It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Activist Group Considers 'Red-Light Cam' Lawsuits

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Ok now tell us why a bank camera is accceptable and a red light camera not? Both are cameras are they not?

Which ones are in private properties (at least properties you must enter), and which ones are on public roads?

Additionally, if you rob a bank, you've just infringed on the bank's rights. If you run a light, you're infringing on... oh, wait, never mind.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Johnmike]




posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
My argument against the cameras is that, legally and ethically, I don't think a camera should have the legal right to bring charges against you. There must be an accuser that you can face in court.

??
?? Of course. When was the last time you heard a fingerprint testify? Or a shell casing? Of course the photo should have an interpreter.

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't make a lot of sense..


Cameras issuing tickets for running red lights are only an example of what this begins as.

The camera did not issue the ticket. The camera gathered evidence. A person issued the ticket.


As for running red lights being a victimless crime, that is entirely relative.

The old "if a tree falls in the woods" dilemma, eh?

Running a red light is against the law. Whether or not it resulted in an accident is irrelevant. Whether or not it was reported is irrelevant. The fact that in one case it may be victimless is irrelevant.



The question, jsobecky, isn't whether or not we should have the right to run red lights. The question is, how much ability do you want to give the state to invent, find, detect, and charge people with victimless crimes?

The example you give about petty crimes going unreported are without merit. Of course, we don't want to report every jaywalker - it would grind the wheels of society to a halt. But we don't want to give away the right to report a law being broken, either.

As for your question on how much ability do we want to give to the police, I would say, enough for them to be able to enforce the laws that we see fit to pass. Otherwise, they are neutered.


All crime is relative.

Are you saying that what may be considered a crime here may be legal behavior elsewhere? Because otherwise, your statement is puzzling.

Enforcement can be arbitrary. Reporting a crime can be selective. But once an act makes it into the law books, it is a crime. And while it is a law, it is not relative.


Why? Because Law is Relative. And yet by not reporting them, you commit a crime yourself. Will they then report you for not reporting them? No. Why? Because Law is Relative.

Law is not relative. Law can be oppressive, onerous, or downright silly at times. But it is not relative.

That's why a cop can listen to your sob story all day long and commiserate with you till the cows come home, and still write you a ticket.


Now, if you remove that check and balance, suddenly anyone, at any time, can be charged with any crime, including failure to report a crime, regardless of whether or not anyone was affected or had a grievance. Do you have any idea what that would do to the judicial system? To say nothing of what it would do to the American way of life!

I don't see where you are getting the notion of removing checks and balances. Is this still part of that "cameras can't write tickets" argument?

Take this scenario: you rob a bank. You leave behind evidence in the form of fingerprints.

Should we expect the fingerprint to testify against you? That seems to be what you are arguing in the case of the camera.


We are currently, very close to being technologically capable of creating cameras that can analyze identity, behavior, and cross-reference it against laws like these on the books, find the person's address, and mail them a ticket for the offense. We're not talking about something decades from now, but rather in our technical grasp. All it would require is a company to put it together, a government willing to impliment it, and a citizenry willing to accept it.

Is this the sort of world you want?

I want as little gov't intrusion into my life as possible, probably less than most people here do. However, I do appear on the opposite side of most in many discussions here, because I don't automatically fall for alarmist cries of Big Brother.

Take this thread, for instance. The topic is whether the use of redlight cams is unconstitutional. It is not whether or not I want to live in a police state. It is not whether running a red light is a victimless crime, or if there are silly laws on the books in Texas or about the newest technology on the horizon.

It is an interesting discussion on the boundaries of evidence. Although the argument against cameras is a flawed one, i.e., that one cannot confront their accuser, it is interesting nonetheless. To divert the discussion over to my personal preferences is sidetracking, nothing more.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
It is an interesting discussion on the boundaries of evidence. Although the argument against cameras is a flawed one, i.e., that one cannot confront their accuser, it is interesting nonetheless. To divert the discussion over to my personal preferences is sidetracking, nothing more.


Everytime we get an article like this dont'cha just wish you could see our foundling fathers and ask them if they foresaw these events followed by what was your real intent?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The camera did not issue the ticket. The camera gathered evidence. A person issued the ticket.

You're right, it's not the camera that issues the ticket...The issuer of the ticket happens to be a privately-owned corporation that doesn't have State or Federal Authority to enforce laws. Sure enough, all the corporation has to do is report their evidence to the police so that the police can issue the ticket & then get a police representative into court, but the corporation itself does not have the legal authority to issue tickets on its own cognizance. This is a pretty fine line to walk though...If the corporation handles the issuing of tickets on it's own evidence/accusations, then it should get dismissed in court. In all cases when you appear in court to fight such a ticket, consult your lawyer about these points first; Ask the lawyer to find out who really issues the ticket & whether or not that facility actually has law enforcement powers to issue the ticket.


Originally posted by shots
Everytime we get an article like this dont'cha just wish you could see our foundling fathers and ask them if they foresaw these events followed by what was your real intent?

Well, the Constitution is what's available to understand their intentions & subsequent Congressional Journals do a pretty good job of explaning their reasons for writing the Constitution the way that they wrote it. Since that's the only thing available from them, it'll have to do...And my opinion is that they left us more than enough of their knowledge, wisdom & insight to keep us as a Nation of People over Government, if we'd just stop & consider the wisdom they left for us.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Everytime we get an article like this dont'cha just wish you could see our foundling fathers and ask them if they foresaw these events followed by what was your real intent?

Boy would I love to pick their brains! I'd say, given the advances in science, which they had no way of foreseeing, they did a damn good job of creating some pretty fine documents!






Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by jsobecky
The camera did not issue the ticket. The camera gathered evidence. A person issued the ticket.

You're right, it's not the camera that issues the ticket...The issuer of the ticket happens to be a privately-owned corporation that doesn't have State or Federal Authority to enforce laws. Sure enough, all the corporation has to do is report their evidence to the police so that the police can issue the ticket & then get a police representative into court, but the corporation itself does not have the legal authority to issue tickets on its own cognizance. This is a pretty fine line to walk though...If the corporation handles the issuing of tickets on it's own evidence/accusations, then it should get dismissed in court. In all cases when you appear in court to fight such a ticket, consult your lawyer about these points first; Ask the lawyer to find out who really issues the ticket & whether or not that facility actually has law enforcement powers to issue the ticket.

Yes, you're right. I do find the outsourcing of some of these functions to be kind of curious. It does bring up a whole new arena of what's legal and what's not.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
...My main arguement with the red light cameras is the possibility of abuse. These cameras are installed and operated by an independant company, who gets a portion of each fine that is issued. There have been documentated cases where the amount of time that the yellow caution light is on has been reduced because the projected revenues used to sell the public on these cameras, wasn't being met. The link to the NMA's site in my previous post links to the reports on this.
...

I'm glad that someone already pointed this out. Those companies also found out that if you extend the time of the yellow light, people running red lights becomes almost non-existent.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled long ago that a traffic citation must be issued by a Police Officer ina Police Officer uniform, any ticket mailed from a camera shot is already Illegal and most people know this and don't pay them.


The ticket I received was signed as being "verified" by Officer .



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12SeVeN34
The ticket I received was signed as being "verified" by Officer .


I'm not surprised...So far in nearly 30 years of voting history behind me, the only candidate I've ever found worthy of my vote was named, "No Confidence."


Seriously though, a ticket that's not even signed by a human being would get laughed out of court...And likely the corporation that issued the ticket could've been counter-sued for your legal & court fees...And, if appropriate, any lost time from your job to appear on the court date.


[edit on 19-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Yes I agree. Living in Orlando all my life I saw this coming. Orlando officials knew that first coming out and saying that the camera were for ticketing would cause a uproar. So, what did they do? First they said they were putting them in key traffic areas to monitor traffic flow and help in studying ways to reduce congestion. Then later they said they were putting up more to try and reduce the red light runners by the cameras just being there. Now several years later they once again are saying that they want to collect fines. They went through the whole descencitizing process to lull Orlandoans into hopefully accepting them. Even after Fla. State has ruled them unconstitutional,and unenforcable.
Just one more show of the corruption and fraud being perpetruded by the City government.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join