I have included the entire post for reference, the bold part immediately below your quote was directed specifically at you (cool chick), however nowhere in the post did I say that anyone (you or stevepaa or anyone else for that matter) took the position that they "claimed that he shouldn't be allowed to go to court." I apologize if my post misled you.

Although several of my posts have been edited, they are strtictly for spelling or to add a response to a post that was posted before mine. I do this inorder to avoid adding a second post in reponse to a post directly above the first post. I feel that this saves space and is more efficient for the server.

*edited to add* when i add statements to a post I usually proceed the added statement with "edited to add" as i did this in case. Please see some of my previous posts for evidence of this activity.

When i do retract statements i do so in a subsequent post and not by removing the statement from the original post. I do this because I believe that removing the statement from the original post unfairly gives the impression that i never made such a statement. I have done this once during this thread around page 10 or 11 where i made a misinterpretation of one of moses posts. I retracted the statement that i made but left the original statement in the original post. I have included the entire post you are refferring to here and this one happens to have not been edited at all. I hope this will clear up some of the misunderstandings.

Oh, so we're simply at a disagreement, as I don't agree. I feel it is a method to prove guilt or innocence, depending on the case. If one is guilty, they prosecutor is proving them guilty. If one is innocent, the person is proving innocence.

And if one is guilty and trying to scam the system, that person is of low integrity to me.

You do not the concept of freedom at all, do you? If I choose to help you, say change a flat tire on the busy freeway, you have absolutely NO obligation to me, period. Whatever you choose to do is completely voluntary. Using your point of view, my help now obligates you to do something for me, even though you did not ask for my help. The same is true for society. When it helps someone, or acts in any way, it does so without obligating me to do anything in return. To do otherwise, is simply not American, it is communism, plain and simple.

As to working to change the speed limits many of us have tried for many years, without success. Not because most people do not want the change, eg Montana, but because of undemocratic dictators in Washington think they know what’s best for us. Again this is truly un-American. Its all about politics and money, nothing to do with safety or what is right. It is our right as a free people to oppose this oppression in any way we can, ie contesting all tickets or whatever works best

Actually I agree with this statement entirely, well except for the bold part, it is the resonsibility of the state to prove the accused is guilty, not the accused to prove they inncocent. When one pleads "not guilty" they are asking the state to prove them guilty.

You seem to fail to understand the concept of presumption of innocence. When you plead guilty you are admitting guilt. When you plead not guilty it is actually a true statement because you have not yet been proven guilty. You must be proven guilty before you can be guilty. That is why we have the presumption of innocence. That is why Mul has done nothing wrong when he says "not gulty."

*editd to add*
the easiest way to understand this concpet is think of them as pleading "not guilty yet"

true

But he knows he's going to be found guilty anyway as he is guilty and the evidence against him proves that....so why bother? He knows the law, he knows the speed limit there, he knows he's breaking the law, he's not forced to speed. Why not accept punishment for your actions like an adult and accept personal responsibility?

Right on.

A similar concept is true of costs society bears in supporting its people. In a free society we are under NO obligation to return the favor. THe only exception may be defense as we must be participants, but giving up this particular freedom is part of a contract that we sign up to by continuing to live in this country. It is our first obligation to protect ourself (you cannort do ANYTHING for anybody if you arn't around), our family, our religion, and then our country. It is also so we do not have to give up THE REST of our freedoms.

Most of the left has it all backward.

The answers to that comes back to several basic reasons,
That people want the sate to work as hard for its money as they do (this is why I did it)
Another is that they actually have their very little to lose by going to court if they can not get an acceptable plea bargain (usually involving reduced fines or traffic school). If you are going to pay the max fine anyway, you can take the 0% chance you will get off by paying the fine, or go to court and hope for that 1% chance it gets dismissed. This may or may not have anything to do with the responsibility to pay the money to the stae, maybe they don't want the moeny to the insurance comppany when they find out about the ticket.
I'm sure there are others but it really does not matter why people exercise their right to trial.

The solution is to not break the law.

Yeh, like drive 55. NEVER!!

Help me, don't help me. I have no obligation to you. Why would you think I think otherwise?

The same is not true for society. If the society you chose to live in decides by democratic processes to offer services, then you as part of that society will pay for it even if you don't use it. That is American democracy in action.

Are you guys STILL at it? I can hear Mul laughing from his jail cell.

Hiya Jeff. Well, it is getting off on a tangent now, That's for sure.

First off america is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. Even if I am forced to pay, and its because of a democratic vote to pay, it still does not obligate the recipant to anything. In other words I like to race my Porsche, its dangerous, yet I owe no considertion to society whatsoever if they choose to pay for my care if I have an uninsured wreck or i am unable to pay for my medical. Society chose to pay, not me, and I would race in any case. I am under no obligation to society if they choose to pay for my injurys incurred while racing. They can choose NOT to pay. That is their ONLY recourse. Stopping me from racing is NOT THEIR choice its mine.

what you desribe is how it works if you can't pay. what's your beef?

Do you mean you want to race your car on city streets or at a raceway or on a deserted highway? I only say you can't do the first with impunity.

Interesting, yet not surprising, that those on this board that are militantly authoritarian are the leftists. Yet another display that the reality of leftism contradicts their fallacious rhetoric that they are liberal in any way...I understand completely that their resentment for yours truly colors their current vigorous defense of "big brother," but it is perplexing that similarly minded folk fight so hard for liberties, especially the liberties of dictators and killers like Tookie and Mumia, yet they are rigidly pro-authority when it comes to the racket of traffic law.

I have learned the hard way not to give power trippers and falable humans the right to wield their authority without mercy. Although in this case the officer's memory was suspect I felt it wise not to hammer too hard as the judge was obviously prejudiced...Calling him out on his prejudice would have only enhanced my penalty and may have encouraged the justice to use his creativity maliciously, justified as valid due to contempt (not that I don't have plenty for the justice system).

Upholding the law is "militant authoritarian" to you?

And no one here defends the liberties of dictators and killers, except you.

So you think you're above the law? You think you should be able to break the law?

Admit it, you broke the law, no one forced you to break the law, you got caught, assume personal responsiblitiy for a change.

CC, fat chance of that.

What is the difference between what Nul did and the welfare recipient who decides to stay on welfare although he could get off?




ZIP, nada. They both play the system and waste taxpayers money for personal objectives.

I've always wondered what argument could actually penetrate Mul's violent verbiage and show him to be the blind fanatic and egotist he really is.

Now he's done it all by himself.

A couple of nights ago I was doing +100 through the Sepulveda pass...I also did 80 in a 35 on Mulholland.