This really pisses me off: DPS photo radar van shot at, killing driver...

[ASUliberal]

This is the kind of bullshit that makes me so fucking angry. It just chips away at my remaining faith in humanity.



http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/north/story/Suspect-arrested-in-murder-of-Loop-101-photo/6dD4XwhhR0eiIQ0Bnb21bw.cspx

PHOENIX – Authorities say it's still too soon to know why a man shot and killed a worker who was operating a photo radar van on the Loop 101 freeway Sunday night.

Phoenix Police Sgt. Andy Hill said officers found the suspect, Thomas Patrick De Stories, less than 24 hours after the shooting death of 51-year-old Doug Georgianni.

Hill said the 68-year-old was booked into jail late Monday on one count of first degree murder.

An Arizona Department of Public Safety lieutenant tipped off police to the suspect earlier in the day.

The lieutenant apparently knew the area where De Stories lived and recognized the suspect's vehicle when he saw photos of it from surveillance video at the scene.

"I didn't have a lot of contact with him, " said the lieutenant, Mark Remsey. "I'd wave to him and he never waved back which seemed unusual.

Video from Air15 showed an SUV matching the description of the suspect SUV parked in the backyard of De Stories' home near 7th Street and Greenway.

"This is one of the most senseless murders I have seen...in my many years living in this community," said Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris.

Neighbors in the area expressed mixed thoughts about De Stories, who runs an outdoor adventure company in the Valley.

"He always had that angry look on his face. You'd say hello to him, and he'd glare at you," said neighbor Mark Towsley.

"I would love to be a character witness for this guy. He's the nicest guy in the neighborhood," said neighbor Jane Ruby.

De Stories' ex-wife said she believes in her ex-husband's innocence. She said the suspect has four children scattered across the United States.

The 51-year-old victim he's accused of killing, Doug Georgianni, was shot at about 8:50 p.m. while in a fully marked SUV photo radar vehicle.

The vehicle was parked on the eastbound side of the Loop 101 freeway, just east of 7th Street.

Phoenix Sgt. Hill said Georgianni was on the phone with his wife when the shooting happened.

Watch a video of Georgianni teaching a golf class.

In the wake of the shooting, DPS officials released a statement on Monday reading, "We have suspended operation of the mobile photo enforcement units until further notice."

The suspension applies to all mobile radar units across the state.

Several other organizations have removed their cameras too, including the city of Scottsdale and photo enforcement contractor American Traffic Solutions.

Georgianni had been employed by contractor RedFlex Traffic Systems for three months as a driver-technician.

The photos in the above slideshow show what Phoenix police investigators are calling the suspect's vehicle in the murder from Sunday night.

You can compare them to the SUV parked in the home of De Stories where police are currently serving a search warrant.

The motivation for the crime is unknown, but they don't believe the two men knew each other.

An Arizona legislator seeking to ban speed cameras on state highways is decrying the fatal shooting as a "senseless killing."

Republican Rep. Sam Crump of Anthem said he's aware of speculation that the fatal shooting resulted from "escalating passions" surrounding public debate over speed cameras.

He said he "calls on all individuals to reduce the war of words on this topic."

Crump also said he offers condolences to the victim's family and to his Redflex Traffic Systems co-workers.


Public statement from Redflex Traffic Systems’ CEO Karen Finley

“The entire Redflex family is grief-stricken for Doug and his loved ones. We will
continue to dedicate every resource to work with the police to help identify and
apprehend the person who took Doug’s life. In the meantime, with the cooperation of
Arizona DPS, we have removed all mobile photo enforcement units from the road until
further notice.”






And you know what, I wouldn't be surprised if this asshole listened to all the conservative media outlets in the valley constantly talking about how evil and unconstitutional photo radar is. Where's the fucking humanity?!! It makes me sick.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[geckosfeet]

1. When you post something like this, please provide a link or two.

It's not like there is a shortage of them.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/photo_radar_van_driver_shot_041909
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4352931
http://www.kpho.com/traffic/19225588/detail.html
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/north/story/Suspect-arrested-in-murder-of-Loop-101-photo/6dD4XwhhR0eiIQ0Bnb21bw.cspx

First I have heard of photo radar.

[ASUliberal]

3. Photo radar has been a hot topic in AZ

All the conservatives have been up in arms talking about how it's unconstitutional and socialist. They think the government is going to start taking photos of everyone to keep tabs on us. It's fucking insanity. And all the media outlets, especially 92.3 KTAR and 550 KFYI, have been talking about how the people should do something about it. They've been encouraging protests and other campaigns.

And now we have this. It's just populist rage coming together and all it took was one guy to snap.

[Fumesucker]

4. I was reading on DU a few weeks ago of a proposal in one state

To charge road use taxes by the mile rather than adding into the cost of gasoline..

Which would of course have necessitated a GPS unit in every car readable by the government.

Yes, the government does indeed wish to keep tabs on all of us, it's not right wing paranoia to be afraid of government out of control.

I know I've been afraid of my government since about 1968 or so.

[ASUliberal]

6. But see that is the government telling you they will be keeping tabs

Photo radar has been around for years. There is no reason to assume that the government is going to start shooting off pictures of every single vehicle that passes by.

[Fumesucker]

19. There are video cameras everywhere around where I live..

Indeed, the government is keeping tabs on us.

It is foolish to assume that the government is not going to become ever more invasive of our privacy.

If you take a look at RG Bolen's thread about red light cameras (he's changed both the thread title and recently his name) you'll see that he found that at least one particular one does indeed photo every car that passes by.

[ASUliberal]

26. I'm glad the crazies finally showed up...

I'm not here to discuss your conspiracy theories bud. Go somewhere else.

[Fumesucker]

28. I'll go where I please...

Unlike you though, I don't feel the need to tell others where to go and what to do.

If you haven't seen government become ever more invasive of privacy, you haven't been paying attention for the last fifty years or so.

Things I was told in grammar school that the Soviet Union did to its citizens are commonplace here in the USA now.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fumesucker]

42. Personal insults are not allowed on DU..

Thread drift is a common occurrence, so common it has a name.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

67. and regulating and enforcing speed limits can be done by your family in law enforcement

[Fumesucker]

78. Personal insults are not allowed on DU..

I know how to follow rules, apparently you do not.

Edited to add: I have (or had until they passed away a few years ago) family in law enforcement also.

He told me that a lot of cops are asshats and that being a cop changes a lot of people for the worse and those people shouldn't stay cops too long.

[Canuckistanian]

48. Photo radar was banned in Canada after a short trial

It was banned after an overwhelming response from the public.

It only punishes the OWNER of a vehicle, not the perpetrator. And if the owner had loaned his/her car, the fine and/or conviction could only apply to the owner.

It was deemed a total injustice and thus banned.

[ASUliberal]

49. In Az you just have to provide a photo proving it isn't you driving

And they will throw out the ticket.

[Canuckistanian]

59. That raises new levels of complexity

What if it was your twin brother driving? What if the photo was blurred beyond recognition?

Sorry, nothing beats a cop on the scene, asking for positive identification.

[ASUliberal]

70. A photo from a drivers license solves your "complex" issue.

[Fumesucker]

138. The poster was referring to the photo from the speed trap camera..

But I'm pretty sure you knew that.

[liberalhistorian]

163. Me, too, I'd never heard of it before, either.

I've always had mixed feelings about traffic light cameras and that kind of thing and didn't know that it'd also extended to photo radar. But this is beyond disgusting, dismaying, infuriating and heartbreaking. If the suspect is, indeed, guilty (and remember, he's not been actually convicted yet, people, he's still just a suspect), may he be thrown in a solitary cell for the rest of his life with no parole. That poor wife, I can't imagine being on the phone with my husband and hearing him being shot to death. I think I'd want to die, too.

[MikeNearMcChord]

2. I hope Mr De Stories enjoys maximum security

if this a-hole gets a shiv in the back, humanity will be a better place.:mad:



Loving picture of the Jerk

[ASUliberal]

5. I'm really torn by this entire thing now

My basic instinct is that if this guy really did it, he should spend the rest of his miserable life rotting in jail.

But then there is another side of me that wants him to go to jail, but try and get help. Maybe he's to old? I don't know.

I'm just feeling really depressed about this entire situation. It's just a fucking tragedy.

[Codeine]

9. Get help?

He ended the existence of a living human, ferfuxsake.

[ASUliberal]

13. But the point of prison is rehabilitation if at all possible.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

35. He's 68 years old

He's probably been an asshole his entire life. He just finally got around to hurting someone else.


Let him fucking rot.

[ASUliberal]

37. I'm inclined to agree...

But my liberal hippie side says I could be wrong.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

39. Well, if you showed your liberal, hippy side to this guy......

....he'd probably murder you as fast as he did this guy. That's why I have very little sympathy for people like this.

[ASUliberal]

40. Eh I always like to keep my mind open

It's what separates us from conservatives.

[Maru Kitteh]

98. Until said conservative puts a bullet through your mind while you're talking to your spouse

while you're just trying to do your job.

[ASUliberal]

101. Kneejerk reaction much?

Sometimes I think this community is so freakin close minded it's ridiculous.

[Maru Kitteh]

109. If that man put a bullet through your wife's brain, would you accept counseling and probation

as justice? Would you, really.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Codeine]

117. Dude, seriously.

He killed another person.

Over nothing significant.

Quit the obligatory hand-wringing and grow up.

[ASUliberal]

118. Grow up? Listen I'm not the one calling for a metaphorical "lynching"

Hot heads lead to dumb decisions. We don't know the state of mind this individual was in.

I'm not saying he wasn't in his right mind. I'm just saying it's not right to come to such drastic conclusions without further examination (like a trial?).

[Codeine]

119. "Dumb decisions" do not excuse murder. nt

[ASUliberal]

120. I'm not talking about "dumb" decisions...

I'm talking about insanity.

[Shell Beau]

146. So murderers should just get a little counseling and be done with it?

How do you decide what murderers go to jail and which don't? He killed someone. He needs to go to jail. That isn't a republican thought either. Jail is for people like him.

[ASUliberal]

152. Yes because that is exactly what I said...

Why don't you you put some more words in my mouth. Maybe suggest that I like murdering innocent children and women too.

[Shell Beau]

155. Well, then clarify. You're not sure this guy should go to jail.

I am pretty sure you did say that. He murdered someone. Where would you draw the line? Because he is old, he can't be rehabilitated? What about Edgar Ray Killen? He is old as dirt. He was convicted not too long ago. Isn't he past rehabilitation? What should we do with him? Or is it just certain murderers?

[ASUliberal]

156. I suggest you go back and read my posts again...

I said that the point of prison is first and foremost to rehabilitate. If this guy can be rehabilitated then lets do it. I never suggested that he shouldn't go to prison. And I never said he could be rehabilitated. I simply said we cannot judge without further information.

But of course all of you jumped my shit because I don't want to have him lynched in the square at noon.

[Shell Beau]

157. I don't want him lynched. I am mostly against the death penalty.

But I am for murderers going to prison.

[Codeine]

111. No it's not.

It's to keep people like this in cages so that normal people can exist without threat of having our lives snuffed out. You clearly don't deal with the violent and abusive on a regular basis.

[ASUliberal]

116. No you clearly have your vision clouded by bias experiences...

The point of prison is, first and foremost, to rehabilitate. If rehabilitation is impossible then prison becomes a place to incarcerate individuals for the remainder of their lives.

For to damn long the US prison system has functioned on seeking vengeance. And vengeance is never a good thing.

But that is a completely different argument about the failure of our prison system. One that I reeeeeeeeaaaaallly don't feel like getting in right now.

[liberalhistorian]

164. And you need to remember that he hasn't actually

been convicted yet, that he's still just a suspect whose guilt hasn't been proven and who deserves a fair trial before being convicted and sentenced. That is, after all, what we believe in in this country. Or what we're supposed to believe in, at least. Being in the legal field, I know all too well the hot-headed hang-em-high immediate rush to judgment in these situations fueled by angry emotions.

That's not to minimize this murder or excuse this suspect at all if he's guilty or to suggest that he shouldn't be jailed for a very long time (probably life in his case if he is convicted, given his age.) It's simply to state that, at this point, he's still a suspect who hasn't yet been tried and convicted and a rush to judgment is ill-advised and, frankly, actually against justice. True justice demands that the right person is fairly convicted and not just having someone convicted for the sake of a conviction.

[JonLP24]

7. These photo radars in Phoenix are driving people crazy!

I've heard numerous reports of people sabotoging the cameras.

[azmouse]

11. If people drive the speed limit they haven't anything to worry about.

[ASUliberal]

14. Exactly

[Fumesucker]

20. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about..

Eh, I've heard that before somewhere..

I'm sure it will come to me shortly.

[azmouse]

22. I knew someone would have to spew that...

:eyes:

It's nowhere near the same thing and you know it.

[Fumesucker]

24. It's not?

I guess your computer is perfect, never crashes, never freezes?

Never had a machine break on you?

[azmouse]

27. What the hell does this have to do with my computer?

[Fumesucker]

30. What do you think runs those photo radar units?

They are computerized to hell and gone..

To err is human, to really fuck things up requires a computer.

Edited to add: Your faith in technology is touching but entirely misplaced.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fumesucker]

41. Personal insults are not allowed on DU..

I at least know how to follow the rules..

[azmouse]

36. I don't look good in tinfoil....

Nope, not worried about it... at all.

[Fumesucker]

43. You believe in infallibility?

Of both humans and machines?

You have my sympathies..

[boppers]

134. My computers aren't screwed up.

Are you running a Microsoft operating system, by chance?

[Fumesucker]

135. Dual boot, Ubuntu/XP

Your computer has *never* given you any problems whatsoever?

[boppers]

136. I've run:

CP/M
VMS
NetBSD
FreeBSD
OpenVMS
SunOS
Solaris
DG/UX
HP/UX
AIX
Redhat
Slackware
Debian
Next/OS
OS X
(etc. etc.)

I don't blame my problems on "computers".

[Fumesucker]

137. So your computer has never given you any problems?

All the computers you have ever had have been perfectly reliable?

That is fucking amazing if true.

[boppers]

139. I've worked on over 350+ computers in my life.

Never had a problem with the computer.

The problem is usually the human-made software, or hardware wearing out.

[Fumesucker]

140. ROFL..

350 plus computers and you've never had one make an error.

:eyes:

Oh, BTW, I started my programming "career" writing Z80 machine code, not assembler, machine code.

[liberalhistorian]

165. Bullshit.

I don't appreciate the fact that I could be photographed while driving my car, period. I don't approve of traffic light cameras, period. And they're starting to be banned in places where they'd been so ballyhooed when first put in.

Most traffic tickets are nothing but revenue-generators for most places, anyway.

[KittyWampus]

66. and if you're not a terrorist you shouldn't mind having your phones wiretapped. Nothing to worry abo

about.

[ASUliberal]

68. Moot point

Why? Because no one is secretly taking pictures of you speeding and stealing money from your bank account to pay the fine.

You see the flash, the ticket arrives in the mail and you have the option to challenge it in court. People have been dealing with similar circumstances for as long as cops have been writing speeding tickets.

[file83]

99. You're wrong - it's far from moot.

As technology becomes cheaper and more advanced, with attitudes like yours we'll see these fucking things wedging themselves in every aspect of life watching us to make sure we are "breaking a law". They'll pass some BS legislation financing this crap called "No Law Broken" or "Crime Free Nation", and people like you will eat it up and defend it with "it's no different from the past when cops used to bust you".

Our society is mutating into a automated surveillance society, and many people don't like it. You might be cool with it, we're not. It's the principle of the matter.

[ASUliberal]

103. No see I'm a big supporter of personal liberty...

But I'm not going to vilify the state to satisfy some sort of deep seeded obsession with big brother.
Photo radar does not equal big brother.
Put down the kool-aid and stop watching V for Vendetta.

[Hannah Bell]

131. Shouldn't mind having your ID checked when you travel from state to state,

or your car searched, or every one of your emails logged in a database, or their medical records posted on the internet, or your house on google earth, or if they put two-way viewing screens into tvs...

i mean, who would mind, if they weren't doing anything wrong?

we're half-way to '1984,' & people still haul out that chestnut. you literally can't even go into the wilderness without being under surveillance. those traffic cams are part of a network that can be used to track people everywhere they go - but who would mind, if they weren't doing anything wrong?

but how about if the *authorities* were doing something wrong?

[Hannah Bell]

81. au contraire, but that argument has provided justification for tyrants since cato was a pup.

[ASUliberal]

96. Except we aren't talking about tyrants we are talking about photo radar

For some reason there is an automatic trend for people in these forums to jump to drastic conclusions or blow up situations into grand operations.

Sorry but photo radar is not comparable to "The Great Leap Forward" LOL.

[file83]

100. There is a world out there beyond the horizon.

But you already knew that, right?

[ASUliberal]

104. *facepalm* Do you have a tinfoil cap?

[Hannah Bell]

130. no, photo radar isn't - but the network of universal surveillance it's a piece of, IS.

[ASUliberal]

12. I've seen people dress up like santa over christmas season

and put gift wrapped boxes over the cameras during rush hour. It's funny.

But there is a definite line between being angry at the camera, and shooting someone.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

86. The middle ground is to destroy the cameras in as many innovative ways as possible

That kills the economic incentive and will lead to the end of the program

[Xithras]

158. I hear tires work well and are popular in Europe.

An old rubber tire with a small ziplock baggie with a bit of gasoline inside and a simple paper fuse. Hang the tire over the camera, light the paper, and get out of the way. The tire burns very hot and cooks the camera inside.

Not advocating, just saying...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

85. And that is a wonderful thing!!!!!

[MadMaddie]

8. I am going to say so it, I will put my Flame Retardent Suit on

If the guy didn't have a gun in his car...Mr. Doug Georgianni would be alive.

More than likely the shooter associated Mr. Doug Georgianni's van as associated with the police....this guy seemed to have a problem with law enforcement.

For clarification: The Right wing has been promoting anti-police anti-government actions, the Pittsburg shooting of the officers. Is this more of the same?

Forgot to add....Flame Away!!

[ASUliberal]

10. DPS is the police . They just police the highway.

But I'm not really understanding your point.

Being that it is DPS does that somehow justify the shooting to you?

[MadMaddie]

18. Nope not what I meant. I tried to clarify what I meant in my

previous post.

And of course it doesn't justify the shooting. My first sentence was he shouldn't have had a gun in the car and I still believe that.

[ASUliberal]

21. Now it makes sense.

I do believe it's more of the same. The radio and TV stations are basically egging these people on. And eventually a few are going to snap. This is exactly what the right-wing assholes want so now they can start showing what all this big government is doing to people. When really it's the right-wing assholes that are causing the problem.

[MadMaddie]

90. Exactly!

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[KittyWampus]

69. DSP is not the police. The 'police force' is comprised of human beings and dogs and horses.

[Fumesucker]

23. The right wing are generally highly supportive of the police..

A substantial majority of cops are right wingers themselves..

[ASUliberal]

25. They are supportive of police until they decide they are the man

and then it's a libertarian struggle trying to bring the man down. It's total bullshit,

[Fumesucker]

32. Huh?

I can read the words, I don't understand what they mean.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

33. Only when they hold the White House or both houses of Congress

When they lose everything like they did the first two years of Clinton, or right now, they crawl under their bed with the rifle and phone so they can cry to Glenn BecKKK and Limpballs about it, claiming everyone is out to get them.

[Maru Kitteh]

106. RW in only supportive of the police when they're busting "welfare" recipients, kids and hippies.

Because of course, THOSE people deserve it.

When this particular asshole wants to do 95 on the freeway drunk off his ass, however, the police suddenly become jack-booted thugs intruding on his freedom.

I know more than a few just like him, but without the impending murder convictions.

[Still Sensible]

15. I don't know, "runs an outdoor adventure company"

sounds like it could be the type of survivalist, RW fringe. Or at least the kind of business those types might be into. I know, that's stereotypical thinking.

[azmouse]

16. I saw some of his neighbors being interviewed and

they said they were more than a bit afraid of him. That he acted nuts and they were glad he was behind bars.
The neighbors said they felt safer already.

[southernyankeebelle]

17. PHOTO RADAR?

WHAT EXACT IS THIS AND WHY DID IT CAUSE SOMEONE TO BE KILLED. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. SOMEONE PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME. THANK YOU.

[file83]

102. Who are you and what planet are you from?

Because I don't think anyone from this planet will ever be able to "ENLIGHTEN" you.

[doctor jazz]

145. Why the nasty reply? I never heard of it either until a few minutes ago.

:shrug:

[Codeine]

113. PLEASE STOP BEING AN IDIOT! THANK YOU! NT

[Ptah]

29. His 'outdoor adventure company' offers, among other things, a DYNAMITE & SHOOTING TOUR

http://www.arizonaadventuretours.com/dynamite.htm

"The old west still exists with Arizona Adventure Tours. Learn the art of using dynamite at a bonified mining claim. Explosives are commonly used today to get at the gold bearing ore. This tour also includes target shooting using a variety of "six" guns."

[Chorophyll]

154. "Bonified?"

That tells me all I need to know about this genius. This heavily-armed, seriously disturbed genius.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. The conservatives defend the traffic cameras in my city.

[LostInAnomie]

44. What is DPS photo radar?

I'm out of the loop.

[ASUliberal]

45. It is

basically a camera attached to a radar gun (like the one that cops use to check peoples speed). When a car passes it that is speeding it takes a picture of the driver and the license plate. A ticket is then mailed to the address on the license plate.

[LostInAnomie]

46. Sounds like a load of shit to me.

Police state bullshit.

[ASUliberal]

47. It keeps the roads safer...

If has significantly lowered the accident rate on the 101 since it's been put in. All you have to do is be a good driver and you won't get a ticket.

[LostInAnomie]

50. Sounds like a money grab by the state to me.

Does away with police discretion and legitimate excuses.

[ASUliberal]

51. It keeps the roads safe...

We haven't had any issues with abuse yet so I'm not going to start crying about it.

[galileoreloaded]

52. No offense, but you don't call lack of due process an issue?? n/t

[ASUliberal]

54. You can challenge the ticket if you want to...

Civil court doesn't function like criminal court.

You don't have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. They "weigh the probabilities" and the judge comes to a conclusion based on the likelihood of both sides.

[LostInAnomie]

55. Speeding tickets are adjudicated in criminal court.

Because, technically you have been arrested every time you get a ticket. Without the initial police interaction you have less basis to fight the case. It's stacking the deck in the state's favor.

[ASUliberal]

56. No you are wrong. I've been to court over a speeding ticket

They have civil traffic violations and criminal traffic violations.

It depends on your speed and a number of other factors.

I was going 58 in a 45 and challenged it in civil court.

[LostInAnomie]

58. No, it's a criminal violation.

It might have been adjudicated in the Civil court room (which is a common practice based upon space restraints), but speeding tickets are definitely criminal violations. Civil court is for party vs party cases. The state isn't suing you. They are saying you broke the law and are prosecuting you.

[ASUliberal]

60. I think you need to do a bit more research on this

I didn't break the law. I committed a traffic violation. This is a different in the eyes of the law and that is why they have civil traffic tickets and criminal traffic tickets. One is in the civil court while the other is in Criminal court.

Like I said before, it depends on your speed and other actions you took.

[LostInAnomie]

62. The speed limit is the state mandated limit on how fast you can go on the state's roads.

If you go over that speed you are breaking the law. That is why to police are involved. They are the enforcement arm of the state and are there to say that you have broken the law and give you a ticket (which is actually a legal summons to appear before a judge). That's why when they give you a ticket they say "you aren't pleading guilty, you are agreeing to appear in court". When you pay the ticket without going to court you are actually pleading guilty to speeding.

It may all seem innocuous, but in reality, you have been arrested and now have a criminal record.

[ASUliberal]

63. No you are wrong once again. Why are you always wrong with this?

When you sign the ticket you consent that it is indeed you who received the speeding ticket. It's basically proving you were the one that the ticket was given to and that you have read and understand your rights, obligations and options. It's not an agreement to appear in court since you don't have to appear; unless it's a criminal speeding ticket. If it's a civil ticket you are "violating" a traffic law. It is breaking the law, but is not criminal.


When you plead in a civil case you plead "not responsible" or "responsible" not "not guilty and "guilty". Go ask any traffic court judge and they will kindly explain the difference to you.


. I have no criminal record because of my civil traffic violations.

You have not been arrested. The only way that you can be arrested is if you are detained, the officer officially declares you are under arrest, and you are read your Miranda rights.

Why don't you know this?

I really suggest you do some proper research on this.

[LostInAnomie]

75. I do know this because I used to be a reserve deputy.

It is an agreement to appear in court. The only reason you don't have to go is because by paying the ticket you have pleaded guilty (why do you think you have to send the check to the prosecutor?). If you don't pay the ticket before your court date, and don't show up there will be an arrest warrant issued for you for failure to appear (they don't do that in civil court, they just find you at fault or dismiss your case).

You do have a criminal record. Why do you think the state keeps track of the points against your license? Why do you think the police know exactly how many tickets you've had in the past? It's because we can read all that stuff on our screens since it has been adjudicated in the criminal court system. We don't have access to civil case information like that.

States allow for officers to make arrests without detaining for certain crimes. That is why police can give tickets for anything ranging from minor consumption, marijuana possession, DUI, etc.

[ASUliberal]

76. Dude you are so wrong and the fact that you should know makes that even worse.

But keep believing that BS. This is common knowledge stuff.

Again I recommend that you do some research on this topic. I can't believe you didn't learn this in the academy.

[LostInAnomie]

79. Are you totally clueless about everything?

Do you have no clue whatsoever about the legal process?

Civil law = plaintiff vs defendant to remedy damages

Criminal law = The state prosecuting violations of the law

Since speeding is a violation of the law which version of the law do you think covers it?

Here's a link describing civil court: http://www.scselfservice.org/civ/default.htm

Notice one of the first lines is "Civil" cases are the cases in court that aren’t about breaking a criminal law (called a violation of criminal law)."

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ContinentalOp]

83. Dude, you're wrong. Just admit it and move on.

LostInAnomie is right as anyone with an ounce of common sense and a record of speeding could tell you.

[ASUliberal]

92. I will not admit fault where there is none

Anomie doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. He actually thinks you are arrested when you get a ticket. HAHA

I have a record of speeding and a record of dealing with civil traffic courts and laws.

Anomie doesn't need a nutswinger. I suggest you get off.

[ContinentalOp]

110. I'm no lawyer but I think there's a difference between civil penalties and civil law.

Many cities seem to call minor traffic violations "civil" offenses because you aren't facing any jail time but I think this is a separate issue from civil law which is when a person sues another person.

"In civil law, a private party (e.g., a corporation or individual person) files the lawsuit and becomes the plaintiff. In criminal law, the litigation is always filed by the government, who is called the prosecution.
In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by... (2) fine paid to the government...
"In criminal litigation, the burden of proof is always on the state. The state must prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant is assumed to be innocent; the defendant needs to prove nothing."
http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm


"Are traffic violations civil or criminal matters?

Traffic violations are considered criminal matters, and are handled as criminal law cases. As a result, the sentence imposed is an obligation that the offender has towards the state for violation of law. This means that the offender can be ordered to forfeit his/her personal freedom, rather than just being ordered to pay a money judgment, which is the typical civil law outcome. The state could be a local township, municipality, city, county, state, or even the federal government. However, unless you've committed a major violation or the violation is otherwise dangerous or life-threatening to other motorists, the officer will simply issue you a traffic ticket.

Is signing the ticket an admission of guilt?

No, it's just your acknowledgment of receipt of the notice to appear. Because you are actually being charged with a violation of law, the officer could take you into custody if you refuse to sign the ticket. By signing the traffic ticket, you avoid being taken into custody and are actually released on your own recognizance pending the court date. It's in your best interest to sign the ticket, so you remain free and retain your right to show up at the court hearing to dispute it or otherwise resolve the matter."

http://www.lawinfo.com/fuseaction/Client.lawarea/categoryid/76

[ASUliberal]

112. And like I said before...

If you get a civil traffic ticket you are violating a traffic statute. You "broke the law" but your actions were not criminal (Now refusing to appear or pay for tickets is another story and that is a criminal matter).

I never argued that civil traffic tickets were comparable to civil lawsuits. They are two completely different things. What I was arguing was that a civil traffic ticket is not a criminal act and does not give you a criminal history. A criminal traffic ticket does. But not a civil traffic ticket. That is why you do not plead guilty in civil traffic court. You plead "responsible"

Signing the ticket is admission of accepting the ticket and reading the form and understanding your rights and obligations. It does not mean you are going to appear in court. It means that you have read the rules and understand them.

Anomie was trying to argue that when you get pulled over you are actually being arrested. :crazy:

He clearly does not know what he is talking about.


But my main point was that being that it's civil court, normal criminal rights (designated under the constitution) does not apply.

[LostInAnomie]

121. Any time you enter the legal system you are being arrested.

You don't have to be detained. And, if you have no reason to believe you are being detained there is no need to have your Miranda rights read to you. This happens all the time (minor consumptions, minor possessions, noise violations, public intox, etc.) where tickets or summons are given in place of detention. You are being arrested (entered into the system) for a moving violation. While it might not be the misdemeanor or felony arrest that you are probably accustomed to, it is still an arrest.

[ASUliberal]

123. You really honestly have no knowledge of supreme court cases do you?

You honestly don't know the proper application of the word "arrested"...

In order to be arrested in the US, the officer has to announce that you are being ARRESTED (not detained) based on an assumed criminal violation and they must read you your Miranda rights.

I mean for christs sake man... Go read Miranda v. Arizona. Oy Vey this is giving me a hernia.

Now you can be "detained" without being read Miranda rights, but they have to let you go if you ask. I think you are very clearly confusing the two.

[Codeine]

125. Wrong.

The Miranda warning only needs to be given when an officer questions you. If there is no interrogation, it's not actually necessary; that said, simply to cover every base most departments routinely Mirandize a person on arrest or even at time of routine detention. This prevents a situation where a person makes an incriminating statement without having been questioned -- that would be inadmissible otherwise.

[LostInAnomie]

126. Wrong again.

Informing the driver of the violation and serving them with a notice to appear is enough to effect an arrest.

As for the rest of your nonsense, you really need to quit believing that watching CSI a few times makes you a legal scholar.


For serious crimes, the police typically handcuff the suspect (even if he/she is not being violent) and bring him/her to a police station or a jail where he/she will be incarcerated pending a judicial bail determination or an arraignment. In other instances, the police may issue a notice to appear, specifying where and when a suspect is to appear for his/her arraignment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest

The reading of the Miranda warning or similar "caution" to an arrestee advising him or her of rights is not legally required upon arrest. A legal caution is required only when a person has been taken into custody and is interrogated. Legal cautions are mandated in the US, most Commonwealth and other common law jurisdictions, and countries where the right to legal counsel, the right to silence, and the right against self-incrimination have been clearly established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest

[ASUliberal]

127. Both of you have grossly misinterpreted the law...

Miranda rights must be read after someone is taken into custody but before interrogation. So if someone is taken into custody, they must be read their rights surrounding their arrest. If you haven't read someone their rights by the time they are being interrogated, then someone is about to be out of a job and the police department is in for a hefty lawsuit.

Clarification: They must be read their Miranda rights immediately following being taken into custody. Like if someone is tackled, hand cuffed, put under arrest and placed in the police car, Miranda rights must be read to the suspect as soon as possible.

In application to being pulled over during a traffic stop, no one is being arrested. They are being detained. If at any point the officer feels it necessary, they can arrest the person. But simply being pulled over does not mean being arrested or being "taken into custody". Because at any time I can request to leave and the officer must either let me go, or arrest me based on a criminal violation.

[LostInAnomie]

128. How does that response even make sense in your mind?

First of all, no one ever claimed that simply being pulled over mean that you are being arrested. You've said that in a few posts now, and simply repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.

Second, "Because at any time I can request to leave and the officer must either let me go, or arrest me based on a criminal violation." That is in fact what the officer does when he give you a ticket (as established in #143). The ticket is a notice to appear for what you have clearly defined as a "criminal violation". And, as established in #143, that is an arrest.

I'm done.

[ASUliberal]

132. You said that if you get a ticket that is you being arrested...

And in case you have somehow forgotten that, here it is:

"Because, technically you have been arrested every time you get a ticket."

You have not been arrested because you are not in custody.

When an officer gives you a ticket he/she is writing you up for violating a law. They aren't arresting you. You are being detained. You can ask for them to let you go or arrest you. In that case they will either let you go, or arrest you for a myriad of reasons. Not one of them pertaining to speeding. If you were under arrest, the officer would not have to make the decision to let you go or arrest you, because you would already be arrested. I'm not sure how you can confuse the two and I'm really not sure how I can explain it better than before.

Clarification: That only applies to civil traffic violations, not criminal traffic violations.

[ContinentalOp]

122. OK, but if a "civil traffic ticket" is not equivalent to a civil lawsuit...

then it is indeed a matter of criminal not civil law right? It's you vs. the state. If you fail to appear (or pay the fine) you're not sued, you can be arrested.

As far as the criminal record, that's not entirely relevant since you can obviously commit a crime and not have a record (if you're a juvenile for example). Still, traffic violations apparently do appear on your criminal record. "In most cases it lists all non-expunged criminal offenses and may also include traffic offenses such as speeding and drunk-driving." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_record

I think it was a stretch to say that getting a ticket is equivalent to an arrest but you could look at it that way since they can arrest you if you refuse to sign the ticket. In a civil case there's no way that you can be arrested. If you fail to appear in a civil case you are not arrested, the judge simply makes a default judgement against you and you automatically lose.

But yeah, bottom line, I'm not sure how it affects your main point. Since traffic violations are criminal offenses they should have to hold up to due process. But while I'm opposed to traffic cameras I'm not sure that they really violate due process.

[ASUliberal]

124. Actually arrest warrants aren't automatic...

The court has the option to put out a warrant for your arrest for "failure to appear". But they don't have to do that. And you are being arrested for failing to appear. Not for the speeding ticket. Big difference.


Similarly, you are being arrested for refusing to sign the ticket. Not for receiving it.

The act of getting a civil traffic violation does not warrant arrest. Circumstance stemming from it can, however.

Which is also why a civil traffic ticket is not a criminal offense, but refusing to appear or pay for it is. So when you plead responsible, the ticket goes on your license, and it may appear if people do a criminal record search (but notice the clear difference between "Criminal offense" and "traffic offense". They are two distinct identities.).

[ContinentalOp]

129. The fact that a traffic violation can lead to an arrest is proof that it's a criminal offense.

Again, in a civil case, even if you refuse to appear in court, you cannot be arrested. Going by your logic, marijuana possession is not a criminal offense since you can simply get a ticket, a fine, and a notice to appear in court.

[ASUliberal]

133. The civil traffic violation itself does not lead to the arrest...

Refusal to follow the guidelines of dealing with the ticket can lead to an arrest. That is a small but significant difference that you apparently cannot grasp.

Depending on what state you are in, Marijuana possession may or may not be a criminal offense. If you do not have to plead innocent or guilty, your actions were not a crime. Instead you have committed a violation. Violations are less severe than crimes and do not require guilty verdicts.

[ContinentalOp]

149. You apparently cannot grasp the large and significant difference...

that arrest can never be an outcome of civil law. If the person you're dealing with can arrest you (the state) then what you're dealing with is by definition a matter of criminal law.

In the state of CA, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana (with no prescription) is a crime, punishable by a ticket and a fine. If you pay the fine you are admitting guilt and don't have to go to court. If you want to fight it you can go to court and have a hearing, just like with your traffic ticket.

[ASUliberal]

153. You absolutely fail at understanding simply law jargon...

And because of that I'm done trying to explain to you why you are wrong. Maybe you should also go discuss this matter with a civil court judge and hopefully one day you will get the difference.

[ContinentalOp]

160. Back at ya.

You haven't posted one single link or shred of evidence that supports your definition of civil vs criminal courts.

It probably differs slightly from state to state, but here's my local example http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/ on that page you'll see that there's a criminal court, a civil court, and a TRAFFIC COURT. Traffic offenses are not tried in Civil Court.

And let's see what Lawyers.com says

"In most states, a speeding violation is a criminal offense, or, at the very least, a "quasi-criminal offense," that is, an act that can be punished by the courts as though it is a crime.
In either event, some standards that apply to purely criminal matters usually apply to prosecutions for speeding.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/Enforcing-a-Speeding-Violation.html

[sarcasmo]

144. Dude, where's my car?

[ASUliberal]

77. Also you don't send the check to a prosecutor...

When I lost my case in CIVIL court I had to write the check out to the Gilbert Civil Traffic Court.

You don't even understand the concept of being arrested or Miranda rights. Why should I believe any of the other crap?

[sarcasmo]

143. Bingo!

[Wednesdays]

64. You're not a big ACLU fan, I take it. nt

[ASUliberal]

65. I'm a card carrying member...

Your point?

[KittyWampus]

71. it doesn't keep the roads safer, it makes money for the state and the DPS equipment

manufacturer and operator.

[ASUliberal]

73. I suggest you stop being a tool and look up the stats

instead of running around spouting the same nonsensical crap that all the other whiny crybabies have been.

Does the state make money off speeding tickets? YES. Is that the primary reason for speed enforcement? Absolutely not.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. I have...no discernable safety impacts...its about the money, some pols even admit it

[ASUliberal]

94. Wrong again. Why am I a one man team tonight guys?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5S-4SD7F8G-1&_user=56861&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059542&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=56861&md5=b9ba5791a939a7fc8575cdda3d83fab9

" At the Scottsdale sites, mean speeds for all vehicles combined declined from 70 mph during the baseline period to 63 mph soon after camera enforcement commenced, and then remained around 65 mph during camera enforcement. Mean speeds increased to 69 mph soon after camera enforcement was suspended. Passenger vehicles and large truck speeds showed similar patterns of change. At the Glendale sites, mean traffic speeds for all vehicles combined (which were similar to those at the Scottsdale sites during the baseline period) declined by 5 mph soon after camera enforcement commenced and remained below the baseline mean speeds until camera enforcement ended. At the non-Loop 101 sites, mean traffic speeds fluctuated between 68 and 69 mph."

"The reduction in mean speeds in Scottsdale translated into large reductions in speeding drivers (Table 3). The proportion of vehicles exceeding 75 mph declined from 15% during the baseline period to 1–2% during camera enforcement. Large declines were seen for both passenger vehicles and large trucks. Soon after camera enforcement was suspended, 12% of drivers were exceeding 75 mph. A similar but smaller reduction in the proportion exceeding the speed limit by 11 mph or more was observed at the Glendale sites. At the non-Loop 101 sites, the proportion of vehicles traveling faster than 75 mph was known only for the final two periods, which also indicated an increase in speeding after camera enforcement was suspended, but one much smaller in magnitude."

"Using the Glendale Loop 101 comparison sites as controls, camera enforcement on the Loop 101 in Scottsdale was associated with a 77% decrease in the odds of drivers exceeding 75 mph."


And is just an excerpt. Go read the tables and data.


Read em and weep

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. Have you considered the source?

And who the authors works for, the "Insurance Institute for Highway Safety". You might as well be quoting the Heritage Foundation on Reagan.

There are multiple sources that support that red light cameras cause more accidents.

Its about the money...for the cities/states and the insurance companies, truly deserving of monkey wrenching



Maybe you are the sole defense of the systems because the rest of us know better

[ASUliberal]

97. I've never heard of your data, but I'll read it if you show it to me...

And the data collected in my information was done by ADOT. Read the whole report before responding. You only read the first few lines at the top.


Maybe I'm the only sane one left? Possibly?

If the far right can get so many people to follow like zombies, the left can do the same thing. I don't believe something simply because a bunch of other people believe it. That's called religion.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

147. Bullshit. I live in Chicago and it is a FACT they are using increased...

.....traffic surveillance as a revenue generator. They make no bones about it.

Btw, the mayor is also on record as hiring more code enforcement officers to inspect restaurants - not because we an outbreak of food poisoning or rat droppings. He says we need the extra revenue.

Chicago Motorist Taxes Top Half a Billion
Chicago, Illinois uses red light cameras and increased taxes to balance the city budget.

Chicago, Illinois Mayor Richard M. Daley (D)
is counting on a host of new fees and taxes on drivers to balance the city's 2009 budget. For example, a new contract took effect on Saturday authorizing private vendor Redflex to more than double the number of red light camera equipped intersections in Chicago to 290. The first phase of the program had already mailed 1.1 million tickets worth $110 million with just 136 cameras, thanks to contract provisions that ensure a steady stream of revenue.

"The Office of Emergency Management and Communications has developed and executed the industry's most stringent performance metrics and key performance indicators," the new contract states. "(These) include citation issuance minimum yields to equal 85 percent or greater and system uptime to equal 95 percent or greater.... At a minimum, installed systems must maintain a minimum 85 percent prosecution rate."

So far, the prosecution rate has been 94 percent. Daley rewarded Redflex by approving a no-bid contract extension increasing the Australian company's five-year share of the revenue from $13,449,000 to $32,109,090. Redflex also agreed to allow the city to keep an extra $1,016,400 each year from reduced maintenance charges and to use union labor from a number of subcontracting firms favored by Daley's administration.

Thanks in part to the new cameras, total revenue from all fines and tickets is expected to jump 16.6 percent to $293.5 million. The remainder of the increase will come from encouraging meter maids to issue more parking tickets and seizing more automobiles.

"The majority of this increase is related to the expansion and enhancement of current enforcement programs," the 2009 budget explained. "The 2009 budget also projects additional revenue from enhanced collection of fines related to vehicle impoundment."

Higher taxes on parking (more info) will boost transportation tax revenue to $161.6 million. Combined with a vehicle registration sticker tax of $105.9 million and parking lot fees of $5.9 million, Chicago expects to earn $566.9 million from drivers in 2009.

A copy of the red light camera contract is available in a 3mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Justification for non-competitive procurement (Chicago, Illinois Department of Procurement Services, 8/6/2008)

[ASUliberal]

151. Awesome so your state fails...But that doesn't mean mine does.

Why don't you read the damn study I posted before calling bullshit bud. It makes you look quite foolish.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

87. I'd like some details since traffic light cams have been shown to increase accidents and injuries

Especially after the city shortens the yellow lights to min allowed times to maximize revenue.

If you believe its about safety, you believe the Iraq is about freedom

[Maiden England]

53. I'm fed up of hearing complaints about the darn speed vans,

I'm not surprised someone finally got whipped up to the point of killing some poor innocent guy doing his job.
We have 4 of those speed vans in our town and I'm fed up to the back teeth of the backlash against them. How about just following the damn law, and driving the speed limit and then you won't have to worry. Or at least get off the friggin cell phone long enough and you be able to pay enough attention to see them and slow down in time to not get a ticket.

Someone needs to remind the detractors, that among the inalienable rights they are so proud of touting, the right to drive is NOT one of them, its just a privilege, dependent upon a variety of rules, including following the speed limit.
Those of us who do things like drive the limit, funnily enough don't have a problem with the whole speed van phenomenon.

Oh and one more thing, if you lend your car to a friend, and that friend gets a speeding ticket, and won't turn themselves in to the authorities and take responsibility, how about blaming the complete dickhead that did that, not the system that caught them.

Hope the guy that did this rots,

[amborin]

57. horrible! if photo/radar is like cams at intersections, they're great

so many innocent people here in california and all over are killed by people running
red lights

and often it's the speeders and red light runners who hate the cameras, it figures

such a sad story


but i hope this case doesn't result in getting the photo/radar banned

[KittyWampus]

72. they're great? Good heavens, this has turned into a freaking cheerleading thread for Big Brother

unbelievable.

[amborin]

74. yes, intersection cameras are great

it's mainly red light runners who oppose them

doesn't imply a trend toward big brother; we're not talking cctv, as in britain

[Hannah Bell]

82. sure it does.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. Indeed, great monkey wrenching targets...

Its not a safety issue, especially when jurisdictions start shortening the yellow light times to maximize revenue. In some place the accident and injury rates goes up after cameras are installed.

The overwhelming majority of the time they are run by private companies who pay the municipalities a commission. Some courts have found the entire operation illegal, but there are enough pol friendly jurists that some places just keep it doing it.

I find the best approach is to disable or destroy the cameras. My approach of choice is a competition pellet rifle. Hit the lens and its all over. Second choice is a micro torch. Spray paint is always good for the old school types among us. Regardless, the goal is to make it not profitable. Then and only then will it get shut down.

[amborin]

89. have you gotten caught on one?

i find (anecdotally) that it's folks who've gotten ticketed who are opposed

[ProgressiveProfessor]

93. No traffic infractions since the 70s. Cited for a few but none of them stuck.

None have been by cameras. I do run a RD and a LD, on the bike and when driving a cage.

The lens is the easiest to target and gets the job done the quickest with the least risk. In the UK some enterprising souls actually necklace GATSOs. One design used to have ventilation holes for heat exchange. Expanding insulation foam worked beautifully on those.

Taking out the corporation assets that are just there to make money is a refreshing way to protest

[amborin]

150. what's your proposed solution?

here, people run red lights constantly

they blatantly continue to drive through an intersection after a light has turned red....

if you're trying to turn left at such an intersection, you can't assume it's safe to turn even when the light turns red; you have to wait and see that the cars have actually stopped before proceeding; this means the left turn is also conducted with a solidly red light, but cameras don't record this type of infraction

[ProgressiveProfessor]

167. Real cops not corporate profiteers

High visibility patrolling has been shown over time to be the best way minimize traffic issues

[orestes]

105. The cctv cams in britain

started as traffic cams in the mid 90s.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

115. And the GATSOs are targeted there as well

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm
http://english.controleradar.org/burning-gatso.php
http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2007/12/burning-british.html
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/000440.html

[ProgressiveProfessor]

91. One of the reasons they go to mobile vans is beacuse so many of the fixed sites get damaged, a good

thing IMO. The companies who do this for profit know that fixed sites get published and then monkey wrenched.

[file83]

107. When enforcing law becomes a profitable enterprise...

...then Lady Justice becomes a prostitute. The Corporation Pimp will always be slapping her around demanding "Where's my money, bitch!?" So she'll be motivated to turn as many tricks (catch citizens breaking the law) as she can.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

141. I don't agree with killing the DPS worker, however I do understand the sentiment

We're putting justice in the hands of private security, we're living in a society where cameras, both government and corporate, are becoming ubiquitous. We now have random strangers, working for corporations, filming your home, your place of business, you.

I can understand the man's anger and frustration, some of the same feelings motivated me, in part, to move out to the country where cameras are much less prevalent. However I can't condone killing this guy. Shooting up cameras, shooting up the van, I could understand that, but not the taking of a life.

That being said, the man's actions were effective, it got the DPS units off the street, at least for awhile. Now all we need to start doing is shooting out those "security" cameras, and red light cameras.

[KittyWampus]

142. It took an entire thread to get to a reasonable, well thought out post.

OY!

[MindPilot]

148. Some DUers just loves them some Big Brother!!

Authoritarians who call themselves liberal but will happily trade other peoples' rights for even the illusion of a tiny bit of extra safety.

[LanternWaste]

159. I'm surprised this guy didn't shoot a civilian w/ a camera...

I'm surprised this guy didn't shoot a civilian w/ a camera as they (civilians w/ cameras taking pics of every little bit of trivia for a MySpace or Facebook page) are usually far more invasive, far less regulated, far less professional, and far less civil with their camera work than LEO is.

To be honest, it's the ordinary yahoo walking around with a cell phone camera that makes me nervous, red light cameras and radar cameras not so much...

[MindPilot]

161. Yeah, except the guy with the camera was not an LEO

He was an employee of a private company which has been allowed to profit from extra-judicial law enforcement.

And the yahoo with the cell phone camera does not get to use to force of law to take your money.

[LanternWaste]

162. that yahoo with the cell camera

But that yahoo with the cell camera put up pictures of my little sis (unbeknown to her) on his Myspace page (and yeah-- I called a lawyer-- all very legal).

So yeah-- I'm just as leery of civilians using cameras 24/7 (if not more so) than of LEO. It's not simply people taking money that frustrates me, it's people who take honor and dignity too. Were that it only LEO my life would be saner...

[MindPilot]

166. And that's really the crux of this whole issue...

When the LEO's are doing the surveillance, there is accountability because they are constrained (or should be) by the Constitution. The yahoo with the cell camera (or the photo-radar) not so much.

Yeah, it does bother me a little that I can Google my address and virtually stand in my own front yard.

Hope your sister hasn't had any problems as a result of that.