I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.


You could always move to North Korea if you feel like this.

bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

Obviously you don't know sh*t about due process. Get out of my country.

bearsfolks: If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

From profile.

Former policeman,

That explains a lot and provides reinforcement that most cops are idiots and shouldn't be cops.

Most people who break the law make cops look like Albert Einstein. If you don't want a ticket, stop for the damn light. Do you have to have a behavior monitor watching you at all times?

bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

I can't "face my accuser" if its a camera. Also, the registered owner of the car gets the ticket, not necessarily the person who committed the crime.

bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it.

Ask your doctor if LASIK is right for you.

Gecko Gingrich: I can't "face my accuser" if its a camera.

The camera isn't your accuser. Your accuser is the guy from the prosecutor's office that has pictures of you driving through a red light and you will get to face them in court. Its up to you to prove the pictures aren't faked since they are the only evidence the prosecution has. This is no different than the evidence that they will present if you run a red light and have an accident since they weren't there either.

You may be right, bearsfolks -- strict police enforcement of traffic signals may increase crashes the same way strict camera enforcement does. Police in Massachusetts have found enforcing crosswalk laws increases accidents and there's probably a similar principle at work.

bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

This

People only complain because it prevents idiotic driving.

I see a difference between speed cameras and red light cameras. I don't really care if people go 10 over the speed limit on an open road, but I do care if idiots blow through red lights.

In Phoenix, we've had both for a while, and people here are far less concerned with red light cameras.

In a future followup story, everybody that got a ticket is now on a list the county pigs will use to stop you for no reason and search your vehicle for drugs at every opportunity. Expect plenty of planted drugs I mean drug arrests

Hopefully this same thing happens in Arizona. These cameras are BS and keeping citizens poor. Don't tell me, you do the crime blah blah blah when every single mistake you make costs you $300. Ever catch yourself accidently going a bit too fast or get caught behind someone going slow through a left turn and barely run the light? Yep, please send in your $300 for each time. Thanks!

They probably forgot to do like everyone else does and fund it with a grant from Homeland Security padded, as happens nowadays, with enough money to pay for likely lawsuits. That way anyone who opposes it is a terrorist and is treated as such, and any suits that eventually make their way through the courts do not bankrupt the city.

bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

Agree. Red lights have a function written into law. One should follow the law. And these cameras allow police to tend to other things that require people.

Wow, the little guy wins!

Can we get a WIN tag ?

DON.MAC: Its up to you to prove the pictures aren't faked...

There's a difference between proving innocence and proving guilt. The prosecutor has to prove you did it, you don't have to prove you didn't.

I should send this article to the politicians around here. The idiots have signed a deal to get this area's first red light camera. They already have big plans for the money.

Grunhilde Gonzalez: Agree. Red lights have a function written into law. One should follow the law. And these cameras allow police to tend to other things that require people.

Why, when statistics show that cameras actually increase accident occurrence?

Are you aware of how revenue-seeking municipalities shorten the duration of yellow lights when they install these cameras? And how that gets people killed?

bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

Let me know when they haul the camera into the courtroom so you can face your accuser.

Grunhilde Gonzalez: bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

Agree. Red lights have a function written into law. One should follow the law. And these cameras allow police to tend to other things that require people.

These

bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

Your name wouldn't happen to be Dick, would it?

Does that also include all indecent exposure arrests made via red light cameras?
/Crosses fingers. Please rule yes, please rule yes.

Drakin020: bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

This

People only complain because it prevents idiotic driving.

If you aren't trolling, then how could you even make such a statement? I bet you think pro-choice people love killing babies.

bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

because a camera can't be cross examined in a court.

Aside from the sheer idiocy that was bearsfolks's statement, and the waffling schwnj is putting forth, understand that the courts in this case have totally ruled properly. The failure of the camera system to address due process (Constitutional) principles is what's at stake here, not the right or wrong of running a red light. Pay attention to the issue.

Cameras cannot tell if your car accidentally went over the line a few inches, just that your car is over the line. The camera can't tell if it's you driving or your child, wife, or the car thief.

Cameras, like radar guns and other law enforcement "tools" should be used in conjunction with an actual police officer who witnesses the crime and is thus able to record it and testify as to the context of the incident. A camera's field of vision is limited. The cop can keep his head moving, has the benefit of peripheral vision, and the ability to (potentially) utilize common sense.

Obviously, some officers have a Judge Dredd complex, but most are relatively reasonable human beings.

Everyone knows the law only applies to you if only the cop is looking.

/they save lives
//even stupid ones, but still

bearfolks is entitled to his opinion...unless he's an LA SWAT member and there are any toddlers around.

Man On Pink Corner: bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it.

Ask your doctor if LASIK is right for you.

Hyuck!

AzErNy: Hopefully this same thing happens in Arizona. These cameras are BS and keeping citizens poor. Don't tell me, you do the crime blah blah blah when every single mistake you make costs you $300. Ever catch yourself accidently going a bit too fast or get caught behind someone going slow through a left turn and barely run the light? Yep, please send in your $300 for each time. Thanks!

Maybe next time you will be paying better attention.

I hope we keep our cameras in Arizona. I never speed and never run red lights, and get a great laugh every time I see some cocktard blow by me and then get popped by one of those things.

Please, oh please, keep them.

/Besides, they're an important source of revenue. If we can get it there instead of raising my property taxes, hell yes!

lewismarktwo: Drakin020: bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

This

People only complain because it prevents idiotic driving.

If you aren't trolling, then how could you even make such a statement? I bet you think pro-choice people love killing babies.

That's a good way to defend your opinion...Call people baby killers.

Now I hope the million speed cameras in Arizona are next.

I really enjoy cop threads and pot threads. Sometimes when I don't have time waste in the Politics tab, these types of threads help me easily identify mouth-breathing fascists rather quickly. Thanks!

bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

I mean, yeah, it's not like we have a 4th amendment or anything anymore.

/Right?(^)

This is news?

The due process folks are right. There are probably some very appealing aspects to communism, socialism, etc., that's just not how we do it here.

Bea Arthur Jr.: This is news?

no, it's fark

bearsfolk you were pretty funny in that Paul Blart movie.

Well done buddy.

Drakin020: Maybe next time you will be paying better attention.

Cause you have never done that right?

BBRModitha: /they save lives
//even stupid ones, but still

Care to prove this assertion?

Because the current research is showing that they increase the amount of accidents as people panic and stop suddenly; doubly so when the extra-idiotic cities decide they just want the income and mess with the yellow light times.

/if it was about safety, why would you shorten the yellow light time to an unsafe interval?

They should take those cameras and move them to 5th street to catch all the people driving on the light rail tracks.

Last night while walking down 5th, there was a silver "crossover" vehicle which was driven right onto the tracks and continued down the block on the light rail tracks.

bearsfolk made some valid points about not running red lights and you won't get a ticket. My problem is when the city installs a camera and then shortens the yellow to catch as many people as possible. I also have a problem with revenue sharing agreements with private companies.

Yugoboy: Aside from the sheer idiocy that was bearsfolks's statement, and the waffling schwnj is putting forth, understand that the courts in this case have totally ruled properly. The failure of the camera system to address due process (Constitutional) principles is what's at stake here, not the right or wrong of running a red light. Pay attention to the issue.

Ok, let's try this: A motion-sensor surveillance camera in a convenience store captures a burglar breaking in and stealing the cash register. The camera has a clear shot of the burglar's face and can even see the license plate of the car that the burglar was driving. I would say that evidence alone is sufficient to support criminal charges against the burglar.

Compare that to a red-light camera (the ones I'm aware of are video-based, so perhaps this is different with still cameras) that records video of a car driving through a clearly red light. The face of the driver is visible and the license plate of the car is visible. I don't see how this differs from the above scenario, so I would again think that the evidence would support charges (or fines or whatever) against the driver.

I don't see how due process is violated in either case. There is evidence that a person violated a law, there is a good-faith reason to believe the evidence is valid (i.e., not staged or tampered with), and the accused will have a chance to provide a defense against the charges.

I don't think due process is the key piece of the argument here. Instead, the question should be "Is an image (or video) from one of these cameras sufficient to convince a judge/jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offense?" If yes, then the burden shifts to the accuse to explain otherwise, and if not, then all camera evidence should be declared invalid.

I don't have a car, or even a driver's license (I live and work in a city, buses work), but even I can see that red light cameras are an abomination.

1) They are technical devices, prone to technical failures.
2) They cannot be cross examined
3) They cannot detect simple deceptions, like people pasting a photograph of a different plate over their plate (some kids were exploiting red light cameras by borrowing cars and putting laser printed license numbers over the real plate- thus fooling the cameras and sending some poor sap tickets).
4) Unlike an officer of the law, they cannot detain or delay unsafe drivers. They cannot apply any sort of judgment.
5) It's pretty transparent that they're used for revenue generating.

bearsfolks: I've never been able to see the difference between a cop on the street and a camera with a sign on it. If you do the crime, do the time and quit whining.

agreed, i really don't think we need silly cops around anymore, cameras are way less arrogant.
i never get camera tickets becuase i go slow around the cameras and don't run lights.

but i always get pulled over by cops who just want to talk to me and give me a warning about something really silly. man it would be nice to replace all those cops with cameras.

/been pulled over 20+ times, never got a ticket.
//male

t3knomanser: I don't have a car, or even a driver's license (I live and work in a city, buses work), but even I can see that red light cameras are an abomination.

1) They are technical devices, prone to technical failures.
2) They cannot be cross examined
3) They cannot detect simple deceptions, like people pasting a photograph of a different plate over their plate (some kids were exploiting red light cameras by borrowing cars and putting laser printed license numbers over the real plate- thus fooling the cameras and sending some poor sap tickets).
4) Unlike an officer of the law, they cannot detain or delay unsafe drivers. They cannot apply any sort of judgment.
5) It's pretty transparent that they're used for revenue generating.

You do know that each car ticketed by a red light camera is reviewed by someone...I happen to know someone who does that...But it's just easier to spew things that you don't know....

The cameras are a problem because they often malfunction. As the accused, you have no way of proving the equipment malfunctioned. You are assumed to be guilty. There are numerous examples out there of faulty systems. These cameras are about as unreliable as the first radar guns were.