Best speed camera pictures ever

Message

dieziege · #61 Unread post by **dieziege** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:38 pm

Ummm... the legal theory is that presence of a sticker represents evidence that the person is a gun owner, which creates probable cause to believe that a gun is being transported incorrectly. 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said "no" to the practice in 2002... but there are reports of it happening anyway.

As for how to do it, you don't pull someone over for the sticker... you pull them over because you thought they weren't wearing seatbelts. Then you do the old "I want to search your vehicle and I'll get a warrant if you don't let me." The only way anyone would know you were pulling them over for the stickers was if someone spotted as a pattern.

Which is the case here... people have reported a pattern of being searched when they had GLOCK stickers on their cars. Is it true? I don't know... I don't have arizona plates, and I don't have any stickers on my cars either. But I can't disregard the reports because I know how cops think and how you cna get around restrictions like that.

Or are you one of those who don't beleve there are quotas for writing tickets?

#62 Unread post by **Kal** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:13 pm

If memory serves JWF actually works for the State of California and knows a fair number of Police Officers through his work

NorthernPete · Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:42 pm

MrGompers wrote:
CNF2002 wrote:The ones I've seen only snap a photo when it detects a violation. Its not a full-time video camera that I'm aware of.
Not yet.

Please insert ominous music here!

DAH DAH DAAAAAAAH!!!!

#64 Unread post by **Jamers!** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:38 am

Kal wrote:If memory serves JWF actually works for the State of California and knows a fair number of Police Officers through his work

memory serves you right, while im currently not working due to the inablility to really get around, i worked for LAPD for 2 years and with them in conjunction worked with CHP. And i can tell ya, any cop who pulls someone over becuase they have a hunch based on stickers, would get destroyed in court, stickers are not a reason to light somoene up and definatly not a reason to search a vechicle. If a cop pulls you over and searchs you and you can prove he did it cause you have a glock sticker on your arizona plates car, you could take him to court, get any fines or penaltys lifted and get him in a world of trouble.

dieziege wrote:Ummm... the legal theory is that presence of a sticker represents evidence that the person is a gun owner, which creates probable cause to believe that a gun is being transported incorrectly. 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said "no" to the practice in 2002... but there are reports of it happening anyway.

As for how to do it, you don't pull someone over for the sticker... you pull them over because you thought they weren't wearing seatbelts. Then you do the old "I want to search your vehicle and I'll get a warrant if you don't let me." The only way anyone would know you were pulling them over for the stickers was if someone spotted as a pattern.

Which is the case here... people have reported a pattern of being searched when they had GLOCK stickers on their cars. Is it true? I don't know... I don't have arizona plates, and I don't have any stickers on my cars either. But I can't disregard the reports because I know how cops think and how you cna get around restrictions like that.

Or are you one of those who don't beleve there are quotas for writing tickets?

once again, owning a sticker doesnt mean you own a gun, i have a USMC sticker on my bumper, does that make me a marine? Being pulled over for a sticker is illegeal, being searched because of a sticker is ILLEGEAL, being pulled over for something like ' not wearing a seat belt' is a gray area, but if nothing is wrong beyond that, they have no reason to search you and can not do it.

JWF

roscowgo · #65 Unread post by **roscowgo** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:30 am

I don't have an issue with the cameras..speed limits might be a bit outdated, but they are slowly going up. And if you let everybody do what they want... well at least the idiot drivers would kill themselves off quicker.

Speaking of idiot things..the amber light means "Caution!, the light is about to change to red, you should begin stopping." I'm not sure where you're from, but if you ever relocate to virginia or west virginia, please let me know so i can start houseshopping for a place in mexico city.

What i do have an issue with is the "click it or ticket" bs. Now That is a money making scheme. If there was any sense of this being a real problem, then the fines would be dramatically increased, and lead to other things..jail community service etc. but its not. 50$ and off you go again. tra-lala

as to the searches. Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Show me a warrant. Whole you're at it. show me one for looking at my phone calls. And for stopping me at random road checks.

Chris8187 · Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:42 am

For that amber light comment, which is obviously being directed to me, I said amber does not mean stop. That means i do not have to stop if I can safely make it through the light before it turns red. Just cause the light turns yellow does not mean I have to hit the brakes....

CNF2002 · #67 Unread post by **CNF2002** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:49 am

If the internet is good for anything, its spreading wild broad-based conspiracy theories based on one small town news editorial article or a 15 year old kids fake website.

I think I'll go change the wikipedia article to read that speed cameras were planted here by space aliens conspiring to track humans on Earth and send the world economy into destruction through unreasonable traffic fines.

BigChickenStrips · Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:14 am

how many cops in their personal cars or in cruisers on the way to an urgent call are paying these "photo" fines?

im all for rules as long as they apply to EVERYONE EQUALLY.

and although i do not suport vandalizing the cameras, i wouldnt turn someone in who did. gotta give the speeders at least a sporting chance.

CNF2002 · #69 Unread post by **CNF2002** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:28 am

Why would we give fines to cops on emergency calls?

Assuming the cameras transmit their photos to a central source rather than keep them in their box for processing, those vandals would get a big surprise when they get a bill in the mail for $4,000 along with a copy of a photo of their big smiling face, lighter in one hand and hammer in the other.

Chris8187 · Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:33 am

CNF2002 wrote:If the internet is good for anything, its spreading wild broad-based conspiracy theories based on one small town news editorial article or a 15 year old kids fake website.

I think I'll go change the wikipedia article to read that speed cameras were planted here by space aliens conspiring to track humans on Earth and send the world economy into destruction through unreasonable traffic fines.

ROFL that is funny