Brooklyn Speed Camera - 1551 Tickets In One Day - $77,550 - Yay Yay I Love It

[Jarlaxle]

The solution to this (and all traffic-revenue cameras) is and remains the same: a good rifle and some match ammo. Maybe try for a thousand-yard patch...

 

[OnePercenter]

The solution to this (and all traffic-revenue cameras) is and remains the same: a good rifle and some match ammo. Maybe try for a thousand-yard patch...

Says one of the five percent that makes all gun us owners look bad.

 

[OnePercenter]

[


Personally, I believe such cameras are unconstitutional and it's only a matter of time before they're outlawed for exactly that reason.

In a nutshell, they violate 5th/14th Amendment right of due process in that the state does not have to prove I violated the law and the 5th Amendment protection from self incrimination.

You don't know the law. Speeding is not a felony or misdemeanor. It's an infraction and offenders are subject only to a fine. In the eyes of the law, speeding is not really a crime. THINK

Too bad you don't think, eh? First of all, speeding infractions can be criminal. It depends on the state, the speed of the driver, and the speed limit. But even in cases which are civil and not criminal, the people are still protected by the Constitution. And very often, tickets stemming from cameras only capture the licence plate and the vehicle, not the driver. Still, the state tickets the owner of the vehicle, who may not necessarily be the individual driving the car at the time of the infraction. It happened to me. My wife's car, which is in my name, was recorded going through a red light. The images didn't even capture who was driving. Meanwhile, without having to prove I broke the law, the state ticketed me. The instructions with the ticket offered me the option of "turning my wife in" (a violation of my 5th Amendment rights). Barring that, the state did not carry the burden of proving I actually drove through a red light (which amazingly, the image they sent me showed a green arrow, so there should have been no ticket issued anyway).

In almost every state 20+ over is considered a misdemeanor which is criminal.

Why is your Wife's car in your name? Some kind of control issue?

The camera doesn't show who was driving the car during the incident, but as the registered owner of the car I need to ask; Who was driving your car on that day?

Quit hiding behind the constitution you putz, man-up and pay the ticket.........

 

[thereisnospoon]

speed kills less than stupidity, less than texting, less than drinking and driving. It isn't speed that kills, its stupid drivers, no signalling, going too slow, changing lanes at the last second, falling asleep at the wheel, looking down texting, driving after dark (old people), aggressive drivers, tailgating, road rage, etc.. that kills..... much much more than going 25 over.

Speeders are deadly killers. Only an idiot questions that. Would you rather be hit by someone doing 75 or someone doing 50? THINK

That's your opinion. You're on a crusade. You are irrational.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Probably depends on the area, but I got a ticket in Louisiana last summer, just showed up in the mail one day, said I ran a red light, hell maybe I did maybe I didn't honestly. Was there on vacation, may have done so.

Anyway, I got to looking at the ticket and it was not from a government agency, it was from some private company out in AZ. I threw that ticket in the trash. The penalty? They reported it to the credit bureau LOL big deal.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[]

If the person is going a fair way over the limit, fair enough, but if you are fining people for couple a mile or two over, that's just ridiculous.

The article says the tickets are for 10 or more mph over the limit. READ

That's what the authority that owns the cameras claim.
Now, the problem with these things is they cost tons of money to maintain, they are unconstitutional. And most importantly, many are found to be inaccurate.

 

[Noomi]

[]

If the person is going a fair way over the limit, fair enough, but if you are fining people for couple a mile or two over, that's just ridiculous.

The article says the tickets are for 10 or more mph over the limit. READ

Stop writing in capitals. RETARD.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[


Personally, I believe such cameras are unconstitutional and it's only a matter of time before they're outlawed for exactly that reason.

In a nutshell, they violate 5th/14th Amendment right of due process in that the state does not have to prove I violated the law and the 5th Amendment protection from self incrimination.

You don't know the law. Speeding is not a felony or misdemeanor. It's an infraction and offenders are subject only to a fine. In the eyes of the law, speeding is not really a crime. THINK

Sorry....YOU are incorrect. Traffic citations are adjudicated in criminal court.
Severe traffic violations such as reckless driving, violating stop signs, red lights, excessive speeding ( usually 20 or more mph over the posted limit) driving without a license, revoked/suspended, while under the influence, intoxicated, without required corrective lenses, unrestrained child,
If one does not satisfy fines charged to them are subject to arrest and jail.
Now, the constitutional issues arise when an electronic device which is unmanned is used to determine whether or not a violation has occurred.
The 5th Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to face their accuser and to cross examine for the purpose of impeaching testimony of witnesses against the defendant.
Tell me, how does one cross examine an inanimate object? Furthermore, these cameras have been challenged on questions as to the accuracy of the metering, the functionality of the device at the time of the alleged violation, etc.
For example, when a police officer uses a radar device to determine if a driver was in violation of a posted speed, he must after the stop check the calibration of the radar device.
He must then record the calibration in a record.
Cameras are not calibrated in this manner. Therefore the defendant cannot impeach the device at trial because there is no record as to its accuracy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The solution to this (and all traffic-revenue cameras) is and remains the same: a good rifle and some match ammo. Maybe try for a thousand-yard patch...

Says one of the five percent that makes all gun us owners look bad.

Hell a Bic pen with the ink thing removed and couple wads of wet paper will do the same thing.
Camera can't see through a spitball.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[


Personally, I believe such cameras are unconstitutional and it's only a matter of time before they're outlawed for exactly that reason.

In a nutshell, they violate 5th/14th Amendment right of due process in that the state does not have to prove I violated the law and the 5th Amendment protection from self incrimination.

You don't know the law. Speeding is not a felony or misdemeanor. It's an infraction and offenders are subject only to a fine. In the eyes of the law, speeding is not really a crime. THINK

Too bad you don't think, eh? First of all, speeding infractions can be criminal. It depends on the state, the speed of the driver, and the speed limit. But even in cases which are civil and not criminal, the people are still protected by the Constitution. And very often, tickets stemming from cameras only capture the licence plate and the vehicle, not the driver. Still, the state tickets the owner of the vehicle, who may not necessarily be the individual driving the car at the time of the infraction. It happened to me. My wife's car, which is in my name, was recorded going through a red light. The images didn't even capture who was driving. Meanwhile, without having to prove I broke the law, the state ticketed me. The instructions with the ticket offered me the option of "turning my wife in" (a violation of my 5th Amendment rights). Barring that, the state did not carry the burden of proving I actually drove through a red light (which amazingly, the image they sent me showed a green arrow, so there should have been no ticket issued anyway).

In almost every state 20+ over is considered a misdemeanor which is criminal.

Why is your Wife's car in your name? Some kind of control issue?

The camera doesn't show who was driving the car during the incident, but as the registered owner of the car I need to ask; Who was driving your car on that day?

Quit hiding behind the constitution you putz, man-up and pay the ticket.........

Hiding behind the constitution?
Hey genius...Let me know how it feels when the cops decide you've broken the law and perform a warrantless search of your home.
Remember, no hiding behind the Constitution.....Putz.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[


Personally, I believe such cameras are unconstitutional and it's only a matter of time before they're outlawed for exactly that reason.

In a nutshell, they violate 5th/14th Amendment right of due process in that the state does not have to prove I violated the law and the 5th Amendment protection from self incrimination.

You don't know the law. Speeding is not a felony or misdemeanor. It's an infraction and offenders are subject only to a fine. In the eyes of the law, speeding is not really a crime. THINK

Too bad you don't think, eh? First of all, speeding infractions can be criminal. It depends on the state, the speed of the driver, and the speed limit. But even in cases which are civil and not criminal, the people are still protected by the Constitution. And very often, tickets stemming from cameras only capture the licence plate and the vehicle, not the driver. Still, the state tickets the owner of the vehicle, who may not necessarily be the individual driving the car at the time of the infraction. It happened to me. My wife's car, which is in my name, was recorded going through a red light. The images didn't even capture who was driving. Meanwhile, without having to prove I broke the law, the state ticketed me. The instructions with the ticket offered me the option of "turning my wife in" (a violation of my 5th Amendment rights). Barring that, the state did not carry the burden of proving I actually drove through a red light (which amazingly, the image they sent me showed a green arrow, so there should have been no ticket issued anyway).

In almost every state 20+ over is considered a misdemeanor which is criminal.

Why is your Wife's car in your name? Some kind of control issue?

The camera doesn't show who was driving the car during the incident, but as the registered owner of the car I need to ask; Who was driving your car on that day?

Quit hiding behind the constitution you putz, man-up and pay the ticket.........

Hey sunshine. We have three vehicles. One is in my name. One in the wife's and the other in both.
I guess we're controlling each other.
Not only are you judgemental, you're pretty stupid about it.

 

[OnePercenter]

The solution to this (and all traffic-revenue cameras) is and remains the same: a good rifle and some match ammo. Maybe try for a thousand-yard patch...

Says one of the five percent that makes all gun us owners look bad.

Hell a Bic pen with the ink thing removed and couple wads of wet paper will do the same thing.
Camera can't see through a spitball.

Or you don't run red lights or speed.

 

[OnePercenter]

[


Personally, I believe such cameras are unconstitutional and it's only a matter of time before they're outlawed for exactly that reason.

In a nutshell, they violate 5th/14th Amendment right of due process in that the state does not have to prove I violated the law and the 5th Amendment protection from self incrimination.

You don't know the law. Speeding is not a felony or misdemeanor. It's an infraction and offenders are subject only to a fine. In the eyes of the law, speeding is not really a crime. THINK

Too bad you don't think, eh? First of all, speeding infractions can be criminal. It depends on the state, the speed of the driver, and the speed limit. But even in cases which are civil and not criminal, the people are still protected by the Constitution. And very often, tickets stemming from cameras only capture the licence plate and the vehicle, not the driver. Still, the state tickets the owner of the vehicle, who may not necessarily be the individual driving the car at the time of the infraction. It happened to me. My wife's car, which is in my name, was recorded going through a red light. The images didn't even capture who was driving. Meanwhile, without having to prove I broke the law, the state ticketed me. The instructions with the ticket offered me the option of "turning my wife in" (a violation of my 5th Amendment rights). Barring that, the state did not carry the burden of proving I actually drove through a red light (which amazingly, the image they sent me showed a green arrow, so there should have been no ticket issued anyway).

In almost every state 20+ over is considered a misdemeanor which is criminal.

Why is your Wife's car in your name? Some kind of control issue?

The camera doesn't show who was driving the car during the incident, but as the registered owner of the car I need to ask; Who was driving your car on that day?

Quit hiding behind the constitution you putz, man-up and pay the ticket.........

Hiding behind the constitution?
Hey genius...Let me know how it feels when the cops decide you've broken the law and perform a warrantless search of your home.
Remember, no hiding behind the Constitution.....Putz.

The bloviating begins.

The issue is that the infraction WAS COMMITTED, and hiding behind the constitution to not pay for your infraction.

I've held a drivers license for 41 years. I've received two speeding tickets in my life which I've paid them because I was speeding. It's called stop being a hypocrite and man-up.

 

[Faun]

[


Personally, I believe such cameras are unconstitutional and it's only a matter of time before they're outlawed for exactly that reason.

In a nutshell, they violate 5th/14th Amendment right of due process in that the state does not have to prove I violated the law and the 5th Amendment protection from self incrimination.

You don't know the law. Speeding is not a felony or misdemeanor. It's an infraction and offenders are subject only to a fine. In the eyes of the law, speeding is not really a crime. THINK

Too bad you don't think, eh? First of all, speeding infractions can be criminal. It depends on the state, the speed of the driver, and the speed limit. But even in cases which are civil and not criminal, the people are still protected by the Constitution. And very often, tickets stemming from cameras only capture the licence plate and the vehicle, not the driver. Still, the state tickets the owner of the vehicle, who may not necessarily be the individual driving the car at the time of the infraction. It happened to me. My wife's car, which is in my name, was recorded going through a red light. The images didn't even capture who was driving. Meanwhile, without having to prove I broke the law, the state ticketed me. The instructions with the ticket offered me the option of "turning my wife in" (a violation of my 5th Amendment rights). Barring that, the state did not carry the burden of proving I actually drove through a red light (which amazingly, the image they sent me showed a green arrow, so there should have been no ticket issued anyway).

In almost every state 20+ over is considered a misdemeanor which is criminal.

So? That's in line with what I said ... depends on the state, the speed of the driver, and the speed limit.

Why is your Wife's car in your name? Some kind of control issue?

Nope, I'm the one with the job and the good credit rating.

The camera doesn't show who was driving the car during the incident, but as the registered owner of the car I need to ask; Who was driving your car on that day?

I honestly have no idea who was driving that car that day. I have 4 cars in my name and there are several drivers in my family, any one whom could have been driving it.

Since when in America is it the job of citizens to prove themselves not guilty when state cannot prove guilt? When did that burden shift to the defendant??

Quit hiding behind the constitution you putz, man-up and pay the ticket.........

Pay for what? Going through a green arrow when it may not have even been me driving? Sorry, but I don't cave like whimpering Conservatives. Instead, I followed the directions with the ticket to fight it in court, which I was actually looking forward to. Unfortunately, the state threw the ticket out.

 

[Faun]

[


Personally, I believe such cameras are unconstitutional and it's only a matter of time before they're outlawed for exactly that reason.

In a nutshell, they violate 5th/14th Amendment right of due process in that the state does not have to prove I violated the law and the 5th Amendment protection from self incrimination.

You don't know the law. Speeding is not a felony or misdemeanor. It's an infraction and offenders are subject only to a fine. In the eyes of the law, speeding is not really a crime. THINK

Too bad you don't think, eh? First of all, speeding infractions can be criminal. It depends on the state, the speed of the driver, and the speed limit. But even in cases which are civil and not criminal, the people are still protected by the Constitution. And very often, tickets stemming from cameras only capture the licence plate and the vehicle, not the driver. Still, the state tickets the owner of the vehicle, who may not necessarily be the individual driving the car at the time of the infraction. It happened to me. My wife's car, which is in my name, was recorded going through a red light. The images didn't even capture who was driving. Meanwhile, without having to prove I broke the law, the state ticketed me. The instructions with the ticket offered me the option of "turning my wife in" (a violation of my 5th Amendment rights). Barring that, the state did not carry the burden of proving I actually drove through a red light (which amazingly, the image they sent me showed a green arrow, so there should have been no ticket issued anyway).

In almost every state 20+ over is considered a misdemeanor which is criminal.

Why is your Wife's car in your name? Some kind of control issue?

The camera doesn't show who was driving the car during the incident, but as the registered owner of the car I need to ask; Who was driving your car on that day?

Quit hiding behind the constitution you putz, man-up and pay the ticket.........

Hiding behind the constitution?
Hey genius...Let me know how it feels when the cops decide you've broken the law and perform a warrantless search of your home.
Remember, no hiding behind the Constitution.....Putz.

The bloviating begins.

The issue is that the infraction WAS COMMITTED, and hiding behind the constitution to not pay for your infraction.

I've held a drivers license for 41 years. I've received two speeding tickets in my life which I've paid them because I was speeding. It's called stop being a hypocrite and man-up.

Figures you don't know what the issue is. The issue is not that an infraction occurred -- the issue is being charged with an infraction when one has possibly not committed an infraction.

 

[OnePercenter]

[


Personally, I believe such cameras are unconstitutional and it's only a matter of time before they're outlawed for exactly that reason.

In a nutshell, they violate 5th/14th Amendment right of due process in that the state does not have to prove I violated the law and the 5th Amendment protection from self incrimination.

You don't know the law. Speeding is not a felony or misdemeanor. It's an infraction and offenders are subject only to a fine. In the eyes of the law, speeding is not really a crime. THINK

Too bad you don't think, eh? First of all, speeding infractions can be criminal. It depends on the state, the speed of the driver, and the speed limit. But even in cases which are civil and not criminal, the people are still protected by the Constitution. And very often, tickets stemming from cameras only capture the licence plate and the vehicle, not the driver. Still, the state tickets the owner of the vehicle, who may not necessarily be the individual driving the car at the time of the infraction. It happened to me. My wife's car, which is in my name, was recorded going through a red light. The images didn't even capture who was driving. Meanwhile, without having to prove I broke the law, the state ticketed me. The instructions with the ticket offered me the option of "turning my wife in" (a violation of my 5th Amendment rights). Barring that, the state did not carry the burden of proving I actually drove through a red light (which amazingly, the image they sent me showed a green arrow, so there should have been no ticket issued anyway).

In almost every state 20+ over is considered a misdemeanor which is criminal.

Why is your Wife's car in your name? Some kind of control issue?

The camera doesn't show who was driving the car during the incident, but as the registered owner of the car I need to ask; Who was driving your car on that day?

Quit hiding behind the constitution you putz, man-up and pay the ticket.........

Hey sunshine. We have three vehicles. One is in my name. One in the wife's and the other in both.
I guess we're controlling each other.
Not only are you judgemental, you're pretty stupid about it.

Think of the probate issue. What if you died tomorrow, your wife wouldn't have legal right to register or insure the vehicle not in her name. I have a good friend that died this year, 52 years old and dropped dead of a heart attack. He had legal entitlements issues in his name only. I lent his widow my Attorney's that did correct the issue, but it took time to resolve. Do you really want that extra pain for your survivors?

Getting back. The issue was the vehicle was ticketed for an infraction and the poster wants to hide behind the constitution to not pay his bill.

 

[OnePercenter]

Probably depends on the area, but I got a ticket in Louisiana last summer, just showed up in the mail one day, said I ran a red light, hell maybe I did maybe I didn't honestly. Was there on vacation, may have done so.

Anyway, I got to looking at the ticket and it was not from a government agency, it was from some private company out in AZ. I threw that ticket in the trash. The penalty? They reported it to the credit bureau LOL big deal.

You laugh now, but wait until the State of Louisiana wants payment and offers your state a percentage for collection. You're going to receive an unhappy surprise when you try to register your vehicle.....probably 2-3 times the original fine. Pay the ticket.

 

[OnePercenter]

You don't know the law. Speeding is not a felony or misdemeanor. It's an infraction and offenders are subject only to a fine. In the eyes of the law, speeding is not really a crime. THINK

Too bad you don't think, eh? First of all, speeding infractions can be criminal. It depends on the state, the speed of the driver, and the speed limit. But even in cases which are civil and not criminal, the people are still protected by the Constitution. And very often, tickets stemming from cameras only capture the licence plate and the vehicle, not the driver. Still, the state tickets the owner of the vehicle, who may not necessarily be the individual driving the car at the time of the infraction. It happened to me. My wife's car, which is in my name, was recorded going through a red light. The images didn't even capture who was driving. Meanwhile, without having to prove I broke the law, the state ticketed me. The instructions with the ticket offered me the option of "turning my wife in" (a violation of my 5th Amendment rights). Barring that, the state did not carry the burden of proving I actually drove through a red light (which amazingly, the image they sent me showed a green arrow, so there should have been no ticket issued anyway).

In almost every state 20+ over is considered a misdemeanor which is criminal.

Why is your Wife's car in your name? Some kind of control issue?

The camera doesn't show who was driving the car during the incident, but as the registered owner of the car I need to ask; Who was driving your car on that day?

Quit hiding behind the constitution you putz, man-up and pay the ticket.........

Hiding behind the constitution?
Hey genius...Let me know how it feels when the cops decide you've broken the law and perform a warrantless search of your home.
Remember, no hiding behind the Constitution.....Putz.

The bloviating begins.

The issue is that the infraction WAS COMMITTED, and hiding behind the constitution to not pay for your infraction.

I've held a drivers license for 41 years. I've received two speeding tickets in my life which I've paid them because I was speeding. It's called stop being a hypocrite and man-up.

Figures you don't know what the issue is. The issue is not that an infraction occurred -- the issue is being charged with an infraction when one has possibly not committed an infraction.

The infraction was committed...he has the picture.

 

[Faun]

[


Personally, I believe such cameras are unconstitutional and it's only a matter of time before they're outlawed for exactly that reason.

In a nutshell, they violate 5th/14th Amendment right of due process in that the state does not have to prove I violated the law and the 5th Amendment protection from self incrimination.

You don't know the law. Speeding is not a felony or misdemeanor. It's an infraction and offenders are subject only to a fine. In the eyes of the law, speeding is not really a crime. THINK

Too bad you don't think, eh? First of all, speeding infractions can be criminal. It depends on the state, the speed of the driver, and the speed limit. But even in cases which are civil and not criminal, the people are still protected by the Constitution. And very often, tickets stemming from cameras only capture the licence plate and the vehicle, not the driver. Still, the state tickets the owner of the vehicle, who may not necessarily be the individual driving the car at the time of the infraction. It happened to me. My wife's car, which is in my name, was recorded going through a red light. The images didn't even capture who was driving. Meanwhile, without having to prove I broke the law, the state ticketed me. The instructions with the ticket offered me the option of "turning my wife in" (a violation of my 5th Amendment rights). Barring that, the state did not carry the burden of proving I actually drove through a red light (which amazingly, the image they sent me showed a green arrow, so there should have been no ticket issued anyway).

In almost every state 20+ over is considered a misdemeanor which is criminal.

Why is your Wife's car in your name? Some kind of control issue?

The camera doesn't show who was driving the car during the incident, but as the registered owner of the car I need to ask; Who was driving your car on that day?

Quit hiding behind the constitution you putz, man-up and pay the ticket.........

Hey sunshine. We have three vehicles. One is in my name. One in the wife's and the other in both.
I guess we're controlling each other.
Not only are you judgemental, you're pretty stupid about it.

Think of the probate issue. What if you died tomorrow, your wife wouldn't have legal right to register or insure the vehicle not in her name. I have a good friend that died this year, 52 years old and dropped dead of a heart attack. He had legal entitlements issues in his name only. I lent his widow my Attorney's that did correct the issue, but it took time to resolve. Do you really want that extra pain for your survivors?

Getting back. The issue was the vehicle was ticketed for an infraction and the poster wants to hide behind the constitution to not pay his bill.

Bill for what? for not running a red light?

 

[Faun]

Too bad you don't think, eh? First of all, speeding infractions can be criminal. It depends on the state, the speed of the driver, and the speed limit. But even in cases which are civil and not criminal, the people are still protected by the Constitution. And very often, tickets stemming from cameras only capture the licence plate and the vehicle, not the driver. Still, the state tickets the owner of the vehicle, who may not necessarily be the individual driving the car at the time of the infraction. It happened to me. My wife's car, which is in my name, was recorded going through a red light. The images didn't even capture who was driving. Meanwhile, without having to prove I broke the law, the state ticketed me. The instructions with the ticket offered me the option of "turning my wife in" (a violation of my 5th Amendment rights). Barring that, the state did not carry the burden of proving I actually drove through a red light (which amazingly, the image they sent me showed a green arrow, so there should have been no ticket issued anyway).

In almost every state 20+ over is considered a misdemeanor which is criminal.

Why is your Wife's car in your name? Some kind of control issue?

The camera doesn't show who was driving the car during the incident, but as the registered owner of the car I need to ask; Who was driving your car on that day?

Quit hiding behind the constitution you putz, man-up and pay the ticket.........

Hiding behind the constitution?
Hey genius...Let me know how it feels when the cops decide you've broken the law and perform a warrantless search of your home.
Remember, no hiding behind the Constitution.....Putz.

The bloviating begins.

The issue is that the infraction WAS COMMITTED, and hiding behind the constitution to not pay for your infraction.

I've held a drivers license for 41 years. I've received two speeding tickets in my life which I've paid them because I was speeding. It's called stop being a hypocrite and man-up.

Figures you don't know what the issue is. The issue is not that an infraction occurred -- the issue is being charged with an infraction when one has possibly not committed an infraction.

The infraction was committed...he has the picture.

People are charged with crimes, not vehicles. You didn't answer the question .... in America, when did the burden of proof shift from the state to the defendant?