, but I've gone on-record before as saying ignorance of the law is not a defense,

Then what's your point since you've got someone with your requisite law degree saying it isn't entrapment?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Then what's your point since you've got someone with your requisite law degree saying it isn't entrapment?

Let me go ahead and say this:

Entrapment requires the accused to be induced by the state to commit a crime he otherwise would not be predisposed to committing.

Entrapment fails for two reasons.
1) There is no inducement to violate the law. An emergency vehicle by the side of the road does not induce someone to drive in the lane next to it.
2) Entrapment is an affirmative defense, meaning it has to be raised and proven by the defense. This is usually a pretty difficult thing to do. Good luck with showing you weren't predisposed to passing an emergency vehicle.

If entrapment were to succeed as a defense, then virtually no traffic laws would be upheld, since almost all (excluding accidents and hit and runs etc) have to be viewed directly by the police.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
What percentage of criminal laws passed do you suppose receive media attention or media campaigns? 2%? Usually I only hear about laws in the media when they are wacky (Indiana spent an inordinate amount of time last session working to outlaw bestiality)

Again, most of the public campaigns I've ever seen are driving related. This certainly qualifies.

When you agree to take advantage of your driving privileges, you impliedly consent to following traffic laws. Perhaps instead of allowing renewals with payments, the state should require all renewals to take the written exams annually, so that citizens would be forced into learning the laws.

You know, they've tried suggesting as much for elderly drivers. You'd be surprised how bloodthirsty retirees can get when their driving privileges are threatened in any way...

But anyway, I'd agree with this. Without any kind of deliberate public exposure, people simply are NOT going to be aware of certain laws and as such fall victim to them. If public ad campaigns are good enough for seat belt laws, helmet laws, slowing down in construction zones (like you said, for the safety of the people working on the side of the road), and anti-drunk driving laws, then there should be no problem getting word out to the public that they need to start following this new law to help protect officers and the people they've pulled over. And it isn't like it's a rare thing to see, so it's easily justifiable to spend public funds on such a campaign.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Let me go ahead and say this:

Entrapment requires the accused to be induced by the state to commit a crime he otherwise would not be predisposed to committing.

Entrapment fails for two reasons.
1) There is no inducement to violate the law. An emergency vehicle by the side of the road does not induce someone to drive in the lane next to it.
2) Entrapment is an affirmative defense, meaning it has to be raised and proven by the defense. This is usually a pretty difficult thing to do. Good luck with showing you weren't predisposed to passing an emergency vehicle.

If entrapment were to succeed as a defense, then virtually no traffic laws would be upheld, since almost all (excluding accidents and hit and runs etc) have to be viewed directly by the police.

See Kuci and DD, THIS is the kind of reasoned response I was looking for: Someone actually attempting to explain rather than berate.

[Vesayen]

Title + lack of explanatory post = confusion.

Since this law is on the books I imagine it is used sometimes in a situation very similar to entrapment, but not actually entrapment in Virginia, since it seems 3/4ths of drivers dont know about the law.

Imagine a cop car sitting on the side of the road with it's lights on, or even just on the side of the road. No emergency, just sitting there. It is around 3:50 or so which in most of America means on highways, it starts to fill up, but is not packed, yet. All they have to do is wait for virtually anyone to come by and they have them-even if they knew about the law it would not be viable to switch lanes so rapidly on a highway most of the time. This could be inducement, a situation is created by the officer from which there is no escape.

There is no other law being violated. The only law being violated is one stricly of circumstance, a circumstance created by a police offer for the sole reason of collecting money for ticket quotas.

A police officer creating a situation which is only a crime on the books, which produces no social or physical harm, which they know most are ignorant of, for the sole purpose of punishing people to collect fines, is unjust.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Dis
ignorance is not entrapment.

That said, it's just common curtesy. I almost always lane shift for vehicles in the emergency lane. Whether it be a broke down vehicle, or a traffic stop. Only time I don't lane change is when it is unsafe to do so. Then I usually slow down.

I agree with Dis

[Lorizael]

On an interstate highway two weeks ago I got my first speeding ticket. It was dark and rainy and cars were going by very, very quickly (some faster than I had been going, I'll note. ) as I sat on the side of the road.

And you know what the state trooper did? He came over to the passenger side window. Man, that must have taken so much effort on his part.

[mactbone]

No, you don't understand the law.

on a highway having at least four lanes, at least two of which are intended for traffic proceeding as the approaching vehicle, proceed with caution and, if reasonable, with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, yield the right-of-way by making a lane change into a lane not adjacent to that occupied by the stationary emergency vehicle or (ii) if changing lanes would be unreasonable or unsafe, proceed with due caution and maintain a safe speed for highway conditions.

Jesus H. Christ you people are retarded. This became a law in Indiana a couple years ago but I was told to do it out of common courtesy before that. I've actually seen someone get pulled over for it - jackass kept going 65 in the right lane when there was a cop giving a ticket to someone and there were only a couple of cars on that stretch of higway. If you can't move over then you just slow down, it's not difficult and most people do it anyway because they love to gawk.

[Lorizael]

Err, is that you directed at me?

[Ming]

I think we need more discussion on the topic and LESS discussion about the posters... some people need to chill.

[b etor]

oh, i've always changed lanes as a courtesy. and here i could've been fined for not doing so.

[Dr Strangelove]

I usually try to change lanes too, but you know there are sometimes when that is impossible, like when there is are a couple of nice long trucks in the left hand lane. What do you do then? Wouldn't sudden deceleration on a busy high speed four lane road be a hazard? Also suppose you're on a winding two lane road with a solid double line in the middle. Are you supposed to risk your life by crossing the double lines? Can the cop ticket you for reckless driving if you do so? What happens if you get into an accident when you comply with this law?