Posted on 06/09/2010 8:11:25 AM PDT by HandsOffMyFreedom
If you’ve ever been issued a traffic ticket by a red light or speeding camera, you will revel in the bittersweet justice one luck recipient bestowed upon his local nanny state police department.
Upon receiving a speeding ticket in the mail, Brian McCrary followed the citation’s payment instructions and attempted to pay his $90 fine on the Bluff City Police Department’s (BCPD) website. Much to his surprise, he discovered its domain name was about to expire.
Instead of paying his fine, McCrary saw it as a rare opportunity to literally ‘pay back’ the police department for violating his civil liberties with ‘Big Brother’ traffic cameras ...
(Excerpt) Read more at nannystateliberationfront.wordpress.com ...
Its called Free Speech, not whining and its in the Constitution. I know thats a forbidden document up in your area but you can find it online.
Why don’t cops pay a fine everytime they speed?
Apparently, you just finished your “Nanny State” propaganda course. How’s that working out for you?
I’d sell it back for having the charges dropped so my insurance rate wouldn’t go up AND a sign placed at the intersection warning drivers of the camera. The point is supposed to be to stop people from running red lights. Of course we know it’s really to generate revenue. I wonder if cities with high ticket counts get kickbacks from insurance companies. If they don’t, they should. Now that would be a way to REALLY generate revenue!
If this post has a point it was lost in the donut shop. When you get out of fourth grade, give us a shout.
Ahhhh, so the speeding ticket morphed into a red light ticket. You claim red light cameras increase safety. You deny red light cameras are about safety and not revenue.
Perhaps you should leave the donut shop sport.
I doubt that the ‘rest of us are happier’.
I’m over 40. I realize that sometimes, people do stupid things and ‘get away’ with them. It happens. I’m glad there wasn’t a cop there, but to be honest, something ‘stupid’ like that hasn’t happened in over a decade.
Youth is wasted on the young, don’t you know?
Evelyn Woods Reading Dynamics course coming to you this Christmas. Open, follow, go to another blog site, start over.
Nice try dutch boy, too bad your deflection isn’t working.
But they never did explain the three sea shells.
A guy breaks the law by running a red light, almost killing someone (probably) and thinks it is a violation of his civil liberties that he gets a ticket by machine?
****************************************************
Not likely ,, The vast majority of red light camera tickets are for making a right on red without coming to a full and complete stop ,, the cameras are for revenue generation only .
-PJ
So what? The fact still stands.
‘cause no one gets those, or worse, when T-boned.
I can look for oncoming traffic when I start up from a red light.
Nothing I can do to stop a jackass from rear ending me and I’ve had it happen twice.
I don’t think the cameras cause rear end collisions. It’s the people behind you that aren’t paying attention.
******************************************************
That’s damn near moronic, cars on the road have widely varying capabilities. I was rear ended once on a major highway ,, came over a rise and traffic was snarled. I was driving a VW GTI and still had my autocross competition tires mounted from the weekend... the car behind me was a Vega station wagon with skinny cheap tires and the car behind him was a 1 ton 4wd truck with an full bed of construction tools... The people behind me didn’t stand a chance.. That GTI could stop FAR quicker than they could.
We have cameras in use where I live ,, I have come close to being rear ended many times.
When your light turns green, you wait for all the cars on the cross street to stop at their red light? No wonder you’re getting rear ended.
I got rear ended by a rich b&&&& on a cellphone wasn’t paying attention. I was behind another car that was stopped because of a pededstrian on the crosswalk crossing with the light. Another time I was rear ended by a teenager on a cellphone who was oblivious to traffic being stopped while the lead car was waiting to turn left.
You can see if someone is approaching a traffic light at a high rate of speed. You are to enter the intersection when it is safe to do so. If the cars ahead of you are blocking the intersection, it doesn’t give you just cause to pull out and block the next cycle of traffic.
I have been hit from the left by a car that ran a light (elderly couple who’d left a doctor’s appointment). And even then I used to wait for “clearance” before pulling into an intersection. 18 wheeler in the left lane, I figured it was safe to enter the intersection blindly because he also pulled out and I had the light (he’d take the blunt if anything was coming through illegally). Except he stopped short when he saw the elderly couple coming through (his big vehicle blocked my view).
But to just say “dammit I have a right to floor it on green” is dumb. Law says otherwise.
You missed my point...I have no idea if there is a situation where, say, the DC sniper was video taped. You said the 6th Amend. was violated since the guy in the original story did not have the benefit of confrontation with real live witnesses. QED, it was a bogus conviction.
I proposed a similar situation whereby the evidence that is available has no human witnesses to convict, but rather resides solely on a machine and asked if you would support that. Don't bring in search issues and probable cause, because the same thing could be said for convicting on the red light run. The fact of the matter is, we like photo evidence for other crimes because if the photo says he did it and he did it, then he did it. Even the original guy didn't argue that he was wrongfully convicted, he argued that it wasn't fair to get caught. Such logic is bogus, not the conviction.
Thus, you are not offering a rebuttal to a legitimate conviction of a true crime, you are offering what is frighteningly close to a liberal's excuse for a crime to go unpunished. Pookie shouldn't be put to death for killing the cop because just the gun, his admission, and other evidence proved he did it. But, he's a black muslim, and no one willing to speak saw him actually shoot the gun, so let him go and let him write books and let him be famous. If I had a photo of the shooting, but no humans, would you agree with this left-wing cause? This is nonsense.
The guy in the original story was speeding, not a red light (okay, let's get over this difference). Who cares? He broke the law, got caught by a tattle tale machine, tough luck, bub. Lay off the gas next time and you won't have a problem. Keep speeding and you kill innocent old ladies, bunnies, and puppies (all the red neck antinomian hippies jumped me with this brainless argument, so here it is in print). Rant away you knuckle draggers.
Not so. Here in the death capitol of the world, PHX, the job of the cameras was to stop the late entering of the intersections by guys pushing the edge. It worked to lower the death statistics and scare the p-waddling out of the folks that believe "no one is watching". I say, "good" and if that raises revenue, "even better", and if you don't like it, then lay the heck off the gas pedal at the intersection. Do the right thing, don't kill the puppies and gerbils and all the other wildlife the bozos arguing against this claim I am trying to protect.
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.