Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   You have a problem with the city's use of red light cameras. Do you A) Complain about it, B) Obey the laws and get on with your life, or C) Shoot one with a high powered rifle? Bonus: only $50 fine   (rawstory.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

8653 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2007 at 1:59 PM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



149 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2007-11-28 12:24:34 PM  
That $50 is probably cheaper than any ticket and probably saved a lot of people money.
 
2007-11-28 12:29:47 PM  
Let's see. Discharge a high powered rifle within city limits, destroy a completely unnecessary camera & only pay $50 for the pleasure? Sign me up. The traffic ticket would cost me twice that & the offense would be far less enjoyable unless I was driving a Ferrari or something.
 
2007-11-28 12:51:45 PM  
He also may loose the rifle. Considering how Red Light cameras tend to increase accidents, I would say he did a public service and should be commended for his action.

Yes he put people at risk by shooting the camera, but he also may have saved people who would have slammed on their brakes and been rear ended because of the too short yellow times.
 
2007-11-28 1:39:40 PM  
Needs a HERO tag.

/vote from the rooftops?
 
2007-11-28 1:46:06 PM  
I'm with BobTheFascist - $50 isn't a fine, it's an entertainment expense. Sign me up!

6,798 people fined for running the light? In less than 2 years? That's, what, like 10 a day? Seems to me that there's a bigger problem to solve.
 
2007-11-28 2:01:52 PM  
D. Repost about it
 
2007-11-28 2:02:51 PM  
img507.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2007-11-28 2:03:04 PM  
Most traffic laws are designed to sap the money out of you.

//Learned the hard way what it means when you see a plethora of motorcycle cops patrolling.
 
2007-11-28 2:03:29 PM  
haha, I got a ticket from that same camera a while ago. The ticket cost? $50. I should have just blown it away.
 
2007-11-28 2:03:29 PM  
Hello, and welcome to last week. Please enjoy your stay at the Pete and Repeat Hotel.
 
2007-11-28 2:03:47 PM  

Crosshair


He also may loose the rifle.


*open rifle's cage*

Go! Be free!

*shoos rifle out of cage*
*watches it soar majestically*
 
2007-11-28 2:04:03 PM  
How the hell is the fine that low? Shouldn't discharging a firearm within city limits alone be worth more than that?
 
2007-11-28 2:04:12 PM  
$50, that's less than table dance money (and cleaner).
 
2007-11-28 2:04:17 PM  
people,

plz rtfa


$50 + LOSS OF HIS RIFLE

so it's more like $1050 fine.
 
2007-11-28 2:04:48 PM  
Englebert Slaptyback: Crosshair

He also may loose the rifle.


*open rifle's cage*

Go! Be free!

*shoos rifle out of cage*
*watches it soar majestically*


haha. win for you sir.
 
2007-11-28 2:05:09 PM  
For the answer to today's question, you may refer to this thread from two days ago.
 
2007-11-28 2:05:21 PM  
VictoryCabal: Needs a HERO tag.

/vote from the rooftops?


Agree, Hero material.

And for only $50...maybe it's something everyone can enjoy now?
 
2007-11-28 2:05:21 PM  
This is a repeat from last week or the week before.

[image from rt235.hopto.org too old to be available]
 
2007-11-28 2:05:46 PM  
I just came here to say what Postal Penguin, BobtheFascist, Crosshair, VictoryCabal, and bsdbigot said.
 
2007-11-28 2:06:11 PM  
That sure sends a message, now doesn't it?

img.fark.net

Shoot 'em all, I say. And if you somehow feel the need to defend this Orweillian practice, fark you.
 
2007-11-28 2:06:24 PM  
still cheaper than a good game of golf and twice the fun, what's not to enjoy? Our city installed cameras on about half of the intersections in town and then decided to not use them. So, currently our tax dollars paid for cameras that are hanging from lights and aren't even plugged in. I think they lasted all of a week and then the city voted against using them.
 
2007-11-28 2:06:43 PM  
The answer is C) Shoot one with a high powered rifle.

What do I win?
 
2007-11-28 2:06:50 PM  
TFA: Clark, now facing a $50 fine if convicted and loss of his rifle

He's being charged with a felony. If convicted, he loses his right to bear arms.
 
2007-11-28 2:06:54 PM  
AWESOME!

 
2007-11-28 2:07:08 PM  
Should be a FOLLOWUP tag. I'm stoked this guy only got a $50 fine. However, it does suck about the rifle. Take that, Aussie outsourced law enforcement!
 
2007-11-28 2:07:30 PM  
well use a cheaper gun if its going to get taken away... bbgun crack the lens?
 
2007-11-28 2:07:39 PM  
BobtheFascist: Let's see. Discharge a high powered rifle within city limits, destroy a completely unnecessary camera & only pay $50 for the pleasure? Sign me up.

THIS
 
2007-11-28 2:08:10 PM  
Englebert Slaptyback: Crosshair

He also may loose the rifle.


*open rifle's cage*

Go! Be free!

*shoos rifle out of cage*
*watches it soar majestically*


If you love something, set it free.
Unless she has huuuuuugggeeemmmooouuuss knockers.
 
2007-11-28 2:08:15 PM  
My red light camera ticket cost me over $400. And I was turning right on red. And I stopped, just not for "three seconds."

I wish I could shoot just more than the camera.
 
2007-11-28 2:08:29 PM  
BobtheFascist: Let's see. Discharge a high powered rifle within city limits, destroy a completely unnecessary camera & only pay $50 for the pleasure? Sign me up. The traffic ticket would cost me twice that & the offense would be far less enjoyable unless I was driving a Ferrari or something.

Not to mention the cost of increased insurance premiums. In Idaho I believe that most minor moving violation stick on your record for 3 years.


Piss Up A Rope:

$50 + LOSS OF HIS RIFLE

so it's more like $1050 fine.


I'm sure he can appeal to get his rifle back. As if he doesn't have another one already.
 
2007-11-28 2:08:45 PM  
Do any of you griping about these cameras actually do anything effective, such as going to town/city council meetings and complaining there, in order to actually try and get them removed, and so on?
 
2007-11-28 2:08:50 PM  
wmoonfox: TFA: Clark, now facing a $50 fine if convicted and loss of his rifle

He's being charged with a felony. If convicted, he loses his right to bear arms.


Let's hope he can deal with Marsupial arms.
 
2007-11-28 2:08:53 PM  
ZOMGWTFBBQ! This happened again!!!1! Won't someone think of the cameras?

/Seriously. What's with the repeats today modmins?
 
2007-11-28 2:08:57 PM  
C for sure.
 
2007-11-28 2:08:58 PM  
Looks like a typo to me, but...

/meh
 
2007-11-28 2:08:59 PM  
wmoonfox: TFA: Clark, now facing a $50 fine if convicted and loss of his rifle

He's being charged with a felony. If convicted, he loses his right to bear arms.


so what happens then? they fall off?
 
2007-11-28 2:09:23 PM  
wmoonfox: If convicted, he loses his right to bear arms.

Funny, I don't see that provision in the 2nd Amendment...
 
2007-11-28 2:09:37 PM  
I'd pay $50 to shoot one of those. Hell, I'd shoot one every week!
 
2007-11-28 2:09:42 PM  
It's a good start. Now he needs to move on to the city council members that approved the camera in the first place.
 
2007-11-28 2:10:05 PM  
It all depends, was it a ten I see um, or an El I bam um, maybe a Jus re pete um?
 
2007-11-28 2:11:03 PM  
Submitter loses points for inaccurate headline. It's not only $50; it is a $50 fine plus it's a felony, meaning that from now on you have to explain you're a felon when trying to apply for credit, get a job, or try to vote.
 
2007-11-28 2:11:03 PM  
So, next time, shoot out the camera with a cheapass BB gun!
 
2007-11-28 2:12:13 PM  
$50 dollar fine and is now a felon.

If convicted he loses his right to purchase guns, his right to vote, etc

Perhaps a good lawyer can get the city to reduce the charge but being a convicted felon costs a lot more than $50 bucks.

I still applaud him tho.
 
2007-11-28 2:12:20 PM  
Was better when I read it last week on here..
 
2007-11-28 2:12:28 PM  
whidbey: wmoonfox: If convicted, he loses his right to bear arms.

Funny, I don't see that provision in the 2nd Amendment...


Hey, you're preaching to the choir... but that's the way it works.
 
2007-11-28 2:12:36 PM  
tetheredswimming: it is a $50 fine plus it's a felony, meaning that from now on you have to explain you're a felon when trying to apply for credit, get a job, or try to vote.

All for doing the right thing. Oh the irony...
 
2007-11-28 2:13:08 PM  
This article sucks (besides being a repeat).

$50 is the red light running fine, not the fine for felony vandalism and reckless endangerment.

Ok? Now, let's all get a collection going.

FREE CLIFF CLARK
 
2007-11-28 2:13:32 PM  
No I would not shoot the dam camera as I would loose my gun. I have stopped driveing on certain streets and stop patronizing stores and resteraunts on those streets. It really disturbs owners when regulars quit comeing in because of something the city did.
 
2007-11-28 2:13:51 PM  
Crosshair: He also may loose lose the rifle.

Sorry, pet peeve.

/Reverse Rotsky?
 
2007-11-28 2:16:21 PM  
I said this last time it came up, but why not use a ladder and a can of spray paint? It's a lot less noisy, so people are less likely to call the cops on you.
 
2007-11-28 2:16:33 PM  
The minimum punishment for a felony in Tennessee (Class E) is as follows:

"Not less than one (1) year nor more than six (6) years in prison. In addition, the jury may assess a fine not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000), unless otherwise provided by statute."

I repeat, this article sucks unless it inspires more people to shoot cameras thinking the punishment is just $50.
 
2007-11-28 2:16:40 PM  
I'm torn on this. On one hand, I despise red-light cameras and all other heavy-handed forms of government surveillance, and thus applaud this man's actions. On the other hand, people who run red lights are assholes who have no qualms about putting their fellow citizens in harm's way.
 
2007-11-28 2:17:10 PM  
$50 is the red light running fine, not the fine for felony vandalism and reckless endangerment.

WRONG!

FTFA:

Clark, now facing a $50 fine if convicted and loss of his rifle, refused to say anything about the incident to police, leaving the motive unclear.

Catlett, who oversees the red-light camera program, said 6,798 drivers have been photographed running the red light at Broadway and I-640 and ticketed since the camera was installed in 2006. Clark was not one of them, he said.
 
2007-11-28 2:17:18 PM  
Where I live, they did away with the red light camaras. They stopped using them when they were held to(as initally agreed)giving 90 % of the $ collected to the school system. Which meant they would have to make up the difference between how much $ they took in as fines, minus what they would have to give to schools and how much it actually cost to run and maintain the whole stupid system. Hee hee hee.
 
2007-11-28 2:17:25 PM  
Dammit. Does this mean we have to repeat our comments from the last time this was posted?

Tom Waits...yada, yada...I'm just not into it.
 
2007-11-28 2:17:46 PM  
as someone who is usually against red necks running around with rifles in their cars.. this time it seems to be the lessser of two evils.. good for him! =P
 
2007-11-28 2:18:10 PM  
wmoonfox: TFA: Clark, now facing a $50 fine if convicted and loss of his rifle

He's being charged with a felony. If convicted, he loses his right to bear arms.


This.

Thought it was a good idea until I saw FELONY. So if he has any other weapons, they go bye bye as well. At least it's not the Soviet Socialist Republic of California, where they come to your house that same day and confiscate (read steal) all of your weapons and you haven't even been convicted yet.

GAWD, I need to move!
 
2007-11-28 2:18:22 PM  
If it isn't a week old and been reposted 10 times, it's not Fark.com.
 
2007-11-28 2:19:26 PM  
EvilN8: Clark, now facing a $50 fine if convicted and loss of his rifle, refused to say anything about the incident to police, leaving the motive unclear.

philipcoppens.comView Full Size


unclear, say you?
 
2007-11-28 2:19:51 PM  
For as diligent as you modmins are in deleting even slightly off topic posts, you really need to watch those repeats.


/and then he was banned
//simply because they could
 
2007-11-28 2:20:47 PM  
wmoonfox: Hey, you're preaching to the choir... but that's the way it works.

I guess what I'm saying is that I would fight this tooth and nail, if I had the energy to deal with that kind of BS.

Maybe this guy does...he did the right thing in my book.

If it takes irate citizens with guns to stop this crap, so be it. That's why the 2nd Amendment exists.
 
2007-11-28 2:21:26 PM  
Sounds like the disgruntled Dad in Suburban Commando


/obscure?
 
2007-11-28 2:21:54 PM  
He was arrested after patrol officers heard shots around 2 a.m. Sunday, spotted a minivan leaving the parking lot of a closed business and pulled it over.


Somehow "Vote from the minivan" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
 
2007-11-28 2:22:54 PM  
He may be charged with a felony, but i have a feeling a plea bargain will be the result.
 
2007-11-28 2:22:57 PM  
EvilN8: WRONG! FTFA:

You are correctly quoting TFA. The problem is that TFA is wrong, and a repeat. You really think the best the state can do is fine someone $50 for shooting a rifle in public and destroying an essential moneymaker life-saver? Think, friend, think.

It takes a few days to process the tickets, btw.
 
2007-11-28 2:26:57 PM  
I say: if you can shoot it out from your bedroom window, you have a Constitutional right obligation to do so.
 
2007-11-28 2:27:51 PM  
Only a $50 fine? I'd say it's worth every penny!
 
2007-11-28 2:27:51 PM  
Most traffic laws are designed to sap the money out of you.

Traffic laws are designed to provide LEO contact with citizens. It gives cops (the State, ostensibly) a "reason" to interact with you in great detail. The money is a secondary consideration.
 
2007-11-28 2:28:42 PM  
Even though it's only a $50 fine, the city can sue him for the cost of the camera (and I bet they will). If he's convicted in criminal court, the civil case is a no-brainer.
 
2007-11-28 2:32:58 PM  
karatekitten13: My red light camera ticket cost me over $400. And I was turning right on red. And I stopped, just not for "three seconds."

I wish I could shoot just more than the camera.


*peaks at profile*

HOW YOU DOIN?

/kitten indeed
 
2007-11-28 2:33:54 PM  
Crosshair: He also may loose the rifle. Considering how Red Light cameras tend to increase accidents, I would say he did a public service and should be commended for his action.i>

I'm not a big fan of the cameras. But in the locations that they put them in Minneapolis (before the courts forced the city to take them down), accidents decreased dramatically. Why do you say they increase accidents?
 
2007-11-28 2:34:01 PM  
Jraxis

Do any of you griping about these cameras actually do anything effective, such as going to town/city council meetings and complaining there, in order to actually try and get them removed, and so on?

No. In Charlotte, all you have to do is wait for the city council to piss Lockheed off and then they magically stop working.

/God bless the nice men at Lockheed-Martin
//They and the DoD will free the shiat out of everyone
 
2007-11-28 2:34:50 PM  
img.fark.net

I've considered it in the past.
 
2007-11-28 2:36:52 PM  
Buy remote control helicopter
add camera and spray can
 
2007-11-28 2:37:24 PM  
Crosshair: He also may loose the rifle.

And then loose the dogs of war on that biznitch traffic light?
 
2007-11-28 2:37:56 PM  
I don't know much about guns, but you never really hear anything about low-powered rifles. Do such things even exist?
 
2007-11-28 2:38:06 PM  
Now if only more people will do this so the government can get an idea of how much the people hate these things, eh?
 
2007-11-28 2:38:37 PM  
I:

D) order that clear spray that blocks the cam from identifying my license plate.
 
2007-11-28 2:38:43 PM  
Do any of you griping about these cameras actually do anything effective, such as going to town/city council meetings and complaining there, in order to actually try and get them removed, and so on?

Seems futile at best.
 
2007-11-28 2:38:47 PM  
fuhldang: Crosshair: He also may loose the rifle. Considering how Red Light cameras tend to increase accidents, I would say he did a public service and should be commended for his action.i>

I'm not a big fan of the cameras. But in the locations that they put them in Minneapolis (before the courts forced the city to take them down), accidents decreased dramatically. Why do you say they increase accidents?


Mostly because independent research says so... But don't let facts get in the way of your inaccurate anecdotes. Yes, inaccurate because I'm pretty sure you don't spend 24/7 monitoring the intersections that they're put in.
 
2007-11-28 2:38:54 PM  
jrodnewb will stand of the shoulders of those before him...and improve...

higher powered rifle CHECK

silencer CHECK

case the areas around RL cameras CHECK

PROFIT!?? maybe not...
 
2007-11-28 2:38:54 PM  
um, didn't this story go up earlier this week? Or is this a different guy than the 30-06 guy? the article sez high powered rifle.
 
2007-11-28 2:39:41 PM  
Zimmy: Now if only more people will do this so the government can get an idea of how much the people hate these things, eh?

Pretty much. It sucks that it has to boil down to vandalism, but aside from an angry mob at a city council meeting, there's just no motivation to discontinue them. We're talking about a lot of revenue here.
 
2007-11-28 2:40:56 PM  
The penalty for shooting a camera is NOT $50, but feel free to continue thinking it is so if that makes you inclined to shoot more of them. A Class E felony gets 1-6 years in PMITA plus $3000 in fines, max.

From the Tennessee Code:

"39-13-103. Reckless endangerment. -

(a) A person commits an offense who recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.

(b) Reckless endangerment is a Class A misdemeanor; however, reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon is a Class E felony."

A quick case law googling suggests they might be stretching on the charge.
 
2007-11-28 2:45:34 PM  
C, subby. C.

He should've used an SKS. Under $150.

Hell, for $250 a camera, he could make a business out of it. I'd love to see that add in the paper.
 
2007-11-28 2:48:52 PM  
but aside from an angry mob at a city council meeting

Presumambly the "City Council" ratified them to begin with. I think it'd be tough to have them removed just because they're unpopular.

After all, "public safety" trumps everything. You rights, common sense, logic, statistics- all meaningless in a discussion of "public safety".
 
2007-11-28 2:49:35 PM  
bellsouthpwp.netView Full Size
 
2007-11-28 2:51:55 PM  

tortilla burger


I don't know much about guns, but you never really hear anything about low-powered rifles. Do such things even exist?


They do exist, but the name isn't nearly as scary and/or newsworthy.
 
2007-11-28 2:52:58 PM  

Boritom


You, sir, are full of WIN today!


Why, thank you!
 
2007-11-28 2:54:27 PM  
whidbey: Zimmy: Now if only more people will do this so the government can get an idea of how much the people hate these things, eh?

Pretty much. It sucks that it has to boil down to vandalism, but aside from an angry mob at a city council meeting, there's just no motivation to discontinue them. We're talking about a lot of revenue here.


Can't really blame 'em[the government], really. It's a LOT of money that they can get from this. It'd be like giving themselves a huge raise.

Now, from the ETHICAL point of view. . .
 
2007-11-28 2:55:30 PM  
I'm surprised that he didn't violate some federal gun law or sumthin.
 
2007-11-28 3:03:28 PM  
polecatpaintball.comView Full Size


Probably just as effective.
 
2007-11-28 3:06:14 PM  
Mayhem of the Black Underclass 2007-11-28 02:16:21 PM I said this last time it came up, but why not use a ladder and a can of spray paint? It's a lot less noisy, so people are less likely to call the cops on you.

A can of spray paint on a pole with a cord to activate the spray makes more sense. Faster to deploy and use, less cumbersome, easier to conceal. Or a paintball gun, assuming you don't mind the risk of being shot by a cop who thinks you're the new DC Sniper.

i17.tinypic.comView Full Size
 
2007-11-28 3:07:05 PM  
 
2007-11-28 3:08:17 PM  
Barakku 2007-11-28 02:04:03 PM
How the hell is the fine that low? Shouldn't discharging a firearm within city limits alone be worth more than that?

Also, let's not forget - let's NOT forget, Dude - that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either.
 
2007-11-28 3:09:05 PM  
bdogthehog: Sounds like the disgruntled Dad in Suburban Commando


/obscure?


Might be obscure. I just gave up trying to google a picture of the scene in question.
 
2007-11-28 3:09:52 PM  
Open Season!

And ride with your tailgate down.
 
2007-11-28 3:14:44 PM  
We have those dang cameras locally. Serious pain in the rear. I have seen so many light runners I understand why we need them. But still think they are a pain, but really people blame the reason for them being there not the cameras.
 
2007-11-28 3:14:45 PM  
Piss Up A Rope

QFT. Also, if convicted of a felony, would have to surrender any other firearms. Pretty costly, actually. Subby is either illiterate, lazy, or both.
 
2007-11-28 3:15:21 PM  
Englebert Slaptyback: Crosshair

He also may loose the rifle.


*open rifle's cage*

Go! Be free!

*shoos rifle out of cage*
*watches it soar majestically*


Hey! Don't you know that's how most gun violence occurs? You can't let these guns run free. Just think of the carnage.
 
2007-11-28 3:16:17 PM  
DrForrester: It's a good start. Now he needs to move on to the city council members that approved the camera in the first place.

He should rig himself up a killdozer. (pops)
 
2007-11-28 3:16:49 PM  
Dumbass? I say Hero tag is in order.
 
2007-11-28 3:17:12 PM  
Piss Up A Rope: people,

plz rtfa


$50 + LOSS OF HIS RIFLE

so it's more like $1050 fine.


Shoulda used an $70 WW2 surplus Mosin. Would almost be worth it.

/if you were a camera shooting redneck
 
2007-11-28 3:19:38 PM  
wmoonfox: TFA: Clark, now facing a $50 fine if convicted and loss of his rifle

He's being charged with a felony. If convicted, he loses his right to bear arms.


Like G. Gordon Liddy, his wife will have one helluva a collection.
 
2007-11-28 3:22:27 PM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzqhAmP-gq4

YixilTesiphon
the real killdozer!

/have this movie
 
2007-11-28 3:24:01 PM  
danlpoon: After all, "public safety" trumps everything. You rights, common sense, logic, statistics- all meaningless in a discussion of "public safety".

There you go! And sadly, that's the reason this guy went vigilante...
 
2007-11-28 3:26:50 PM  
OK, this story is driving me nuts.

I live in Knoxville and have been following this stupid story. The fine for shooting the camera isn't $50, the fine for running a red light is $50. However, in the original story in the Knoxville paper, the moran reporter made that point really screwy because he can't write.

The point the reporter was trying to make (FAIL) was that even if the man had got caught by the camera running the light (which, ironically, he might not have), all he would have to do is pay $50 and the violation doesn't show up on your driving record.

Granted, the guy isn't going away for life or anything, but it will be more than $50 fine if he's convicted of firing a rifle in public.

/rant over
 
2007-11-28 3:33:33 PM  
Since this is a felony conviction does he also lose his constitutional right to bear arms?
 
2007-11-28 3:34:55 PM  
Change this to "HERO" tag.
 
2007-11-28 3:38:30 PM  
To: hayden1222 and you other spelling challenged farkers...

The word is MORON.
 
2007-11-28 3:38:35 PM  
Jraxis: such as going to town/city council meetings and complaining there, in order to actually try and get them removed, and so on?

When the cameras are installed because the companies that make/install them are giving the town/city councilmembers a cut, not a goddamned thing is going to prevent them from being installed.

Not angry citizens, not rational arguments, not even proof that they cause more accidents than they prevent. I don't even think they're there to make money for the city so much as they're there to make money for certain politicians.
 
2007-11-28 3:39:55 PM  
Yeah! Knoxville finally made fark!....oh wait thats not a good thing?!...Oh well all towns have there share of idiots!

By the way in case anyones interested...Here is the statement from our local KPD spokesman....""The penalty he's going to pay is going to be far greater than the $50 citation," DeBusk said.

According to the local news they intend to pass the cost of the unit he distroyed on to him.
 
2007-11-28 3:41:07 PM  
Hypothetically....

If I were to setup a website that would let people 'donate' money for the removal of a specific speed camera...and it would allow people to visit the site and see how much money someone would get for disabling a specific camera....and also, provided some sort of interface to 'bet' on what a specific camera would 'stop working' - and if you were correct, you'd win the money in the pool.

So, for example, you are a cash-strapped 16 year old who wants some new nikes. You aren't an adult, nothing to worry about. You visit the site and see that so many people hate the camera light at the corner of Harmony and Timberline that there is currently a pool of $400 dollars that will go to whoever correctly 'guesses' the date that it will 'stop working'. So, the kid places a $5 dollar bet (the 5 dollars will stop people from placing fake bets) and then he goes out, disables the camera, and bam - he wins the bet. I'd pay him the money from the pool (taking a tiny cut for my troubles).

If I did that, hypothetically, would I end up in jail?
 
2007-11-28 3:42:18 PM  
FeBolas: I don't even think they're there to make money for the city so much as they're there to make money for certain politicians.

I'd like to see a red-light camera hunting season poster Photoshopped just for such occasions as this...:)
 
2007-11-28 3:42:20 PM  
len470: The word is MORON.

...and today, len470 learns a valuable lesson on internet memes.

files.samhart.netView Full Size
 
2007-11-28 3:42:51 PM  
[image from rt235.hopto.org too old to be available]
[image from rt235.hopto.org too old to be available]
[image from rt235.hopto.org too old to be available]
[image from rt235.hopto.org too old to be available]
[image from rt235.hopto.org too old to be available]
 
2007-11-28 3:45:02 PM  
Hypersapien: bdogthehog: Sounds like the disgruntled Dad in Suburban Commando


/obscure?

Might be obscure. I just gave up trying to google a picture of the scene in question.


Yeah, I couldn't find one neither
 
2007-11-28 3:54:41 PM  
Englebert Slaptyback: = WIN!
 
2007-11-28 3:57:46 PM  
len470: MORON MORAN

Sorry, pet peeve.
 
2007-11-28 4:00:19 PM  
So the article says the motive is left unclear due to the guy not making any statements.

I would think it's pretty farking obvious why he shot a speeding camera. It was banging his wife...
 
2007-11-28 4:11:47 PM  
Ok guys I'm starting a fund to eliminate speed cameras via high powered rifles. I figure we need to raise $50 bucks a camera. Who's
in?
 
2007-11-28 4:15:50 PM  
Using a low-powered rifle will get you a $25 fine and a paddlin'.
 
2007-11-28 4:21:08 PM  
Stop running red lights, assholes.
 
2007-11-28 4:21:46 PM  
goddamned right!
 
2007-11-28 4:23:42 PM  
hayden1222

KnoxNews Story (new window)

I came here to say the same thing.
 
2007-11-28 4:28:21 PM  
HERO TAG!!!
 
2007-11-28 4:29:33 PM  
I would.
I would accept the punishment.
I would do it again.
 
2007-11-28 4:32:37 PM  
derek20cali: Stop running red lights, assholes.

Stop being such a chickensh*t you can't even have a real cop on duty to bust me for running red lights...

Assholes...;-p\

Oh yeah. Big man behind the camera.
 
2007-11-28 4:34:50 PM  
Englebert Slaptyback: Crosshair

He also may loose the rifle.


*open rifle's cage*

Go! Be free!

*shoos rifle out of cage*
*watches it soar majestically*


Thank you.
 
2007-11-28 4:42:28 PM  
mdeesnuts: Barakku 2007-11-28 02:04:03 PM
How the hell is the fine that low? Shouldn't discharging a firearm within city limits alone be worth more than that?

Also, let's not forget - let's NOT forget, Dude - that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either.


Discharging a firearm within city limits is actually harmful though--causes panic, for one thing, and bullets have to come down somewhere.
 
2007-11-28 4:46:21 PM  
Plastic wrap taped or tied over the camera window makes things too blurry to read a plate and merely makes the camera look dirty which makes it a lower priority to repair.

Shooting them may be more gratifying, but it's less effective. If you're truly set on destroying the things however, a burning tire hanging from the camera mount might be a little more anonymous...

/All hypothetically of course.
//I would NEEEEVER suggest such things.
 
2007-11-28 4:49:45 PM  
Fark_Guy_Rob: If I were to setup a website that would let people 'donate' money for the removal of a specific speed camera

I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

/more things solved by capitalism!
 
2007-11-28 5:02:30 PM  
Wow. TFA is full of fail. As stated by Taxcheat and Hayden: he woulda paid $50 if he'd been ticketed by the camera.

Updates since this late, repeated, and inaccurate story: camera's already back in action, and police report said dude said he shot camera because he didn't want the ticket. As of last story, cops only had the RedFlex cam pics up until November 20th, so in a few days, they'll likely get a picture of him.
 
2007-11-28 5:05:30 PM  
crevans: Plastic wrap taped or tied over the camera window makes things too blurry to read a plate and merely makes the camera look dirty which makes it a lower priority to repair.

You could probably get some little gangbanger wannabe to do that for a pack of smokes...;)
 
2007-11-28 5:46:16 PM  
TiltingAtWindmills: camera's already back in action

Slight correction -- it's not back in action. The camera head has been completely replaced as the .30-06 shots were quite destructive. That's why Mr. Clark's method was more effective than the temporary inconvenience of paintball, tape, etc. (Aside from the whole 1-6 year in jail felony thing which nobody in the thread seems to have noticed)
 
2007-11-28 5:55:13 PM  
Taxcheat: (Aside from the whole 1-6 year in jail felony thing which nobody in the thread seems to have noticed)

Oh we noticed.

We also "noticed" that any jail time for such a heroic action would be bunk.
 
2007-11-28 5:56:48 PM  
whidbey: Stop being such a chickensh*t you can't even have a real cop on duty to bust me for running red lights...

What difference does it make whether it's a real cop or a camera? I can think of more important things that a cop could focus on besides sitting at an intersection.
 
2007-11-28 6:15:35 PM  
People that run red lights deserve every bit of punishment our heavy handed government can muster.

With that said.. red light cameras are a total sham and only increase city revenue.
 
2007-11-28 6:50:56 PM  
Hmmmmmmmm run red light and pay $160 fine (or whatever it is there) or, shoot the camera and only pay $50 fine.

Sounds pretty frugal to me.
 
2007-11-28 7:13:57 PM  
one person's "dumbass", another's a "hero".

/shrug
 
2007-11-28 7:21:50 PM  
derek20cali: What difference does it make whether it's a real cop or a camera? I can think of more important things that a cop could focus on besides sitting at an intersection.

Me, too, but if it's really such a big deal, I would prefer a real human being instead of a machine telling me later that I'm busted with the evidence ready-made.

A little human error would be appreciated in this case.
 
2007-11-28 7:49:43 PM  
jrodnewb: silencer

Bad plan. If you're caught using a silenced firearm, you end up with a lot more prison time. In some states, silencers are completely illegal. Some other states will allow them, to certain people who submit to all kinds of licenses and other Gummint intrusiveness. The ATF sturmtruppen get their claws into you, as well.

/Would love to have a silenced AR
//Not worth the hassles
 
2007-11-28 8:05:27 PM  
Wenchmaster: ad plan. If you're caught using a silenced firearm, you end up with a lot more prison time. In some states, silencers are completely illegal. Some other states will allow them, to certain people who submit to all kinds of licenses and other Gummint intrusiveness. The ATF sturmtruppen get their claws into you, as well.

Two.
Litre.
Soda.
Bottle.
 
2007-11-28 8:13:37 PM  
Postal Penguin: That $50 is probably cheaper than any ticket and probably saved a lot of people money.

THIS
 
2007-11-28 8:27:41 PM  
len470: To: hayden1222 and you other spelling challenged farkers...

The word is MORON.


ummmmm...... New here?
 
2007-11-28 8:35:20 PM  
/get a brain moran
 
2007-11-28 8:38:02 PM  
haha I live just a few blocks from that camera...people from Halls are Morans, they like to welcome black families to the neighborhood by burning crosses in their yards.
 
2007-11-28 8:46:34 PM  
IDK if this has been said, but I do recall somewhere in the AP artical that the housing for the camera was bullet-proof (for smaller calibers). I wouldn't feel so sympathetic if the bullets ricoched into some little kid's brain.

/BTW, its farking hard to type w/ a Wii-mote, arrrg.
 
2007-11-28 10:54:59 PM  
col235555: IDK if this has been said, but I do recall somewhere in the AP artical that the housing for the camera was bullet-proof (for smaller calibers). I wouldn't feel so sympathetic if the bullets ricoched into some little kid's brain.

/BTW, its farking hard to type w/ a Wii-mote, arrrg.


yea but there's not much that can stop a .30-06
 
Displayed 149 of 149 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.