The parent and GP bring up two good points.
1). Speed limits are set arbitrarily. If this is not so, how can we allow one or more drivers to exceed the "safe driving limit"?

Quoting the parent:
>Just so you know, every state in the US requires you to lower your speed to a safe driving speed in the event of inclement weather
2). We're expected to know enough to lower our speed when conditions warrant but we're not smart enough to raise our speed if conditions warrant?

Bah.

--

My other sig is at the cleaners.

" attorneys say they are on the receiving end of sophisticated scams with increasing frequency"

It took some real genius to plan and execute this scam, I see why a lawyer would fall for this.

Should we tell them about Nigeria?
Nah.

--

My other sig is at the cleaners

IANAL

There is a reason a law like this is in place. We've collectively decided that lawful orders should be obeyed and I agree with this.

Having said that, there's a reason we have judges and juries. If it was so cut and dried we would just need "robo-judge" to pronounce sentence after determining guilt.

There are circumstances to every case that should be used to decide "guilt". Just because he violated the letter of the law, in my mind, doesn't make him guilty.
By not complying did he put himself or the officers in danger? I'm even willing to go so far as to ask if his non-compliance caused any other problems that I can't think of.

If not, then offer him an apology and turn him loose.

I'm really sick of hearing about cases of police acting like pimple-faced high school bullies, who don't know enough about human nature to de-escalate a situation, instead relying on their "authoritay" to push their employers around.
Google "DC cop snowball fight" for a laughable example.

--

My normal sig is at the cleaners