Enforcement on the traffic

[Pingster]

According to Argonath Consitution
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?

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.

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.

[SugarD]

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.

[Nathan_Alexandrov]

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.

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.

[[WS]Jacob]

"Officers witnessing civilians committing crimes" not just suspecting everyone.

[Nathan_Alexandrov]

"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..

[SugarD]

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.

[Pingster]

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.

Tell me how is having all these things different from needing proof to pull over/suspect/jail? Going by your reasoning, theoretically, I can ask for investigation every time an officer farts in my way, and if they don't have proof or reason to fart, I'd be let go. So it goes back to needing proof to pull over/suspect/jail/kill/fart. Or am I missing something here?

[TinMan]

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.

The reason why I am protecting the Mulholland Intersection is basically Act III

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.

What I have under line gives me the constitution power to patrol Mulholland Intersection, and yes reversing in lane is against the law through the constitution act of reckless driving. Okay, thanks I will start writing up tickets for speeders now for driving too fast utilizing the ramps.

[Pingster]

and yes reversing in lane is against the law through the constitution act of reckless driving

That's not said there, don't make things up.

[TinMan]

Constitutions do not directly specify everything.

That's not said there, don't make things up.

So that is why its called an "implied power" by constitution.

Implied means

Are those powers authorized by a legal document (from the Constitution) which, while not stated,...

So if Section III Act III.I: States

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.

Therefore, again, it is against the law.

[Pot3r]

Ok here it is about the whole "Backing up" Topic... Tip 1 : USE COMMON SENSE.  Ok, Now their are many different situations where you can backup and where you shouldn't back up.. If its on a busy road like mulholland intersection where people are going down that offramp like crazy you should not because you can not swerve in enough time to miss them, but in a cenario where you are like on a side road in Red County you should be able to back up to a certain extent as long as you don't see anybody coming. In the previous cenario about mulholland intersection, Just drive down to the bottom of the ramp and make a... You guessed it a U turn. It's easy to do,and it really doesn't take much effort....

[Pingster]

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.


Anyway, as I said, you're free to start a court case. Guess in the meantime people will just offroad up to the highway, as there are no road laws off road.

[TinMan]

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.

Dream on. The problem with offroading up to the LS-LV Highway is the fact that you have to cross over 2 lanes of traffic [again endangering public] to get onto the correct side of the road.

Again, implied by Section III Act III.I.

[Pingster]

Suppose they'll offroad up until they're out of your sight then.

[TinMan]

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.

Back to the real case.

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.

I am sure the Chief of Police, Argonath Driving Schools, and citizens of Argonath will say that it is illegal without a doubt.