Surely it is judges, not lawyers, who have the experience and qualifications to definitively lay out what the Land Transport Act says? Otherwise why bother with courts?
you've deliberately twisted my words as though I am suggesting some rule by lawyer's dictate to try and white knight for some guy scurrilously attack upon a cop just doing their job. The principles that I have repeatedly discussed are well-established.
I twisted nothing... you self-described as "someone who has the experience and qualifications to definitively lay out what the Land Transport Act says". Which is patently untrue, as I pointed out. What's more, based on that you said "you're in no position to debate the law with me". Even judges' opinions are subject appeal and reversal. It seems that in this forum you *are* claiming rule by lawyer's dictate over what opinions are valid and what are not. And, in this case, claiming to know that a cop was "just doing his job", despite having no actual information, barring a statement to the contrary.
I think the cap fits.