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.
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.