Red-Light Camera: I've Been Ticketed (Legal Help Needed)

January 2, 2002 | Christopher Knight AKA Freeper "Darth Sidious"

[Trust but Verify]

Ping!

[rko1933]

Does the picture show you driving?If not.....

[Southack]

"He was in the right and fighting this is the right thing to do. He didn't commit a crime."

I thought that he said that he did run a red light. Is that not a crime?

Perhaps what you mean to say is that he was justified in running the red light. For instance, fleeing from the direct and immediate path of a tornado, one is justified is exceding the speed limit and blowing through stop signs. Nonetheless, technical violations of the law were incurred.

Does Sidius really have a valid justification for running his red light, or is he just trying to pull a Clinton by weasling out of a ticket?

[Demidog]

Running a red light in and of itself is not a crime. Even if he actually ran the light he didn't commit a crime. Crimes harm other people by definition.

Violating a statute does not in and of itself harm somebody.

[Wm Bach]

"Well that's great. Just farking great man. Now what the fark are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty sh*t now man! That's it man. Game over man. Game over! What the fark are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?! Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs. Why don't we try that?

This can't be happenin' man. This isn't happenin'."

[Southack]

"Running a red light in and of itself is not a crime. Even if he actually ran the light he didn't commit a crime. Crimes harm other people by definition."

Whose definition, and where?

Besides, running a red light is like flying airliners underneath bridges or driving drunk. It might not harm anyone per se, but it does endanger both lives and public property, and as such, is a crime.

Likewise, shooting at someone and missing doesn't harm anyone, but it is still violates statutes because it endangers lives and property. You have to justify why you were shooting at someone, just as Sidius will have to justify why he drove through an admittedly red light...

The question is NOT whether he violated a statute (he admits that he did), but rather whether or not he was justified in violating that statute. Was he justified, or is he just trying to weasle out of a ticket?

[Southack]

I strongly suggest that you try that precise list on the next judge that you appear before in court.

If you have the courage to speak those words to him or her, then we can debate the merits of those words. If you don't have that courage, then you are just grandstanding.

Besides, none of the items that you mentioned violate statutes or per se endanger lives or property.

[Demidog]

I don't care if the cop disagrees or not. A crime is by definition something that harms another person.

If you dispute this, then we'll pass a law that says being white is a crime and see what you think.

[thefactor]

Pick up the February issue of Car & Driver. The one with the new Ford GT40 on the cover. In the first few pages, Patrick Bedard (the bald editor guy) has his full page column. He hates red light cameras and has done a bunch of articles on them. I know in this latest issue he writes about them but I haven't read it yet. Check it out. If it is helpful, I know he has written some in previous months. Good luck.

[CA Conservative]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but whose name is on the ticket? If it is your mom's name on the ticket, and the picture shows a man driving, she should go to court and get the ticket dismissed. She can't be held responsible for someone else's driving violation.

[Demidog]

I wholly fail to see that you have lost any freedoms or liberties.

The right to a fair trial. The right to cross examine the witnesses against him (hint: a camera cannot be cross examined and is the sole "witness" to the event).

[Demidog]

Are you actually suggesting that a law which outlawed those with a certain skin pigmintation would be valid? That simply because a crime is defined on paper that it is truly a crime?

[VA Advogado]

The right to a fair trial. The right to cross examine the witnesses against him (hint: a camera cannot be cross examined and is the sole "witness" to the event).

He may not have that right afforded him if its a civil infraction. Those things are nasty. You get no benefits.

[VA Advogado]

Violating a statute does not in and of itself harm somebody.

What about the statute that prohibits Assault?

[VA Advogado]

That simply because a crime is defined on paper that it is truly a crime?

Where do you find your definition of a true crime?

[Demidog]

He may not have that right afforded him if its a civil infraction.

He still has rights. Civil liabilities imply contracts. Is the drivers license the way that one makes themselves subject to a breach of contract or tort as a "civil infraction" implies?