It isn't a Bush/Obama issue. Its an issue of the courts overstepping their bounds. My car is in my private driveay and therefore accessible to the public, so the cops have a right to place a hidden tracking device on it? I suppose if I left it unlocked, the public could have access to it too? What about my garage? If I forget to shut the door....?

It won't be too long before some pinhead says "well if you aint got nothing to hide..."

This is the kind of govt crap that pushes people towards the fringe militia groups. Now, the EPA is considering making lead bullets illegal under some kind of pollution act to protect birds.... Copper would be too expensive to mass produce, and most other metals are considered armor piercing. Nice way to skirt the second amendment.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

traffic cameras for example, if you did look, saw nothing coming but not make that @!#$ 4sec stop and turned right on red, you get a ticket on the mail

then the pinhead says if you go by the law and respect traffic signs, you have nothing to worry about

I hate traffic cameras, not because they are there, but because you do not have the right to defend yourself in a court or request a jury of your peers. They messed with the laws and classify the tickets like they would a parking ticket. That way, you can't succesfully challenge a ticket. $$$$

You could loan your car to your brother, who runs the red light and causes the ticket to be mailed to you. You could have a sworn affidavit from your boss, swearing your were at your desk, 100 miles away at the time the ticket was triggered, and you'd be SOL.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Kevin Trudeau wrote:I hate traffic cameras, not because they are there, but because you do not have the right to defend yourself in a court or request a jury of your peers. They messed with the laws and classify the tickets like they would a parking ticket. That way, you can't succesfully challenge a ticket. $$$$

You could loan your car to your brother, who runs the red light and causes the ticket to be mailed to you. You could have a sworn affidavit from your boss, swearing your were at your desk, 100 miles away at the time the ticket was triggered, and you'd be SOL.

.

and then the pinhead says, you should not let other people drive your car and you should be more responsible about who drives your car so whoever was driving your car needs to pay the ticket. that's what a pinhead would say

privacy is history

my point is they do not have the right. i say in fact that they cannot give tickets via camera because they cannot establish reasonable doubt you were the driver. i know that sounds like a cop out (pardon pun) but the way i see it we are obviously responsible for breaking the law, but accountable to law enforcement, not a digital camera

Mike Demo wrote:my point is they do not have the right. i say in fact that they cannot give tickets via camera because they cannot establish reasonable doubt you were the driver. i know that sounds like a cop out (pardon pun) but the way i see it we are obviously responsible for breaking the law, but accountable to law enforcement, not a digital camera

i agree. Technology can add evidence, but should never be a "witness." That should always be a human(in most cases an officer but could be a citizen reporting a crime as well).

I also think a visible police presence is a deterrent to crime. Camera are a "gotcha" method that only serves the purpose of "revenue generation" (revenue extorted from citizens without having to call it a tax). I feel the same about unmarked police cars(with the exception of using them for stakeouts etc). One city around here even has a cavalier cop car - that is no deterrent to crime.

I think you would see a transformation in law enforcement (and in our communities) if you took money out of the equation. Eliminate fines entirely. Jail time, community service, or perhaps another option could be found - but never with the government receiving one penny. If they need money, levy a tax it and call it a tax. With no more financial incentive to play "gotcha," they might want to focus more on crime prevention.

I'll tell you something that may not seem related. I work retail currently. Most of my work experience over the years has been retail as well and I'm currently management. Sure we occasionally bust shoplifters, but in terms to the financial bottom line that isn't that useful. Its only one tool and not the primary one. The thing that has the best effect is to deter shoplifters in the first place. For the most part, all you need to do is make them think twice about it.

The most effective means of doing so is to go up to customers and offer good customer service. Tell them hello and ask if they need assistance finding everything etc. For legit customers, you are offering service and showing their business is appreciated. But for potential shoplifters you are effectively announcing your own presence and acknowledging their own. It tells them that they are not beyond my notice.

Its not perfect and can't prevent all theft, but it helps a ton. I frequently find hastily discarded collections of previously concealed merchandise. Often time they will buy the stuff instead. You'd be surprised how often people steal things that they had the money on them to buy. Much of shoplifting - like many crimes - is a spur of the moment decision. For whatever reason - when most people are weighing in on a risky decision(regarding anything), they seem to not really place much weight on how bad the consequences could be, but rather what they think their chances are of things going badly. You could have life imprisonment for first time shoplifters and people would still do it if they think they won't get caught.

Alternative strategies might include doing the opposite - staying out of their sight and observing them aka playing "gotcha." I might do this in some cases, such as where I think my primary strategy won't work - like with suspected regular repeat shoplifters. You could really go so far as to have employees in plain clothes acting like customers if this was your primary strategy instead. Some businesses do both, but for a more manpower-limited retail outlet such as a drug store - since you need to choose one over the other - you go with what is most effective. A visible deterrent prevents more crime than the strongest after-the-fact punishments. You do need both as part of the total strategy, but one must be the primary focus over the other. This is one case where the government could learn a lesson from businesses. We know what works best.

You could make the same case for giving people the right to concealed arms - a robber knows that the worst case scenario for any attempt gone bad is their death. That is already true today but doesn't stop most robbers apparently. But... if they know that people are more likely to be packing heat, they then also know that the worst case scenario just became alot more likely. That deters the crime. It won't prevent all robberies, but certainly will greatly reduce the number.

i can see that during voting time. okay mr. joe public, you have never sped in your life. your neighbor speeds all the time and gets tickets and fines left and right. we want to change it so that instead of him paying these fines. the same amount generated is spread out among the general public, and you will pay a portion of that money. i know that isn't fair, but shouldnt you pay a portion of the crime your neighbor comitted.



i just find it a bit comical when the talk of black boxes and such comes up someone will scream hell no i demand my privacy, all while checking in on facebook and posting there exact locations to hundreds of people. also thought the whole idea of invasion of privacy when they are talking about something done outside in the general public with other people around.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

sndsgood wrote:i can see that during voting time. okay mr. joe public, you have never sped in your life. your neighbor speeds all the time and gets tickets and fines left and right. we want to change it so that instead of him paying these fines. the same amount generated is spread out among the general public, and you will pay a portion of that money. i know that isn't fair, but shouldnt you pay a portion of the crime your neighbor comitted.

Its more like you also pay for the protection police provide. Police are very important to a functioning society. Its no different than paying for roads. Probably, its even more important. Not everyone causes equal wear and tear on the roads either, but that's the way it is.

As for your neighbor - he should still get punished, just not in the form of a fine. There might be another benefit to this - for some people fines hurt the pocketbook good but for some other people they are nothing more than a minor nuisance and are no reason to correct their dangerous behavior. Stereotypically, I'd be talking about douches like this. I'm sure he's getting more that a fine, and that's the point - a fine will never correct his behavior. For starters, he needs to do time, and upon release should not be allowed to drive for a long time. That really wasn't my main point, just something I thought I'd add.

Fines do nothing but provide incentive to "catch" criminals after the fact - rather than prevent crime when possible. Its a very clear and evident conflict of interests. Even if you think you absolutely have to levy fines, you still should make sure that the government sees none of this money for that reason. You could for example - give money to disease research etc, or better yet giving traffic fines money to the families of victims of drunk drivers etc. You could do good with this money, just so long as you assure that no politician gets his hands on it. If you inject it directly into police budgets(or anything the government normally needs to fund), that only lessens the money the politicians need to dole out to law enforcement - which defacto puts money in the politicians hands (money not spent in one area is money you can spend in another).

Cops already have the heavy burden to protect and serve, but the current system of "fines as revenue" turns often them into tax collectors first and civil servants second. This additional role directs alot of hate toward cops that they just do not deserve. They do not make these decisions, rather they are just doing their job and taking plenty of ire that should be directed mainly at the politicians who make these decisions. Our officers deserve better IMO.

For people who don't believe fines are used as a means to revenue, here's something interesting that I am many other people have noticed - I bet a few around here could back this up too - ever since the recession hit, cigarette and alcohol stings have went through the roof(probably other government compliance checks too). Its not that they suddenly care that much more about underage consumption. In fact I'd bet the percentage of underage users of alcohol and/or tobacco who do not buy it themselves is above 90%. Some of those that do buy it themselves have fake IDs - this case means the stores are not intentionally nor neglectfully selling these things to kids. Alcohol is often stolen directly off the sales floor. I think almost all cases though are that they simply get someone who can legally buy it to do so for them. Stings do not and cannot address this problem - rather they address a very small portion (I doubt that it would even be 1% ) of the problem.

They use whatever tactics they can - "kids" that look 34, sending them in with fake/altered IDs(this actually happened to my brother but luckily he noticed where the ID looked frayed around the picture), not handing you the ID but instead holding it at awkward angles hoping you misread the date, telling you their (incorrect) birthday after saying they forgot it and occasionally acting agitated if you press the ID issue, trying to rush you - especially during busy times of the day. The exact strategies and how far they are willing to take them may vary by area - this is all stuff I or others have experienced in my area.

If they manage to trick/harass you into making the sale, here is what happens - the cashier is obviously loosing their job(every cashier know this before hand), the cashier is fined(IIRC last time I checked locally it was $250 - but it very well may have gone up). The business however, is getting hit much harder than that. They will be paying big fines(the real reason the cashiers are getting fired). The more often they got successfully hit, the bigger the (already huge) fines become. Realistically, no business is intentionally selling to minors. Some businesses have recently enacted a no-ID, no sale(doesn't matter if you are using a cane/walker) policy - it may seem like over-reacting but we have no other way to defend ourselves. If you wonder why you are getting carded and/or refused sale by stubborn cashiers when you are 57, now you know why.

Now the irony here, is that the one person who verifiably can be said to have intentionally broke the law - aka the kid they sent in - will get in no legal trouble at all. You see that is someone who got caught possessing a substance they are not legally allowed to possess, and they got offered to drop all charges in exchange for going around businesses and raking in some fine money. If it was about the crime, they'd punish the kid and press him/her til they give out how they really got the tobacco/alcohol. Instead, they go for bigger money and the kid gets off scott-free.

There is another angle to consider on this issue - ever notice small towns(such as one I spend 10+ years of my life in) with over-inflated police forces they DO NOT NEED next to metropolitan areas with a less-than-adequate police force? Its very common. Why? Ever notice that those sleepy small town cops often are VERY quick to pull you over and fine over the smallest infraction? That small town police force collects more fines, leading to better funding, thus more officers than they need for anything beyond additional fine collection. The metropolitan police force being short on funding (compared to need) - and high on (usually more severe) crime - does not have the manpower/time/energy to zealously chase after more and more petty fines. Eliminate fines as revenue, and you should see funding(thus officer allocation) more according to realistic need.

i know of a few small towns that do this. and the reality of it, is if you even mention these towns to anyone the first responce out of mine or anyone elses lips are "you better not go 1 mph over the speed limit or they willl pull you over. you can watch people hauling ass into town and as soon as that speed limit pops up. the brakes go on quickly because it has the reputation of pulling you over for even a few pmh over. you dont see anyone in this town speed because you know they are hard asses. it works. crime is low and nobody speeds. so i dont think its just about money in every situation.

as far as a deterrent in indiana, two tickets in a year and your taking an online course which sucks balls or losing your liscence . ohio 3 tickets in a year your looking at like a $350 fine. thast a pretty big deterent to me since i just got caught for speeding. and after having a few tickets in indiana the last year or two i can gaurentee you i have slowed down allot.


for me doing something like speeding and paying a fine is allot more acceptable then say paying a general tax for a road when some people use it more. those people that use it more. truckers who are delivering goods i purchase. workers on the road going to and from there job. there is a diffrence to me between paying for something that everyone uses and everyone needs to get thru life. and then paying more so someone who is breaking the laws doesnt have to dole out money. they are breaking the law, let them pay to help fund the police, im totally cool with that, even when its me being pulled over. i know that when i do get caught that even though i hate it, i know i deserved it.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

ThatGuy85 wrote:I'm strangely reminded of the patriot act...

Precisely what I was thinking.

Although, and I must add...I was not an opponent of the act's intention or execution. However, I do see the irony in right extremists protesting tightening police powers, when the most recent GOP president they revere sent this nation farther down this road than any other. I get a kick out of this very blatant conflict of purpose and ideology!

ive never gotten the whole invasion of privacy when your doing something out in the open, in public.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

because sometimes its fun to bang in public!