• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

VIDEO: Santas Disable Enforcement Cameras in Tempe

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
VIDEO: Santas Disable Enforcement Cameras in Tempe

KFYI - "The Valley's Talk Station"



TEMPE, Ariz. (AP) _ A group of Santa impersonators are on the naughty list of Arizona law enforcement officials.

A YouTube video posted Monday shows four people dressed as Kris Kringle, white beards and red hats included, covering three speed and red light enforcement cameras in Tempe.


Good for them, these cameras are unconstitutional.





YouTube - Santa's helpers disable naughty cameras in Tempe
 
:rofl:rofl:rofl
 
In our Constitution, it is written that "no cameras can be used to detect disrespectful speeders and those who endanger the public in general."
 
In our Constitution, it is written that "no cameras can be used to detect disrespectful speeders and those who endanger the public in general."




Have you read the 6th amendment to the constitution? Many speed limits are arbitrary.
 
Freeeeeeedooooooom!!!!
 
Have you read the 6th amendment to the constitution? Many speed limits are arbitrary.

Would you mind please citing the part of the 6th amendment which states the city cannot have those cameras?
 
Have you read the 6th amendment to the constitution? Many speed limits are arbitrary.

What does the 6th amendment have to do with speed limits set by state governments and the enforcement of said speed limits in the interests of public safety?
 
Would you mind please citing the part of the 6th amendment which states the city cannot have those cameras?





"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
 
What does the 6th amendment have to do with speed limits set by state governments and the enforcement of said speed limits in the interests of public safety?




"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
 
Also they are owned by "Photonotice.com"

Meaning a private company is accusing you of a crime.

They need to prove you guilty in a court of law.



Also, if they can not see your face you have to pay and get points whether you are driving or not.




That said, idiots who run red lights should be charged with reckless driving.

These cameras though are not the answer.
 
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

A camera isn't a witness. Are you saying a camera is a witness as defined by the courts?
 
A camera isn't a witness. Are you saying a camera is a witness as defined by the courts?



If there are no witnesses how can this evidence be introduced?


how are these cameras calibrated? Does the private company contracted by the government have an incentive to ticket you?

Can I confront this company in a court of law?



See my last post as well...


Also they are owned by "Photonotice.com"

Meaning a private company is accusing you of a crime.

They need to prove you guilty in a court of law.



Also, if they can not see your face you have to pay and get points whether you are driving or not.




That said, idiots who run red lights should be charged with reckless driving.

These cameras though are not the answer.
 
If there are no witnesses how can this evidence be introduced?
Where do you get the idea that there has be a witness for the state or fed to press charges?


how are these cameras calibrated? Does the private company contracted by the government have an incentive to ticket you?
People have challenged the integrity of these systems before such that the owners must show that they function properly. This has been done with cops using radar guns. People would challenge the integrity of the radar guns and the company would decline because they didn't want their intellectual property to become public. I can't find the article but I believe they people who challenged got owned, big time. Nonetheless, it is a valid concern.

Can I confront this company in a court of law?
Sometimes. Yes.


Meaning a private company is accusing you of a crime.
No, private companies cannot. Only the state can charge you with a crime. A private company can only bring you to civil court.


Also, if they can not see your face you have to pay and get points whether you are driving or not.
Wrong. they must match a face with a drivers license otherwise you don't get a ticket. At least that is true in Arizona.


These cameras though are not the answer.
I hate the ****ing cameras too. We have them about every 3 miles (both ways) on every ****ing freeway. But people do drive the ****ty 55mph or 65mph speed limit now.
 
People have challenged the integrity of these systems before such that the owners must show that they function properly. This has been done with cops using radar guns. People would challenge the integrity of the radar guns and the company would decline because they didn't want their intellectual property to become public. I can't find the article but I believe they people who challenged got owned, big time. Nonetheless, it is a valid concern.
Not always, my best friend challenged the calibration specs, affidavit for said specs, time between calibration AND calibrator, the company failed miserably on all fronts, and needless to say he got out of the ticket.




No, private companies cannot. Only the state can charge you with a crime. A private company can only bring you to civil court.
Which is a major problem, speeding and running red lights are misdemeanors, the ticket serves as subpeona and fine, if you go to court and pay, you're done, if you decide to fight it is adjuticated(sp?). These companies attack your credit if you don't pay, even when you didn't sign any contract, which means they get around credit laws as well by treating the city's contract as some kind of binding agreement to all drivers, which should alarm everyone.


Wrong. they must match a face with a drivers license otherwise you don't get a ticket. At least that is true in Arizona.
Not in Lousiana, my city, Lafayette, they simply fine the vehicle, it's assumed by the tag that the owner is driving automatically. Hell, even some of the police and sheriff's officers got tickets during duty runs, one poor deputy got a red light ticket while escorting a funeral.


I hate the ****ing cameras too. We have them about every 3 miles (both ways) on every ****ing freeway. But people do drive the ****ty 55mph or 65mph speed limit now.
Maybe, but I read that rear-end collisions increase at red-light cams, plus, we have a "speed-van", the damn driver pulled out in front of me and almost took me out trying to merge into traffic, that would have been classic front page material, safespeed safety enforcement vehicle causes accident.
 
Furthermore the speed limits are set artificially low. and if you are in NY and NJ and do the speed limit on some highways you will get killed by other drivers doing 20-30 over.... If you didn't let people go these speeds traffic would build incrementally.
 
Furthermore the speed limits are set artificially low. and if you are in NY and NJ and do the speed limit on some highways you will get killed by other drivers doing 20-30 over.... If you didn't let people go these speeds traffic would build incrementally.
Tell me about it, we have a five lane here in terrific condition that just had the speed reduced 10 M.P.H. for "safety" reasons, I don't know what safety was accomplished since accidents and traffic are now up on the road.
 
Tell me about it, we have a five lane here in terrific condition that just had the speed reduced 10 M.P.H. for "safety" reasons, I don't know what safety was accomplished since accidents and traffic are now up on the road.

They've been raising and lowering the speed limits here arbitrarily too... it's kinda frustrating.. since we have all the cameras everywhere now.
 
Back
Top Bottom