Perhaps I was wrong to say that he didn't prove anything. He did. His actions and the posters' responses confirm that you can publish any nonsensical position on-line and get lots of people to buy in, while others see through it.
ðŸ‘
Meanwhile, most other folks would not have tunnel vision, and see through this correctly.
👠👠ðŸ‘
Gimme a break.
I am! I'm reading your convoluted statements.
The guy was a complete jerk from jump street!
No, it was a clever way to make a statement to the police state in Texas.
His wasn't a clever way to pay for a ticket; it wasn't even a clever way to protest a perceived unfair fine (as the title of this thread should have stated).
Nope, it was a clever, excellent way to pay the ridiculous fine.
He GAMBLED and LOST, reacted like a cry-baby when it came time to pay the piper, and took out his anger over his own chosen fate on an undeserving third party, and grotesquely, to boot.
Man, talked about confusing thinking, to say the
LEAST! Again, nothing grotesque about paying the fine in cash. He
EVEN politely asked the clerk if paying by cash was allowed, and she said yes.
Excessive fine? Thats just your own very narrow assessment of the way in which Texas protects Texans. "We don't want you speeding, so we've fixed things so it'll be painful for you if you do" is a fair attitude...one that in no way implies a police state...one that the majority of Texans who elected the people who passed the laws in question apparently support...one that Washington apparently doesn't buy into. "Excessive" isn't quantifiable; it's relative to the desired end (and, of course, the tunnel vision of the observer).
If you think $212 for going only 9 mph over the limit is acceptable, good for you. Myself (and I suspect most sane individuals (do you know what that word means? I doubt it) can think of
WAY MORE WISE WAYS to spend my money. But, if you want to spend it that way, fine.
ryck's position is spot-on, and I suspect that your idea of the "most folks [who'd] see through this correctly"(
*) probably comes from a combination of your having looked into one of those facing mirror arrangements in which you see yourself from here to eternity
and your never having looked up "correctly" in a dictionary, NOT from your having assessed the reactions of the folks who've posted in this thread.
And your persistent complaining about jury trials wasting taxpayer dollars demonstrates a VERY FRIGHTENING and, VERY UNFORTUNATELY, GROWING lack of appreciation by Americans for the wisdom inherent our Constitution and the benefits it has bestowed upon us and our forbears who fought for them. The right to a trial by jury under ANY circumstances is NEVER to be sneezed at.
Oh, sure, in any population there'll be some people who'll buy into and applaud any display of stupidity no matter how gross it is, but luckily for America, those people don't rule the roost, and hopefully they never will.
So, by your convoluted logic, the instance I mentioned regarding the bogus infraction my wife got would have been better resolved by having a hearing that included a jury? Man, what prehistoric thinking!
(*) You often state opinions as if you're actually speaking for "other folks", and perhaps you are, but if you are I'd like to know who they are and by what authority and in what capacity you're speaking for them.
I'm sure there are
MANY, MANY folks out there that would share either the same or similar opinions. But, for folks that have tunnel vision, it's understandable why they can't fathom such logic.
