As my client approached the traffic light he stopped and ensured that there was no traffic approaching from any direction. He then crossed the intersection, admittedly in contravention of the red light, but in the knowledge that it was impossible for any cars to collide at the intersection as a result of his action… in doing so he effectively adhered to purpose of the traffic light.
Further, since there was no accident and no possibility of an accident; there was no physical harm done; no possibility of any harm being done… without harm of any sort to anybody whatsoever, and without contravention of the purpose of the traffic light, we contend that no crime was committed.
It may be argued that were the court to accept the above line of thinking, then it would be setting a precedent whereby it would lose the power to enforce the law that crossing a traffic light while the lights are red is illegal. We contend, however, that for anyone arguing this line it is essential firstly, that they must fully understand the purpose of the traffic lights, and must fully adhere to the purpose of said lights, and further that nobody must be harmed, and there must be no possibility of anybody being harmed by their action, if they can demonstrate the above, then the precedent stands… and since there is no harm, and no possibility of any harm, it is not a dangerous precedent to set..."
No comments:
Post a Comment