It doesn't matter if you have a siren or a whale stuck into your vehicle.
Sorry but...
What about if i have a dolphin or turtle?
:D
Shark?
no... no... people will still use wrong ramp...Not if the FBI launches Operation "Minigun to be fired at people that go up the wrong ramp".
Dear policing citizens of the United States of Argonath,Good work Paul. I'm going to back this up as well.
Due to several casualties initiated by the law enforcement members of the state, we would like to enforce the usage of Mulholland Intersection road to be for incoming traffic ONLY.
It doesn't matter if you have a siren or a whale stuck into your vehicle. Despite the priority of the incident, it is always required for you to use the right road.
Lately, the fault comes from us for using the incorrect intersection and causing many deaths upon our hands.
Please remind your friendly units to follow this order from now on wards as we are here to enforce protection in the roads at all times. It is a clearly high priority.
If you happen to ignore or just plan to use it with clear intentions, then you may face warnings, tickets or even a copban if you continuously do it. It may be your lucky day if you happen to not be caught doing it.
While you at it... pay attention to your speed gauge as we are here to enforce the speed limits and not disobey them ourselves.
The penalties are the same as the wrong intersection by-pass.
There should be no excuse from now on. So if your not willing to change your way of policing, then we will change the way you police. Otherwise, you may be considered as a threat to the citizens.
Signed,
Chief of Police
(http://i48.tinypic.com/2enlyjp.png)
If I'm chasing a suspect and am directly behind him, and if he decides to go up the wrong ramp, let him pretty much go, or follow him? There's already a car going up, so damage is already done, no sense in going to the other ramp, and risk losing him, is there?Personally I would continue to chase him only if it's safe to do so, but that generally applies to nearly all the off-road/wrong-way pursuits.
To be honest I think we should get North Korea to place some mines at Mullholland Intersection, they're good with mines.LOL...
If I'm chasing a suspect and am directly behind him, and if he decides to go up the wrong ramp, let him pretty much go, or follow him? There's already a car going up, so damage is already done, no sense in going to the other ramp, and risk losing him, is there?
If ARA is ticketing every f**king car that uses the wrong ramp, then a straight copban on the cops that does the same thing.If police are breaking the law, then "firing" them through a copban/firing from SA:MP SAPD would cover their job-related punishment, but fining them additionally also covers their civilian aspect of it. I am totally for both punishments being issued if they have been warned and continue to use the wrong ramp.
What ever happened the object that was on the left ramp, it hindered those who went up the left ramp .. smashed up their vehicle or even flipped it.What object? o.0
I don't see the debate here actually.Agreed.
If a police officer, federal agent or civillian is using the wrong ramp, or side of road they are breaking the law. Regardless of Code 3. Nobody is above the law. Even if Gandalf is using the wrong ramp! Give them a ticket!!!!
I don't see the debate here actually.
If a police officer, federal agent or civillian is using the wrong ramp, or side of road they are breaking the law. Regardless of Code 3. Nobody is above the law. Even if Gandalf is using the wrong ramp! Give them a ticket!!!!
Afrojack_CorlerT is not in SA:MP SAFD, so feel free to ticket/sue him as you feel necessary.He could ticket/sue him anyways.. :roll:
He could ticket/sue him anyways.. :roll:You're missing the point...
Well, unless I see a document signed by the upper government of the States of Argonath, San Andreas, that states an agency who's primary role is or should be maintaining the roads are to also maintain road laws and enforce them, I disagree with the work they do. The proper course of action should instead be arranging a traffic division of the ARPD. Civilians enforcing the law is just plain wrong. They're civilians. I mean, what's next, driving schools uniting in order to patrol the streets, revoking licenses of anyone who drives in the wrong lane? ATC calling in Hydras on anyone who doesn't report in landing and taking off? CMB revoking passports if people break rules?
Jaaskaa will be making court cases I believe for those who decide to stalk people at this intersection.Good to hear that.
Well, unless I see a document signed by the upper government of the States of Argonath, San Andreas, that states an agency who's primary role is or should be maintaining the roads are to also maintain road laws and enforce them, I disagree with the work they do. The proper course of action should instead be arranging a traffic division of the ARPD. Civilians enforcing the law is just plain wrong. They're civilians. I mean, what's next, driving schools uniting in order to patrol the streets, revoking licenses of anyone who drives in the wrong lane? ATC calling in Hydras on anyone who doesn't report in landing and taking off? CMB revoking passports if people break rules?
Jaaskaa will be making court cases I believe for those who decide to stalk people at this intersection.
At the moment... I disagree that citizens should be stalking people at this intersection. Doesn't matter if your ARA or god. We never requested security or people to waste their time recording.
Leave it to the designated people to take care of it - The trafficking divisions in the ARPD.
You post a case, it gets approved, they lose a license.
And that is what encourages them to not take the wrong ramp.
And that is what encourages them to not take the wrong ramp.True that!
And that is what encourages them to not take the wrong ramp.And discourages roleplay. There was a similar solution, just put a huge object in the middle of the ramp.
I take it this goes for ARPD Officers as well as SAPD, if Jaaskaa is involved.Jaaskaa is getting involved to stop the stalking by civilians, not patrolling the area of Law Enforcement, which the FBI wouldn't do anyway. :p
Due to this, I also naturally assume this also stands for the FBI, as Jasskaa is indeed the ARPD Commissioner, of which the FBI is a member of.
which the FBI wouldn't do anyway. :p
Funny thing, I always have an agent join me when I'm "stalking" and "spying" on people. Or when i'm being a "vigilante" or "impersonating law enforcement".Someone's getting paranoid.
Names will not be released.
Someone's getting paranoid.Someone is making up breaches of the law..
Someone is making up breaches of the law..I'll let the judges decide on that, though I'm not the only one who agrees that this is unlawful. :)
And discourages roleplay. There was a similar solution, just put a huge object in the middle of the ramp.Truthfuly, not aiming this at all players, but most people when you try to pull them over will just speed off before you can suspect them, atleast this way they have no way of denying what they did wrong and/or evading punishment.
I mean, to what ends must we go that we replace police officers with objects and court cases?
You're free to continue protecting the Mulholland as a police officer. Maybe get some roleplay out of it, what's happened here is people getting punished without any real interaction. You post a case, it gets approved, they lose a license.
Well, unless I see a document signed by the upper government of the States of Argonath, San Andreas, that states an agency who's primary role is or should be maintaining the roads are to also maintain road laws and enforce them, I disagree with the work they do. The proper course of action should instead be arranging a traffic division of the ARPD. Civilians enforcing the law is just plain wrong. They're civilians. I mean, what's next, driving schools uniting in order to patrol the streets, revoking licenses of anyone who drives in the wrong lane? ATC calling in Hydras on anyone who doesn't report in landing and taking off? CMB revoking passports if people break rules?
After the day I quit ArgonathRPG, I enjoyed to write and study more things. For the last few days, I been outside and I enjoy the tall grass and trees. I can go outside relax by fishing, hunting, and ride my bike. I find it better to be alone without any distractions, but you are never alone. There is someone all ways watching you. It can be the person upstairs, or another person, or maybe an animal. We are never alone in this world. Now in San Andreas Multiplayer anything that we do it will haunt you in the future. It can be in a good way or maybe in a bad way.
Back then when I was a Freecop trying to apply for ARPD. I had this crazy idea that I thought it would be better for me to get an Officer rank, soon. I had a friend named Tommy White, we use to be good friends but I never really liked his attitude. One day over Teamspeak, we were just talking and I had this good idea. I never checked who else was inside the channel because I didn’t know too many people anyway. I asked him do you want to get officer rank fast. He said that he wanted to and told me to say what it is. So I told him that we should grow weed on duty to get officer rank, it will help us to get promoted as well especially if we have at least 200 grams of weed. He said that Okay but I hope we don’t get busted. We started out at the LSPD, and managed to find a helicopter that could take us to each weed field. Tommy and I started at Bone County then to Flint then to Red county. Not knowing that someone was watching us and over hearing our conversation. At our last stop before we were busted, Tommy had planted the weed and we saw a civilian darting our way. It was an Under Cover cop. We took off as fast as we can then F.B.I came out of nowhere, so we had to stop or else it was too suspicious that we did plant weed. In the end, we were sentence for 120 days in jail and my application wasn’t rejected it was on hold for 1 month. Now today, I still have people private messaging me about that situation which happened about 5 months ago. Also, I’ve also been harassed about it. Anyway, I hope that no one grows weed on duty.
There was another time I was at Flint County heading to the weed field lights and sirens. Jimmy bowling private messaged me that it was Code 4/14. I was just wondering how he knew that I was responding to the scene. I didn’t report it on radio either. All he did was flown over me with a helicopter and I didn’t even know it.
One day, my partner and I were patrolling Los Santos. My partner got a phone call from a person. That person asked my partner if he wanted to buy some weed. My partner said no and we stayed on long enough and got location. Then my partner had to go, so it was just me in the driver’s seat. When I got close to the person that called my partner there was another man in his vehicle. They were driving North Bound to Red county on 425 East which is at East Beach. I had the suspicion that he was trying to sell weed. The passenger of the car stepped out of the car so I stopped. He said that the suspect stole my car. I was wrong on the suspicion, but I had a good probable cause to go after him. I stepped up to respond with lights and sirens. The suspect was driving faster now because he knew he was in trouble for Grand Theft Auto. The pursuit only lasted about 2 minutes and the suspect surrendered. I told them that he was under arrest for Grand Theft Auto of a Stolen Vehicle, Selling Weed, and Evading. The suspect was like how you know. Well, I can figure things out easily. I didn’t even have to frisk him and he handed the weed over. The result was only for 120 days because he complied. The owner of the stolen car was mad so we said that the suspect will have to pay for damages. Then he was happy and was taken home.
My point is that there is always someone watching you whether you are neither on duty nor off duty. If you are one of those cops that are growing weed, being corrupted, or doing something inappropriate, you will more than likely be caught. You may not know that that person was watching you. It is the only matter of time, luck, and risk. Whenever I was taking a Hunter Ed course the Law Enforcement agency stated that there is all ways someone watching you even when I am not there. Just take this information here and understand it.
It doesn’t matter if you still watch your surroundings someone is all ways watching.
I hope that information isn’t to be used in the corrupt way under the SAPD/ARPD Laws. It should just be helpful under the hands of cops that if you do something stupid then you’ll probably hear it later like I did by growing weed on duty a long time ago.
Signed,
Retired Sr. Officer TinMan
*If you have any stories like this please share then and we can always discuss them.
Anyway, it's got nothing to do with that. It's about making sure people feel safe, that they're not being spied on all the time. If you insist on 'protecting mulholland', do it on /duty and follow the correct procedure. Citizens of Argonath should not be driven to fear of people spying on them.
how will you know the person going the wrong ramp name?
I've been driving on the wrong ramp for days. What's going to stop me from doing that again?How about losing your license and getting a big fat fine for every time you did it?
v. spied (spd), spy·ing, spies (spz)
v.tr.
1. To observe secretly with hostile intent.
I dont see this being nice if you cannot even drive around your own city being captured with a camera all the time, just go on cop duty :)
But you still broke the law. Also, in the video, you reversed half way up the ramp and thats proof.I also drive a bus that's hard to turn around, so I sometimes reverse for several blocks. Just because it's a ramp doesn't affect anything as far as the law is concerned, I was reversing in my lane of travel. If that were to be confirmed as law break by the court of law, it would set up a precedent case for anyone wishing to pull over people for going into reverse.
I dont see this being nice if you cannot even drive around your own city being captured with a camera all the time, just go on cop duty :)London isnt the city for you then. :lol:
I also drive a bus that's hard to turn around, so I sometimes reverse for several blocks. Just because it's a ramp doesn't affect anything as far as the law is concerned, I was reversing in my lane of travel. If that were to be confirmed as law break by the court of law, it would set up a precedent case for anyone wishing to pull over people for going into reverse.
Also, Jcs, as always, has some wise words.
Ok I got a question for you all, how come Mulholland Intersection is SO important? What about every other junction in San Andreas? See I've got the IRL version of you down the road from me, keeps people from going over the speed limit, ya know what happened? Car crashes on alternate routes started to increase, all you are doing is A. Annoying people B. Diverting them, if it's something I've learned over the years traffic enforcement only helps the area it's in, in San Andreas you can't cover the whole area, hence your operation is useless. Well.. Not useless, you're just teaching lawbreakers to be smart.The Mulholland Intersection is being enforced heavily now because it has become a very common issue. Although I agree that all intersections should be watched, this one has gained special attention because even emergency services are misusing it, and there have been a number of accidents and fatalities as a result.
It is not that is has become a very common issue, it's the only one that has been noticed, if you park up anywhere in populated LS I bet you'll see round about the same if not more traffic violations. Personally I believe that only reason this has been given specific attention is because of Tinman, originally he was the only police officer to give a shit about the intersection. Since he has become semi-famous due to his role many have tried to follow in his footsteps, unfortunately all in the same spot.Years ago when SATP existed and was able to pull over other cops, there was no traffic-related crime from either police or civilians. That changed when official and unofficial subdivisions of SA:MP SAPD were shut down, and Lieutenants were added with the ability to pull over other cops, and no one else could. Things fell apart then. The problem is that cops are setting a bad example for others, despite their intentions. They need to work on it themselves if they wish to work on it with others too.
If the civil court makes your case valid of reversing in lane, that would mean that everyone has the legal right to reverse all the way to their designation, so come on Argonath civilians lets start driving backwards for now on because its allowed. :rules:It's never been disallowed.
It's never been disallowed.They should also keep in mind, though, that there is a difference between driving in reverse, and backing up. :P
They should also keep in mind, though, that there is a difference between driving in reverse, and backing up. :PI know what you mean, though what we have here is an over enthusiastic dude who's only seen a 6 second long video and yelling about road laws against me, Conk made sure he edits the video to only show what he wants to be seen :P
However, I agree with what Nathan is saying, I have no trouble going 220 on any Los Santos street without anyone giving a damn, heck, going 170 and other officers passing me in an infernus, that's always fun :PThen I will be sure to file a report against you if you are on-duty, or pull you over for speeding if you aren't. ;)
Then I will be sure to file a report against you if you are on-duty, or pull you over for speeding if you aren't. ;)Psh, you drive alone too much, who'll /speed? :P
Psh, you drive alone too much, who'll /speed? :PIt's not hard to see when you're going the speed limit yourself, and a car flies past you at a high rate of speed. That's how sole officers in patrol cars do it in real life too.
It's not hard to see when you're going the speed limit yourself, and a car flies past you at a high rate of speed. That's how sole officers in patrol cars do it in real life too.Not RL ^_^
It's never been disallowed.
Not RL ^_^I think you're missing the point. ;)
There's certainly no law or reference to reversing, as long as it does not breach other laws (driving on curb, hitting civilians and so on), it's permitted.
Sugar, my point is that as an officer you're legally required to prove someone is guilty when convicting them, and the only way regarding speeding to do that is with /speed. If you F8 your speed and me being next to you, doesn't mean I'm going your speed. If you fraps, it's not necessarily the same speed either, as FPS lag creates difference between the speed on speedo and the actual speed :PWrong. That is only necessary if there is a court case. Officers witnessing civilians committing crimes are able to suspect/ticket them immediately, depending on the offense and the protocols for them. Argo does not take people to court based on every single crime. Only certain offenses can be taken to court, and they also depend on how the users wish to roleplay them out.
According to Argonath ConsitutionThe law, unlike you, doesn't care that it's a wrong ramp at Mulholland Intersection. It's just a road. If you're going 80km/h as you should be (300m from the last local street = city limits), then there wouldn't be any slamming of brakes. As there's no law defining reversing as a crime, that gives me full legal rights to reverse on the road I'm using. Seriously though, let's stop it here, if you want to, we can meet in the court house.
Act III.I: Reckless driving understand any form of driving that could endanger other citizens. Under such circumstances, a police officer is allowed to take necessary actions.
Using the wrong ramp incorrectly like what you did [reversing in lane] could have caused a fatal accident. An on coming car would have to slam on their brakes and therefore that is endangering the lives of other citizens, correct? And If I'm incorrect tell me what gives you the full legal right to reverse up the wrong ramp?
SugarD, back that up with something. If people assume they can cash in on others without any legal proof, they're plain wrong. Think of it this way: You (the officer) can be taken to the courts (with ARPD report first) for fining others without proof, so if you don't have the /speed, you're just going to lose, since you do not have proof. I understand that no one really follows this, and accepts it as it is, but legally, that's an obligation to have proof.If an officer unjustly arrests someone without proof, or illegally, people can request an investigation, as well as put in reports to ARPD Forums. It has always been this way.
Wrong. That is only necessary if there is a court case. Officers witnessing civilians committing crimes are able to suspect/ticket them immediately, depending on the offense and the protocols for them. Argo does not take people to court based on every single crime. Only certain offenses can be taken to court, and they also depend on how the users wish to roleplay them out.
"Officers witnessing civilians committing crimes" not just suspecting everyone.
I didn't say everyone, although that seems to happen. The point being is that officers can suspect, jail or potentially kill whoever they want on the sole basis of they do not need evidence to carry out actions..We also have Lieutenants+ that can suspect corrupt cops, and Senior Officers, (although formerly Sergeants), who can investigate and unsuspect those who have been abused. We also have the server administration and management who can deal with bad players and copban them.
We also have Lieutenants+ that can suspect corrupt cops, and Senior Officers, (although formerly Sergeants), who can investigate and unsuspect those who have been abused. We also have the server administration and management who can deal with bad players and copban them.And we also have the constitution that states that if you got no proof, you got an innocent man.
The law, unlike you, doesn't care that it's a wrong ramp at Mulholland Intersection. It's just a road. If you're going 80km/h as you should be (300m from the last local street = city limits), then there wouldn't be any slamming of brakes. As there's no law defining reversing as a crime, that gives me full legal rights to reverse on the road I'm using. Seriously though, let's stop it here, if you want to, we can meet in the court house.
Due to the danger of driving accidents on the roads of our nation, the speed limits are 80 Kilometers an Hour inside cities and town limits, 120 Kilometers an Hour on roads outside of the city and town limits, and there shall be no speed limits on highways, though, driving recklessly, or not driving on the right side of the road is still a punishable offense. Law prescribe a fine of a maximum of 250 dollars for any road infraction. The city limit is defined by an area of 300 meters around the last local street.
and yes reversing in lane is against the law through the constitution act of reckless drivingThat's not said there, don't make things up.
That's not said there, don't make things up.
Are those powers authorized by a legal document (from the Constitution) which, while not stated,...
Reckless driving understand any form of driving that could endanger other citizens. Under such circumstances, a police officer is allowed to take necessary actions.
Hence the part "any form of driving that could endanger other citizens" *cough* *cough* reversing up the wrong ramp is the implied power that the Argonath Constitution gives us.Well heaven forbid you ever go in reverse with me in sight.
Well heaven forbid you ever go in reverse with me in sight.
Guess in the meantime people will just offroad up to the highway, as there are no road laws off road.
Suppose they'll offroad up until they're out of your sight then.It sounds like you are saying its against the law for a civilian to do such of an act, if they have to avoid a law enforcement officer.
Is reversing in lane or driving backwards on a road illegal towards the Argonath Constitution? Please answer this on the topic if you'd like to. I'd really want an explanation if it isn't.
Suppose you were driving a car down the off ramp from the LS-LV Highway and a car was reversing in lane up the wrong ramp [Going the Opposite Direction] without being able to switch lanes [a car was in the lane next to you] or not enough time to avoid their car, you smashed into the back of their vehicle. I believe that it would be their fault for reckless driving.We can each create hypothetical situations all we want, proving each other's points incorrect. Reality is that there are more accidents in front of Idlewood PNS in 1 hr than there are at Mulholland Intersection in 1 week. You want to quote what can be considered reckless, go ahead. Thing is, that act is worded so curiously, that it doesn't necessarily make anything illegal, it just states that it could be illegal. Which means, all cases should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Could it endanger other citizens? Just driving around could do that, doesn't mean you pull over everyone driving a monster truck. Does your driving endanger other citizens at that point? That's where the argument should be.
Try looking for reckless driving at Idlewood PNS, you'd have your hands filled there.Yes, I was just speaking hypothetically and I knew you were going to bring up the part we can both prove each other incorrectly and I agree with that.
So yeah, in a situation where there are no other driving cars or citizens within visible range me reversing in my lane does not nor could possibly endanger anyone. Thus it's not reckless driving no matter which way you point your act.
Your opinion basically says it would be legal to peel out, speed, or drive erratically as long as nobody is around. Therefore, that statement would be false.Speed? No, that's a separate crime. But the constitution is clear on what it understands as reckless driving, driving that can harm other citizens. Can you harm other citizens when there are none within miles? No, you can not. So not reckless driving. It's not my opinion, it's what it says.
Yes, you can argue that the constitution means "can potentially, in a hypothetical situation, harm other citizens", but in that case driving in general is understood as reckless driving. I mean, someone could jump out on the street, and you could potentially harm them.
Whether you're alone in Tierra Robada, or Idlewood PNS, still counts as reckless....Agreed. You never know where someone may be at. It's still a risk to their lives, even if you think they aren't there, hence why it's illegal even when no one is around.
Agreed. You never know where someone may be at. It's still a risk to their lives, even if you think they aren't there, hence why it's illegal even when no one is around.Except you can kinda see if anyone is nearby. It's not thinking they aren't there, it's knowing they aren't there.
Except you can kinda see if anyone is nearby. It's not thinking they aren't there, it's knowing they aren't there.You can't say that with 100% certainty. What if a player logs in right where you are speeding/recklessly driving?
What if a player logs in right where you are speeding/recklessly driving?What if a player logs in right where you are driving carefully? Opcodes middle of the street? Pull over every single person because someone may log in where they're driving?
What if a player logs in right where you are driving carefully? Opcodes middle of the street? Pull over every single person because someone may log in where they're driving?Speeding may be a different crime, but it is still a form of reckless driving. If you are driving the speed limit and being completely safe, and someone logs in, right in front of you, and gets hit, then it's purely an accident. If you are speeding and/or recklessly driving and you hit someone who logs into the game in front of you, it's still your fault because you could have reacted better if you followed the laws.
Speeding and reckless driving are separate things anyway, and I don't argue about speeding, I'm arguing about reckless driving.
Speeding may be a different crime, but it is still a form of reckless driving. If you are driving the speed limit and being completely safe, and someone logs in, right in front of you, and gets hit, then it's purely an accident. If you are speeding and/or recklessly driving and you hit someone who logs into the game in front of you, it's still your fault because you could have reacted better if you followed the laws.Speeding is not the same at all, speeding is a crime regardless of conditions, whereas reckless driving is an incredibly conditional crime.
Speeding is not the same at all, speeding is a crime regardless of conditions, whereas reckless driving is an incredibly conditional crime.Reckless driving is not conditional at all. If you drive recklessly, it's reckless driving. It's pretty straightforward. It doesn't matter who is around, it is still a crime.
Reckless driving is not conditional at all. If you drive recklessly, it's reckless driving. It's pretty straightforward. It doesn't matter who is around, it is still a crime.The Constitution's definition on reckless driving is driving that can endanger other citizens. So not really, if you bump down every single pole around you, that's not reckless driving, that's harm to property instead. However, if there are people standing near these poles, that turns into reckless driving as well. See how it's conditional?
The Constitution's definition on reckless driving is driving that can endanger other citizens. So not really, if you bump down every single pole around you, that's not reckless driving, that's harm to property instead. However, if there are people standing near these poles, that turns into reckless driving as well. See how it's conditional?Those people are not taking reckless actions that could potential damage the poles. If they are swinging bats around near the poles, which could potentially damages those poles, they are being reckless. It's not conditional.
Speeding may be a different crime, but it is still a form of reckless driving.
Reckless driving is not conditional at all. If you drive recklessly, it's reckless driving. It's pretty straightforward. It doesn't matter who is around, it is still a crime.
I'm not justifying anything, I'm interpreting what the Constitution states. It doesn't say "Reckless driving is understood as driving in a reckless manner". Instead, what is says is that if my driving can endanger other citizens, it's reckless driving. Now, as our argument shows, it can be interpreted in different ways, however, we must pick only one way, for sake of continuity. So which one do you think is more appropriate?What about the property that can be damaged by reckless driving? What about the animals who can be hurt? What about you, yourself, as a person in the vehicle who can be injured by your reckless driving? It does not matter who is around. It is still illegal. The constitution makes no exceptions to this.
- If the driving in any possible situation has the potential of endangering citizens, it's reckless
Which means that I have full legal right to pull you over every time you get in a car, and cash in 250$ from you, because I can come up with ways how driving a car can endanger citizens
or
- If the driving at that given moment and place endangers other citizens, it's reckless
Which means that you pull over people when they're actually endangering others.
You can't just go "In some situations we'll interpret it this way, in some situations we'll interpret it that way", you can't switch it up when it suits you, that's absolutely corrupted way of thinking.
What about the property that can be damaged by reckless driving? What about the animals who can be hurt? What about you, yourself, as a person in the vehicle who can be injured by your reckless driving? It does not matter who is around. It is still illegal. The constitution makes no exceptions to this.Damaging property is a different law, Section III, Act I, but it is NOT reckless driving as understood by the Constitution. Also, it's actually damaging property, not endangering property, just in case you bring that up.
Damaging property is a different law, Section III, Act I, but it is NOT reckless driving as understood by the Constitution. Also, it's actually damaging property, not endangering property, just in case you bring that up.Damage to property may be a crime in itself, but that does not mean that it cannot be caused by reckless driving. Likewise, hit and run is a separate crime from reckless driving, but it can also be caused by it. That still does not excuse you to ever drive recklessly.
There are no laws regarding hurting of animals.
Constitution is very clear that for it to be reckless driving, it has to endanger other citizens, there are no laws regarding injuring yourself.
The wording of Act III.I states that police may take action upon a driver only if the form of driving can endanger other citizens. So I can drive like a baboon, unless I damage property, endanger other citizens, drive in the wrong lane or go over speed limit.
What exactly do you mean by reckless driving? Reckless driving as in a reason to be pulled over? If no citizens were endangered, it would be an invalid reason. Reckless driving as in driving like a baboon, but following all the road laws? Completely permitted.If you are following all the road laws, you wouldn't be driving like a baboon.
Since I've said that, I also want to know what this debate is all about?
Going to a different crime, shootin
Good point you made by the way, James Bond. The main debate is about this following video whether reversing in lane is considered reckless driving or not.If you are backing up to adjust the angle of your vehicle/park, no. If you are driving in reverse, yes. Driving in reverse is dangerous because cars were not designed to drive distances in that direction, hence why the forward gear is called "drive", and the reverse gear is called "reverse" in cars.
Chief_Hardy || VOSA Case #006 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIGGaUFNQqk#)
So in short police officers can suspect people as they see fit, with no evidence and they are in the right? I'm sorry but that is just corruption waiting to happen. Every citizen should have the legal right to take an officers claim to court regardless.
any driving the potiontial to harm citizens is considered reckless. Since were talking about the potential, the fact that there is anybody around goes down the drain.Issue is, that it's worded as in "can endanger" not "potentially endanger", that's the difference. It's not specified whether 'can at that moment' or 'can potentially' is meant here. Hence why I'd love a clarification from Supreme Courts or the Presidential office, 'cause honestly, you can potentially endanger other people by going 80km/h in Los Santos. Means you can pull over whoever you want and charge them 250$, just because they're driving a car.
Issue is, that it's worded as in "can endanger" not "potentially endanger", that's the difference. It's not specified whether 'can at that moment' or 'can potentially' is meant here. Hence why I'd love a clarification from Supreme Courts or the Presidential office, 'cause honestly, you can potentially endanger other people by going 80km/h in Los Santos. Means you can pull over whoever you want and charge them 250$, just because they're driving a car."Can" and "potentially" are synonyms.
Sugar, where are you pulling that information out from?
"Can" and "potentially" are synonyms.You've learned a different sort of English than I have.
You've learned a different sort of English than I have.
can
/kan/
Verb
Be able to: "they can run fast"; "he can't afford it".
potentially
Web definitions
with a possibility of becoming actual; "he is potentially dangerous"; "potentially useful".
A fat man has a potential of running fast, if he trained and lost some weight. However, as it is, he can not run fast.
That's the difference, in one in a million situation reversing will harm someone, doesn't make it illegal in every single situation.
Reversing up a highway off ramp could harm someone, hence why it is deemed reckless driving. The probability of the incident resulting in harm to another person is irrelevant in the Law. The fact that it Could is what matters, not that its a 1 in a Million chance.Ok so you, as SAPD Sergeant, are permitting officers to pull people over whenever the officer can figure out ANY way possible that it could harm someone, regardless of the possibility?
Act III: [...]driving recklessly, or not driving on the right side of the road is still a punishable offense. Law prescribe a fine of a maximum of 250 dollars for any road infraction. [...]
III.I: Reckless driving understand any form of driving that could endanger other citizens. Under such circumstances, a police officer is allowed to take necessary actions.
Ok so you, as SAPD Sergeant, are permitting officers to pull people over whenever the officer can figure out ANY way possible that it could harm someone, regardless of the possibility?
I'll keep that in mind next time you're in a car, as I said before, even while obeying all traffic laws, you can harm someone. If I get ARPD reports, I'll make sure to refer to this and everyone else's posts.
Act V: A criminal offence is an offence only if it is an offence in the written official documents of the United State of Argonath. Anything that is not specifically included can be brought into civil court in order to set the legitimacy of the case.
If you are caught in the act of doing something which may cause danger to other citizens you can be stopped by the police.My point in the argument is that if this is a generally accepted thing, then it allows for people pulling you over for just driving a car - the act of doing so has a potential of endangering other citizens. It's a bit outrageous, but permitted, apparently. Though, of course, if anyone actually tried to do that, everyone arguing here for it would yell for copbans and ARPD reports, so I want to know where's the line between "Too low of a potential of endangering someone - legal" and "You've got a pretty good chance of endangering someone - illegal". Again, you getting in your car and accelerating has a potential of endangering someone, but you wouldn't view it as a crime, as reckless driving, would you?
As a Judge yourself I'm surprised that you are unable to understand a simple part of what the topic of argument is about.I understand things pretty well.
Ok so you, as SAPD Sergeant, are permitting officers to pull people over whenever the officer can figure out ANY way possible that it could harm someone, regardless of the possibility?If they are doing something which breaks the law and can lead to this, yes. Reckless driving is pretty straightforward. You do it, and you are committing a crime. It's not hard to understand. Dissecting the meaning of the law from it's actual wording is just an attempt to find a loophole in the system. That is why laws are enforced by "the spirit of the law" and not "the letter of the law". That has always applied IRL and IG for various, obvious reasons.