Casper Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7619174.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-bus Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 That's a tough one. It was a little more than a technicality though. It was an ordinance that the elected officials implemented. The will of the people needs to change the referendum ordinance and then proceed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 personally i hate red light runners. so im in favor of that aspect of the cameras. ticket as many of those fucks as possible.what im not in favor of, is the way the cities blatantly try to make them revenue generators.it should be about safety, but its clearly not. once the city sees some dollar signs, they just focus on how they can get more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphy Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaag Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.unfortunately, these days, legislation has become more important than education. how else is gov't expected to grow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alienpi Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 There are ways to combat redlight cameras. There are plate flippers, plate covers, and motorcyclists can ride wheelies through lights to prevent identification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-bus Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 There are ways to combat redlight cameras. There are plate flippers, plate covers, and motorcyclists can ride wheelies through lights to prevent identification.I can't believe the constitutionality hasn't yet been decided. Seems like a pretty blatant attack on due process. Where is the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle owner was driving? Yet you get a notice by mail that you have been "convicted" and "punished". Both cages are in my name. Is my wife immune from punishment? Burn them all!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I can't believe the constitutionality hasn't yet been decided. Seems like a pretty blatant attack on due process. Where is the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle owner was driving? Yet you get a notice by mail that you have been "convicted" and "punished". Both cages are in my name. Is my wife immune from punishment? Burn them all!!!!!You're not being charge with a crime, so there is no criminal court process. You are being sued for running the red light, not charged.I hate that setup.I am *for* the cameras though. Under these conditions:- Footage should be reviewed and tickets should be issued by a sworn LEO- The tickets should be regular traffic tickets, with due process- Let the people decide if the camers take a pic of your face and they ticket the driver for running the red, or if they are not allowed to photograph the driver and instead ticket the owner for something like wrongful entrustment.- The cost of the camera system should be fixed and set in stone in the contract, and the company that sells/leases/maintains the cameras are not allowed to link their cost to enforcement activity in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler524 Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I am 110% completely against these cameras in every way shape and form. For one, you have some private company that is in the business to make money so that speaks for itself. They can manipulate traffic light times or do just about whatever they want since they have control and they’re in the business to make money. What is stopping them from giving a ticket to ever other car that goes through the light regardless red or green? The city/town/village is also attempting to generate more revenue so why would they interfere with the private company tweaking the lights? These things have absolutely nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue. The other thing that I don't like about them is that they are just more cameras out there for the government or whoever to tie into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xXx Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Hahaha.... We had these everywhere in L.A. The law in Cali says diver will be ticketed not owner of the car. I know people that would drive with mask on... As a joke and run the yellow to red lights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-bus Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 You're not being charge with a crime, so there is no criminal court process. You are being sued for running the red light, not charged.I hate that setup.I am *for* the cameras though. Under these conditions:- Footage should be reviewed and tickets should be issued by a sworn LEO- The tickets should be regular traffic tickets, with due process- Let the people decide if the camers take a pic of your face and they ticket the driver for running the red, or if they are not allowed to photograph the driver and instead ticket the owner for something like wrongful entrustment.- The cost of the camera system should be fixed and set in stone in the contract, and the company that sells/leases/maintains the cameras are not allowed to link their cost to enforcement activity in any way.Civil liability still requires a preponderance of the evidence. How does that lie in a picture of a plate? And for what damages am I being sued? And if a civil suit from a private entity is being decided without the opportunity for representation AND the municipality benefits financially from that civil liability, would this not be akin to corruption? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warlock Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I can't believe the constitutionality hasn't yet been decided. Seems like a pretty blatant attack on due process. Where is the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle owner was driving? Yet you get a notice by mail that you have been "convicted" and "punished". Both cages are in my name. Is my wife immune from punishment? Burn them all!!!!!Not to mention the 6th amendment violation of facing your accuser. That machine isn't answering any cross examination. However, I did a little research and discovered the way around that is just as C-Bus said; they have decriminalized it. It is now a civil offense. Which in my mind means I can sue any one I see run any light, if I take a picture of it. Also, no LEO had better stop anyone for doing it and issuing a criminal ticket for it.I object to running red lights also but that is why we have cops. And rights. One must take the warts with the good in our republic. Cops should do their jobs. If there is a dangerous intersection then PUT COPS THERE! sorry /rant off 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-bus Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Not to mention the 6th amendment violation of facing your accuser. That machine isn't answering any cross examination. However, I did a little research and discovered the way around that is just as C-Bus said; they have decriminalized it. It is now a civil offense. Which in my mind means I can sue any one I see run any light, if I take a picture of it. Also, no LEO had better stop anyone for doing it and issuing a criminal ticket for it.I object to running red lights also but that is why we have cops. And rights. One must take the warts with the good in our republic. Cops should do their jobs. If there is a dangerous intersection then PUT COPS THERE! sorry /rant offSue anyone you film running a red light AND pay off the judge and jury..... you win the suit without trial. No difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Civil liability still requires a preponderance of the evidence. How does that lie in a picture of a plate? And for what damages am I being sued? And if a civil suit from a private entity is being decided without the opportunity for representation AND the municipality benefits financially from that civil liability, would this not be akin to corruption?I'm with you. These are all good reasons why I hate the "civil" nature of camera tickets. Shit, or get off the pot. They need to be either traffic tickets (with due process) or nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I object to running red lights also but that is why we have cops. And rights. One must take the warts with the good in our republic. Cops should do their jobs. If there is a dangerous intersection then PUT COPS THERE! sorry /rant offlol thats funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.