Maryland Speed cameras

[archibaldcrane]

The defense you're supposed to?

The court shouldn't get to decide there's only one singular defense for a crime, that's absurd - especially when that defense is "finger the guilty person or else!"

[Gregorio]

What possible defenses are there to get out of a speeding ticket when there's physical evidence of your car in a certain area at a certain time other than you weren't driving or you were not going that fast? And regardless of what that one judge said, they do make exceptions (with proof...like following an ambulance or other type of emergency situations, etc.) But thats an excuse anyway, not a defense. We've already established that "I wasn't going that fast" is not going to work because it's your word vs the word of an expert who calibrates the cameras. And it's not reasonable to call in an expert for every speeding ticket case that goes before a judge. Expert testimony is always > your promise.

If it wasn't you, then you should know who was driving your car. No normal, reasonable person is not going to know or be able to quickly find out who was driving their car at the time the ticket was issued.

[Tweek]

in parking ticket situations you can make arguments that the signage was wrong, that the ticket was issued in error, that it isn't your vehicle, etc. etc.

Speed camera tickets you can't argue that the radar was wrong, that you couldn't possibly have been the driver, etc. etc. - the only acceptable defense is handing over someone else.

So no, it's even worse than parking tickets.

all this shows is you're looking for bullshit copout answers to get out of paying the ticket. what would that judge say if you said "i was not the person who parked the car there" because that's essentially what you're arguing is enough information to get out of the ticket. prove you were the one who was not driving or the one who parked the car. If you can prove that it wasn't your car then you would surely be able to get out of the ticket (this was one of the defenses you used to get out of the parking ticket)

I would completely agree with you if this was regarding points on a record or criminal charges but it's a liability fine, you're responsible for the property that was found guilty with said evidence of the violation so you are responsible. If someone dumped some crazy ass shit on my lawn you think my HOA gives a fuck that I wasn't the one that put a bunch of trash on my lawn? nope they still hold me responsible to clean that shit up and under the terms of my HOA I believe could fine me if I did nothing about it.

In most cases like yours you probably drove your mommys car and your mommy is going to know you're the one who was driving and make your ass pay for it. Your rebuttal to answering the posed question about husband/wife/brother/sister/mother/father/son/daughter etc was unrealistic, it makes no sense to spend the man hours figuring out every close relative to a person who owns the vehicle it's much more unrealistic than just having that person get the money for the fine themselves for loaning the car to them. We going to call the F.B.I. for every damn speeding/red light ticket to figure out who this person is? We aren't talking about someone being convicted of murder we're talking about $40 fines.

[NynJa]

Whats all this "let the police figure shit out"...how do you figure the police figure shit out? Amongst other methods of evidence gathering, they TALK to people, people who they believe know things relevant to the situation.

[archibaldcrane]

If it wasn't you, then you should know who was driving your car.

As the defendant in a case, you do not have to speak unless you want to, unless you've already made statements in your defense. You can simply represent yourself, produce evidence as your own representation that the defendant (you) were clearly in the himalayas. As the defendant, the court cannot legally compel you (the defendant) to say anything at that point, since you haven't said a word in your own defense. They are left with a situation in which they know 100% that it wasn't you driving, and they cannot legally force you to tell them who was. Without any other evidence (such as what would be provided from a face camera) the case should be dismissed.

[archibaldcrane]

Whats all this "let the police figure shit out"...how do you figure the police figure shit out? Amongst other methods of evidence gathering, they TALK to people, people who they believe know things relevant to the situation.

You don't have to talk to the police. You have the right to remain silent.

[Tyche]

What possible defenses are there to get out of a speeding ticket when there's physical evidence of your car in a certain area at a certain time other than you weren't driving or you were not going that fast? And regardless of what that one judge said, they do make exceptions (with proof...like following an ambulance or other type of emergency situations, etc.) But thats an excuse anyway, not a defense. We've already established that "I wasn't going that fast" is not going to work because it's your word vs the word of an expert who calibrates the cameras. And it's not reasonable to call in an expert for every speeding ticket case that goes before a judge. Expert testimony is always > your promise.

If it wasn't you, then you should know who was driving your car. No normal, reasonable person is not going to know or be able to quickly find out who was driving their car at the time the ticket was issued.

True story, the other night I went out, got a little drunk...OK a lot drunk. There was like 5 of us out at the bar. Everyone met at my place. Someone drove my jeep home...not sure who...but someone did. Does being intoxicated (something I'm legally able to do) condemn me if they were to get a ticket and I couldn't identify the driver?

[archibaldcrane]

The thing is, most of the time the defendant will fuck up, make a statement in his own defense, and then be legally required to answer questions under oath such as "did you loan your car to someone? who? Do you know who was driving?" etc.

So usually the court is going to get what it wants, legally.

But there are situations, like where the defendant doesn't make a statement in his defense, or honestly does not know who was driving, and then you have to figure out what to do given the lack of any other evidence.

[Tyche]

Why does the law change depending on who/what is issuing the citation? An officer wouldn't issue a speeding ticket to the owner sitting in the back seat.

[Gregorio]

As the defendant in a case, you do not have to speak unless you want to, unless you've already made statements in your defense. You can simply represent yourself, produce evidence as your own representation that the defendant (you) were clearly in the himalayas. As the defendant, the court cannot legally compel you (the defendant) to say anything at that point, since you haven't said a word in your own defense. They are left with a situation in which they know 100% that it wasn't you driving, and they cannot legally force you to tell them who was. Without any other evidence (such as what would be provided from a face camera) the case should be dismissed.

Why would you possibly even want to do this? Why would anyone do this? Get real. Stop with the ridiculous examples of situations that never actually happen.

What if aliens came down and took over your body and forced you to drive, then wiped your memory? What if... What if... What if... You can what if anything forever. How about real life applications or examples of anything similar to that happening? You estimated that 1% of the tickets were issued to innocent people, and that was still like 20k a year. With all those innocent people being issued tickets, I'm sure it shouldn't be too hard to find some documentation of an example like you claim.

True story, the other night I went out, got a little drunk...OK a lot drunk. There was like 5 of us out at the bar. Everyone met at my place. Someone drove my jeep home...not sure who...but someone did. Does being intoxicated (something I'm legally able to do) condemn me if they were to get a ticket and I couldn't identify the driver?

They don't just snatch you up and drag you to court the morning after a drunken night to testify. If you got a ticket in the mail from the other night, you would have plenty of time to ask your buddies who drove your jeep back (I'm actually pretty surprised you didn't ask this already...that's the first thing I think about when I blackout "how the fuck did I get home?!")? And hopefully you would pay the ticket anyway since they saved your ass from a DUI or cab fare to/from the bar to get your car again.

[archibaldcrane]

Why would you possibly even want to do this? Why would anyone do this? Get real. Stop with the ridiculous examples of situations that never actually happen.

If my girlfriend got a ticket for going 13 over somewhere in my car and I was bored that day, I'd do this. It would be fun to be on the right side of the law and frustrate a revenue collection system that thinks it is foolproof.

[Tweek]

Why does the law change depending on who/what is issuing the citation? An officer wouldn't issue a speeding ticket to the owner sitting in the back seat.

an officer issuing a ticket for a moving violation which is criminal is completely different and you would be held accountable in the future as a point would go on your record, this is just a fine. no point.

[Tweek]

If my girlfriend got a ticket for going 13 over somewhere in my car and I was bored that day, I'd do this. It would be fun to be on the right side of the law and frustrate a revenue collection system that thinks it is foolproof.

but you're so important and it wouldn't be worth your time because you ballsohard bro

[archibaldcrane]

but you're so important and it wouldn't be worth your time because you ballsohard bro

this is true

but sometimes balling so hard involves getting your girl out of a speeding ticket because your baller status extends to the courtroom.

My point is, if you do it right, the court cannot compel you to testify as to who the driver was.

[Tyche]

an officer issuing a ticket for a moving violation which is criminal is completely different and you would be held accountable in the future as a point would go on your record, this is just a fine. no point.

Which further substantiates the argument that it's a revenue system and not meant for prevention. Again, same question you quoted.

[Judai]

this is true

but sometimes balling so hard involves getting your girl out of a speeding ticket because your baller status extends to the courtroom.

My point is, if you do it right, the court cannot compel you to testify as to who the driver was.

You are just talking out of your ass now. Such a baller, fighting the man.

Not even worth any more time.

[Gregorio]

If my girlfriend got a ticket for going 13 over somewhere in my car and I was bored that day, I'd do this. It would be fun to be on the right side of the law and frustrate a revenue collection system that thinks it is foolproof.

How are you so bored after coming back from the Himalayas? Go tell your family and friends about your trip. And in case you're like every other normal person in the world and you weren't documenting your every move with newspapers and time-stamps on photographs along with receipts from coffee shops, you could just say "My girlfriend was driving, but I'll pay the ticket for her because I'd be cheap not to and she better put out when I get home".

And unless you hired a lawyer to speak for you and present your evidence to the judge, you'd probably make some sort of incriminating statement while attempting to not communicate with the judge anyway. Also, with no lawyer and attempting to do what you're saying, I'm sure you'd find yourself in contempt of court fairly quickly.

[aurik]

You're either dumb or intentionally ignoring reality if you think speed cameras aren't a deterrent to people driving excessive speeds.

Also all that bs about speed cameras being unconstitutional because traffic courts don't use a presumption of innocence or a reasonable doubt standard is hokum because driving on public roads is a privilege, not a constitutionally granted right.

[Tweek]

Which further substantiates the argument that it's a revenue system and not meant for prevention. Again, same question you quoted.

lol no one ever denied that this is completely for revenue even the gov admitted it, this was never the issue

edit let me add. some people after getting tickets will alter the way they drive in those zones but the primary purpose of the cameras is for revenue this has been acknowledged pretty openly

[archibaldcrane]

You must've missed the part earlier where I ball so hard.

True ballers don't make incriminating statements.