NM Ping
If you want on or off the NM Ping list, please FReepmail me.
Access to the ping list is available to anyone by going to my FR home page.
Posted on 05/12/2009 10:17:16 AM PDT by george76
Farmington attorney who opposes red-light cameras in Farmington is fighting two tickets he received after his cars were caught on camera zipping through Albuquerque intersections.
He contends Albuquerque’s ordinance violates state law and the federal constitution.
He says he wasn’t driving but purposely hasn’t asked family members who was.
(Excerpt) Read more at kob.com ...
The idea of an “infraction” is itself unconstitutional.
Nowhere in the USC does it say that any crime, no matter how small, is subject to less proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Infractions use the civil quantum of proof — “more likely than not.”
And cameras at red lights where you can’t see the driver don’t even meet that.
This is a slow, but surging, swell of people fighting and winnin these camera tickets.
Go Titus!
I’ve heard some people out West like to use the traffic cams for long-distance varmint-shooting target practice!
so how is this any different than parking tickets?
the gubermint doesn’t have to prove who did the parking for the ticket to be valid...
just wondering.
yes, I know one is a moving violation that affects insurance rates, but get enough parking tickets and they can impound your car on a traffic stop.
NM Ping
If you want on or off the NM Ping list, please FReepmail me.
Access to the ping list is available to anyone by going to my FR home page.
I can’t stand these cameras, they are a money making racket. From what I understand, when a city is to install traffic lights, they monitor the area for traffic, speeds, and they have to take into account for braking and stopping distance. I have heard that the companies that sell and install these red light cameras DO NOT take any of these items into account and they at many times malfunction. The red light camera is NOT an official representative of the city and cannot appear in court, so should be thrown out. IMHO.
Governments cause extra rear end accidents thru short yellow lights.
Regular yellow lights do not bring in as much revenue.
I think that red-light cameras are fine. They are much more objective and impartial than any other sort of witness.
This shylock thinks that he can argue his way out of anything. Boy, do I hate that sort of lawyer!
Fact is, he owns the car, and is therefore responsible for its use, even if someone else (presumably a family member) was driving. You can’t hide responsibility by shoving your belongings into someone else’s hands. That is like some swindlers I know who keep all their swag in the name of a wife or girlfriend, so that no court judgments against them are enforceable.
Cars kill many more people than guns. If I lend out my guns, or let people borrow them, I certainly am partly responsible if someone uses one in a crime. And cars (unlike arms) have no special protection under the Constitution.
I say, fine this hot-shot lawyer, and throw him in the clink if he doesn’t pay. Take his car and auction it (if the court can think of a reason.) Revoke his license.
I tried to get a vanity plate with F***REDLIGHTCAMERAS but they wouldn’t let me. The woman behind the counter said it had too many letters.
Red-light cameras dealt blow: Isett, other lawmakers fear for civil liberties
As House members added amendments to Isett's bill that would restructure the troubled Texas Department of Transportation, Elkins and Ortiz filed an amendment that would gradually phase out red-light cameras in Texas. The measure passed overwhelmingly.
Isett has long opposed the use of the cameras at busy intersections - including at five in Amarillo - on grounds that they are money-making operations for local governments (the average fine is $75) and unconstitutional because the program doesn't allow motorists to fight charges that they ran a red light.
Companies who make, install, and manage these cameras for large fees and commissions are doing nicely.
I say impose these penalties on YOU. After all, I am just following your logic... He did NOT commit the offense, and yet you want to steal his car, revoke his license, and take his money or his freedom. You didn't commit the offense either, but that doesn't matter in your universe.
By your logic, Hertz would be responsible for any infractions committed by their customers.
The (British) company that manages the red-light camera system in a neighboring county just suspended billing the county while it comes up with options to increase revenue.
A state law went into effect at the beginning of the year making all intersections with red-light cameras comply with state traffic engineering standards for yellow light duration, and, since then, the red light cameras have not produced enough violations even to pay for the their continued operation.
Your lack of logic and common sense makes me hope that if I am ever tried for anything, you are not on my jury.
Running a red light is a moving violation in the universe of the normal. Explain why simply owning the car makes reality go away.
If your car gets stolen and the thief runs a red light, since you still legally own the car, should you meekly pay the fine and the insurance consequences?
>>so how is this any different than parking tickets?
The car’s existence in the illegal parking place is the violation irrespective of how it got there.
The “car” doesn’t create a moving violation -— a person does. Therefore The State needs to prosecute the person who committed the violation.
>>tried to get a vanity plate with F***REDLIGHTCAMERAS but they wouldn’t let me. The woman behind the counter said it had too many letters.
Bumper sticker?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.