Posted on 01/02/2002 8:15:10 PM PST by Darth Sidious
Well, this should be an interesting thread, for the irony if nothing else…
About five months ago, on August 7th, a couple of your friendly neighborhood Freepers – namely, Rebelbase and yours truly – stood at the intersection of Battleground Avenue and Pisgah Church Road in Greensboro, NC, and protested the red-light cameras that have gone up all over the city. It’d take up too much time to go into the details of our Freep, and the full story is on the ”After-Action Report” thread. But for a quick recap: for over four hours under the hot August sun, we told motorists to “Smile: You’re On KOMRADE KAMERA”. We literally got hundreds of honks and thumbs-ups of support. Our friends in law enforcement said they supported us in our efforts against the red-light cameras. It was a lot of fun, and we met a lot of good people during our time at the intersection.
Well folks, that was Round One. Now comes the far more serious Round Two.
A few weeks ago I was driving down the same stretch of road, heading into Greensboro on some business. It was raining, there had been some fog but otherwise visibility was good.
As I approached the same intersection of Battleground Ave. and Pisgah Church Road, the light turned yellow. I began to slow down but saw the guy behind me not stopping, then putting on brakes and skidding on the rain-saturated asphalt. Now, I saw the light just turn red just as my car got to the line at the intersection. But if I came to a sudden stop, I would almost certainly have been rear-ended to the best of my judgment.
To make a long story short, I got caught by the camera. And I'm counting no less than 3, possibly 4 violations of the U.S. Constitution on the citation in front of me.
I could pay the $50 fine, and it would be a neat and tidy affair. I could also never tell my children, with any sincerity, about how much we believed these cameras were wrong, so much so that we braved 100-degree heat against them. And if I rolled over now, and let this go on, what kind of incremental damage would I be doing to my children's freedoms? The same freedoms that our forefathers paid a far greater price for, that we might enjoy these liberties?
God gave the stewardship of those liberties to we the people. Not to the state, not to any government, but to us. Folks, you will not believe how much I've seethed the past week or so at reading this citation, how much disregard that enough of the wrong kind of people have for the Constitution.
I could pay the fine, and be comfortable. Or I could contest, and justify my actions, that they avoided serious damage to my vehicle and more importantly, to myself. And quite frankly... my conscience simply cannot allow me to pay this fine. My heart is compelled with no other choice, but to fight. And to fight with every whit of my being.
There is a federal lawsuit against the city of High Point, NC, for their red-light cameras. That doesn't encompass Greensboro, however. And to the best of my ability there are no lawsuits against Greensboro regarding them. I'm ready, willing and able to go the distance, to pledge not to be worn down, to be persistent as all get out, however long it takes to prove what you and me already know: that the red-light cameras are a gross violation of the United States Constitution. I want... no, have to fight this... but I can't do it alone.
At this point, it has been advised that I post this to FreeRepublic.com's general forum, to fill everyone in on what's taken place, at the circumstances now before us and what we can make of it to contest the red-light cameras. And to ask for any advice and counsel that Free Republic's "legal eagles" might offer. Because when it comes to anything like filing a lawsuit, I'm a babe in the woods. I've the passion, just not the knowledge or experience. But I wanna give this all I can.
I support the legal use of the red light cameras to save lives and catch irresponsible "little white lie" drivers that have depended upon the statistics of a high police/driver ratio. As I'm aware and recall, the legal problem here in California was that Lockheed, rather than the city of San Diego, was charged with too much control in oversight. What I remember of the ruling, the technology was not questioned, nor the right of the city to make use of such devices in issuing citations.
Really, I'm not buying your story but I'll try to assume this isn't made up. It would seem difficult to prove, and even more difficult to show you were reasonable in avoiding a rear-end accident by (potentially) crossing into traffic. Surely you used your horn to gain the other driver's attention? This would require all sorts of photos of the area, any doppler data you can get from your local news for that time and so on. Just seems like a bit waste of time. And money.
On sending the citation to the car's owner, rather than driver, it's just a matter of time before you'll be identifiable by a transponder chip in your state-issued driver's license. Surely, that would clear up this current flaw in the system. Yes? Remember, you drive at the whim of the State, it's not a right.
So the guys that hold up a 7-11 and get arrested should have
their cases dismissed because they didn't know they would
be arrested based on their identities recorded by the store
camera and they were denied getting names of bystanders?
Good grief man.
He said:
"....As I approached the same intersection of Battleground Ave.
and Pisgah Church Road, the light turned yellow. I began to
slow down but saw the guy behind me not stopping, then putting
on brakes and skidding on the rain-saturated asphalt. Now,
I saw the light just turn red just as my car got to the line at the
intersection. But if I came to a sudden stop, I would almost
certainly have been rear-ended to the best of my judgment...."
It was a judgment call. We all make 'em. When we're wrong,
we pay the consequences.
When you see a light turn yellow, and if it's safer to proceed,
and if you can proceed through the intersection safely, you may
proceed. If you are behind the stop-line when the light is red,
traveling beyond the stop-line is illegal.
He admitted traveling though the intersection knowing the light
was red before he traveled through it, against the signal.
Pay the damned fine and resolve to fight harder to get the damned
things removed.
Oh yeah, and forget about the guy behind you. Suppose there was
a family of five coming through on the green?
Jeeeesh.
(But don't worry, Sheeple- these cameras are coming soon to a street near YOU! Let's hear it for sneaky new methods of taxation...)
Candid traffic cameras will soon bring frowns -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Star-Bulletin staff Starting today, the owners of cars caught speeding by the state Department of Transportation's traffic cameras will get tickets instead of warnings.
The citations will be mailed to the registered owners of the cars within three days.
For the past month the registered owners of cars snapped by the cameras received warning citations in the mail. About 5,000 warning citations went out since Dec. 3.
The citations being issued from today will cost $27 plus $5 for every mile per hour the car was traveling over the speed limit.
If the ticket is not paid within 15 days, the base will go up to $52.
The new traffic camera ticket system is operated from inside or next to a van parked along a street or highway.
Vehicles are targeted by the operator with a laser gun to measure the speed.
0If the vehicle exceeds the speed limit by a set amount, a digital camera automatically captures two images of the vehicle's position on the road and its license plate.
Department of Transportation director Brian Minaai would not disclose what speed over the limit will trigger a ticket, but he said its safe to assume that it will be over a 10 percent margin of error.
The registered owner of the vehicle caught speeding is mailed a citation that includes the photographs taken at the time of the violation and information on vehicle speed, time of day and location.
The cameras were authorized by the Legislature in 1998 as a three-year demonstration project.
Initially, four vans will set up at sites on various highways and roads on Oahu. Cameras are also being installed at 10 intersections and will be used to photograph vehicles that run red lights.
The state is still waiting for city approval to synch cameras at intersections with the traffic signal to catch motorists who run red lights before those citations can be issued.
Following an evaluation period, both programs will be implemented on the Neighbor Islands.
The fine for a red light violation is $77 if paid within 15 days and $102 if paid after 15 days.
The first $27 from each fine goes to the Judiciary for its administrative and education fees. The vendor gets $29.25 for each citation issued. The remainder goes into the Photo Enforcement Revolving Fund to pay administrative costs of operating the program. Any excess funds will go into the state general fund.
If the registered owner was not the driver at the time of the violation, the state says the owner needs to get the driver to sign an affidavit claiming responsibility. The vendor will then reissue a new citation to the driver.
A procedure is still being worked out for drivers of state and county vehicles to take responsibility for tickets. Individual companies with fleet-owned vehicles must also work out their own arrangements. The legislation allows car rental companies to pay a flat rate per violation and charge the cost to the customer's credit card.
Motorists also have the option of contesting the violations in court or sending a written statement to the judge explaining the situation.
If there is no response to the citation (by written statement or in person on the scheduled court date), a default judgment in favor of the state will be ordered by the judge. A "license stopper" will be placed on the vehicle's registration and driver's license, meaning the registration and license may not be renewed until the fine is paid.
The Traffic Violations Bureau will record all moving violations on a driver's traffic abstract and that may affect insurance rates.
If he or she does not show up, call for a mistrial (right to speedy trial). If he/she does show, ask to restate what he/she told you earlier. Even if he/she gives clean answers the first time, holes might develop such as errors in maintenance and calibration checks for either that particular intersection or others (eg, ask if the engineer can be certain that all in the city are functioning OK, and if there is a sliver of doubt somewhere, then why not at this intersection?) What are the chances of malfunction during rain/temp. variations? etc. If nothing else wears him/her down, ask him/her to explain how the device works in excruciating detail, and if there is any hesitation or lack of knowledge (and there could be considerable chance of that, even if the guy is good) then that could be a sliver of hope. Is the guy both a hotshot mechanical/electrical engineer AND an expert on photography?
This is in addition to the other suggestions.
In essence he has been denied the right to a fair trial. If the judge tries to assert that the photograph is sufficient evidence to convict, then the judge has put himself in the position of testifying against the defendent and is no longer an impartial judge. In order to testify against the defendent he must be under oath. How can he both testify and judge the defendant's guilt?
Show me a robbery with extenuating circumstances. As it is you have the clerks testimony and anyone else in the store. After that it's hard to give an explanation of why you were in the 7-11 brandishing a gun and asking for money yet you weren't robbing the place.
The cameras don't allow for extenuating circumstances. Draconian if you will.
Abssolutely not. Apples and oranges. Go try to convince somebody else to be a slave. He was in the right and fighting this is the right thing to do. He didn't commit a crime.
Extenuating circumstances?
Phone bills are used to solve a crime, home videos are used
to prove a crime. The evidence is all that's needed. And to
assume the inability of obtaining a witness due to "not knowing
about a camera" is a little off the wall, wouldn't you say?
I'm dead-set against the use of those cameras, but in this topic,
the crime was admitted, with explanation.
The case is frikkin closed. Pay the damned fine.
Oh hell, he could lie and say he never said it here. Who would
know, right?
But the fact is, the camera wasn't faulty. He knew the light was
red; the camera knew the light was red and it caught him
going through the intersection illegally.
And again, suppose there was a family rolling through on the
green? A nice broadside collision due to poor judgment?
What's the verdict then?
Come'on, this thing's taken a life of it's own here. I want the
cameras gone, but this case is closed.
This goes back to the nature of justice v. law. What is the purpose of these laws on red lights? What justice would be served by making him pay a ticket for this? It's not justice in my opinion.
If you don't fight these things, you can forget about "tax caps" or any other attempts to limit the power of the local or State government to take your money. The number of cameras will increase in exact proportion to the weakness of the opposition to them. Also, the fines will go up (inevitably and substantially) once the lack of resistance is noted.
Sometimes I wonder how we ever got free of Great Britain? Certainly not by the exertions of the "Pay the 50 dollars and get on with your life" crowd.
You know, if I had this case before me, the last thing
I'd want to hear is that:
A. The guy knew the traffic light turned yellow well before reaching the stop-line;
B. Had time to watch [in detail] what was going on behind his car;
C. Was watching the activity behind his vehicle using his rear-view mirror, in the rain;
D. Saw the light turn red while he was before the stop-line
E. Proceeded through the intersection assuming the vehicle behind him was
not going to stop in time, basing that judgment on his continued viewing
through his rear-view mirror at what was happening behind his vehicle.
Tell the court how you knew the intersection was safe to proceed through,
against a traffic control, if you were that concerned with watching what was
happening behind your vehicle for that extensive amount of time?
Pay the clerk on your way out.
I would rather hear that he was so busy worrying about the guy behind him
hitting him, that he didn't notice the light turned red. Adding that the guy
slid into the intersection and stopping in the middle.
If you're going to lie to me, lie to me. And tell me that it all depends
on what the word "stop" means. Make it good.
This is surreal.
I agree 100%! I hate the blasted things. As I said, I would make the
argument that it impeaches our 4th and 5th Amendments by robbing
us from our rights to privacy, from search and from self-incrimination.
In England, they catch jay-walkers, prostitutes and illegal parkers.
What's next, illegal smoking?
BWAAAHAHAHAHA
That was good. Now I can sleep well.
This is what I tell the people all the time. If you want something to change you have to band together and put your foot down. You can change laws!
We have our first two camera lights and I bet we'll have more installed. What surprised me is that the company who makes the cameras takes the majority of the ticket money with the city getting only a small percentage.
Sounds like a perfect set-up for the margin of error to be on "their" side.
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.