Maryland Speed cameras

[hey]

Since you guys think a court case for a 40$ fine is similar to a murder trial, are you gonna use this same argument after you hired someone to commit murder? Do you really think "I didnt do it, it wasnt me your honor" is gonna fly? lol

If the prosecution presents absolutely no evidence at all? Fuck yes it'll work, and you'll have a solid lawsuit against the state.

[NynJa]

Since you guys think a court case for a 40$ fine is similar to a murder trial, are you gonna use this same argument after you hired someone to commit murder? Do you really think "I didnt do it, it wasnt me your honor" is gonna fly? lol

because this was ignored by team "i only reply to things i have an answer for"

If the prosecution presents absolutely no evidence at all? Fuck yes it'll work, and you'll have a solid lawsuit against the state.

O hey, an answer as I was reposting.
The prosecution has evidence, and it points to you...otherwise you wouldnt be in court dummy.

[archibaldcrane]

Post some proof for your absurd claim.

"The only defense that the court is going to accept if you were not the driver of the vehicle, and you have the name and the address of the person who was driving, and you present that to the court under oath I will accept that as a defense. Please don't tell me that you know you couldn't have been going that fast or there is something wrong with the equipment. There is someone here from the jurisdiction who testifies that the equipment was calibrated and validated, or is "self calibrating", and then I'm not going to be able to accept that as a defense."

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2011...rt-openly.html
Telling a courtroom full of people that there is only one valid defense he's willing to hear is pretty fucking lazy.

Especially when other cameras in the same state were having major malfunctions - but the judge wouldn't even let such concerns be raised.

(from a town administrator)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nM54gIJY05...72011_0009.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wGtEvONlF6...72011_0010.jpg

[Lucavi]

Most of the time, for minor incidents, there won't even be a "prosecution" in the courtroom. Half the time the officer in question isn't even there. Its a matter of "do I feel like showing up to argue a 40-dollar ticket, or am I going to pay it?"

The question -should- be "Am I, or someone that used my vehicle, guilty of the crime? If so, I shouldn't be thinking of ways to get off the hook, but should pay the goddamned fine, especially if I'm going to complain when others skirt the law in other areas of life."

If you aren't guilty, then show up in court and prove it, not just for the 40 bucks, to also to set a precedence. The theme that we're hearing in this thread, however, isn't one of "I'm actually innocent and can't prove it in court," but one of "I, or someone I know, is guilty as fuck, but I'ma challenge the law because I'm pretty sure they can't pin it on me aside from saying its my vechicle," which is retarded.

[Salodin]

Spoken like a true internet armchair conspiracy theorist. "They're all corrupt, I'm mad as hell about it, but of course I'm not gonna do anything about it save for ranting right here!"

Post some proof for your absurd claim.

Archi has posted some before, as well as others. Here's a quick story offa google for ya. http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2011...defendant.html

Of course, his defense was even more reasonable then "It wasn't me", but no one else around here will care.

The question -should- be "Am I, or someone that used my vehicle, guilty of the crime? If so, I shouldn't be thinking of ways to get off the hook, but should pay the goddamned fine, especially if I'm going to complain when others skirt the law in other areas of life."

If you aren't guilty, then show up in court and prove it, not just for the 40 bucks, to also to set a precedence. The theme that we're hearing in this thread, however, isn't one of "I'm actually innocent and can't prove it in court," but one of "I, or someone I know, is guilty as fuck, but I'ma challenge the law because I'm pretty sure they can't pin it on me aside from saying its my vechicle," which is retarded.

The question should be, "Am I guilty of the crime? No? Well heres my evidence, I'm scott free". You shouldn't have to pay for some one elses mistake, even with your own property (there is precedence for this). Just because some people will find a loop hole through it doesn't mean we should be ok with potentially fining innocent people just to cover the basis. Collateral damage no es beuno.

[archibaldcrane]

If you aren't guilty, then show up in court and prove it

How can you if you literally are not allowed to present any argument other than saying "someone else did it and here's their name and address."

[Salodin]

How can you if you literally are not allowed to present any argument other than saying "someone else did it and here's their name and address."

But archi, I'll just show up and say "Nah, it wasn't me.". Too bad they don't have face cameras to cut out that middle step in all this...

[hey]

The prosecution has evidence, and it points to you...otherwise you wouldnt be in court dummy.

By no evidence i really meant no real evidence. A picture of a bat with my name on it being used to kill someone doesn't count as evidence.

[Tweek]

if cameras etc were malfunctioning as in wrongly clocking vehicles it wouldn't matter if there were face cameras or not would still have the same problem. I also don't believe the every judge will not listen to any defense no matter what line

[hey]

if cameras etc were malfunctioning as in wrongly clocking vehicles it wouldn't matter if there were face cameras or not would still have the same problem. I also don't believe the every judge will not listen to any defense no matter what line

Easy solution for that:

Test the cameras on a regular basis. If one malfunctions, throw every ticket from that camera out since the last time it was tested.

[Lucavi]

Archi has posted some before, as well as others. Here's a quick story offa google for ya. http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2011...defendant.html

Of course, his defense was even more reasonable then "It wasn't me", but no one else around here will care.



The question should be, "Am I guilty of the crime? No? Well heres my evidence, I'm scott free". You shouldn't have to pay for some one elses mistake, even with your own property (there is precedence for this). Just because some people will find a loop hole through it doesn't mean we should be ok with potentially fining innocent people just to cover the basis. Collateral damage no es beuno.

1) I've read the article. Troubling stuff, especially over a miniscule amount of coin. You're not going to see cameras mandated, though, citing this example, and you certainly wouldn't see cases thrown out on a wide basis simply because a camera wasn't functioning properly.
2) We'll just have to agree to disagree. You feel that, regardless of if the vechicle is yours, you have no responsibility for anything that happens as a result of that vehicle if you aren't driving it, thus being absolved of all guilt. I feel that if it is yours, it is your responsibility to ensure that it is used properly, so if you lend it to someone and they fuck around in it, your record should be slammed - you just stop lending it out, get them to pay the difference and move on. I can't consider someone "innocent" that essentially enabled someone to commit the crime (in this case, speeding, and traffic offenses are pretty much the only times I adopt this position), and this is coming from a guy that regularly speeds (just not in stupid areas).

It may be strawman, but to me, you pick your battles. I'd rather see large crimes "policed properly", with no room for loopholes, than minor ones like this. Of course, much of my opinion stems from the fact that I've never be improperly accused of a traffic offense, and everyone that I know has earned every violation they've racked up over the years.

I can certainly see your side of the matter, however.

[Tweek]

Easy solution for that:

Test the cameras on a regular basis. If one malfunctions, throw every ticket from that camera out since the last time it was tested.

yep I agree

[NynJa]

Easy solution for that:

Test the cameras on a regular basis. If one malfunctions, throw every ticket from that camera out since the last time it was tested.

scratch this reply, go with one below. I just remembered how long it takes to actually get to court.

[Lucavi]

If nothing else, it would clog up the legal system, that's for sure.

[NynJa]

Unless shits different in the states, you dont get to court to contest your ticket for a while. My court date for a ticket I got on March 15 2011 is on Jan 30 2012. Even if every camera is checked every 3 months, it would have been inspected 3 times before you get to court (presuming the timing the same in the states once again). You'd have already lost and bumped your fee up...for what? nothing.

[hey]

Then everyones going to roll into court going "I'd like this camera tested for malfunctions", even if it was tested two days ago.

Easy soltuion: don't send the tickets until they've been tested.

edit:

Unless shits different in the states, you dont get to court to contest your ticket for a while. My court date for a ticket I got on March 15 2011 is on Jan 30 2012. Even if every camera is checked every 3 months, it would have been inspected 3 times before you get to court (presuming the timing the same in the states once again). You'd have already lost and bumped your fee up...for what? nothing.

Looks like you already knew that, so not sure why you said that in the first place...

[NynJa]

Easy soltuion: don't send the tickets until they've been tested.

Are you retarded? Test every camera after it snaps a pic...brilliant idea. Run this man for president, he knows how to use resources properly

[hey]

Are you retarded? Test every camera after it snaps a pic...brilliant idea. Run this man for president, he knows how to use resources properly

Yeah, you're right. Driving by the cameras at 11 mph over the speed limit once every month or three is definitely not viable.

[NynJa]

Yeah, you're right. Driving by the cameras at 11 mph over the speed limit once every month or three is definitely not viable.

March 1, last test done
May 28, thunderstorm,
May 31, test is done, camera was in fact damaged by storm

should everyone between march 2 and may 27 be let off the hook?

and like someone posted before, some dumb fucks actually get off breaking these cameras...then what?

[hey]

March 1, last test done
May 28, thunderstorm,
May 31, test is done, camera was in fact damaged by storm

should everyone between march 2 and may 27 be let off the hook?

Sure.