How many people honestly find the attitude that "I can get away with it, therefore it is ok to do" acceptable?
Yeah, they can't prove it was you, but we both know that you were speeding. Furthermore since it is your car, in 99% of cases it is either you or someone you lent your car to.
Would this be different if it was a drink driving case? I'm sorry, but for all your opinion on why it's legal for you to do this, I think you're a fucking douchebag.
Yeah, cause not using your legal rights to escape punishment when you are guilty is exactly the same as not exercising them when you are innocent.
This attitude actually erodes our legal rights, because it causes police officers, judges and jurors to have less reason to think people are acting in good faith when they exercise their rights, causing innocent people to be found guilty and eventually leading to these rights being weakened by having the law change.
This attitude actually erodes our legal rights, because it causes police officers, judges and jurors to have less reason to think people are acting in good faith when they exercise their rights, causing innocent people to be found guilty and eventually leading to these rights being weakened by having the law change.
Innocent people around found guilty because they think they have nothing to hide, they make statements that inadvertently end up hurting them, and the police or prosecutors do not care.
It is called an adversarial system for a reason; they are not on your side. And news flash: police can/have been dishonest, will lie to suspects, etc.
"Good faith" has nothing to do with exercising your rights. Being guilty or innocent has nothing to do with your rights. You are entitled to your rights regardless. Your idea of judges and jurors being jaded by guilty people pleading innocent is not real.
None of that applies in this case though. There are states where the law is, if it is your car, you pay the fine. It is that way exactly because people like this dude will try and get out of paying the fine, and so the law has had to be changed.
That means, in the rare occurrence that you actually were not driving your car and you don't know who was (and it wasn't stolen, that you know of), you have no way to get out of your ticket.
This type of behavior has directly led to a situation where innocent people have lost their rights.
Your idea of judges and jurors being jaded by guilty people pleading innocent is not real.
Ok, so explain why states have laws where you must show you reported your car stolen to get out of a ticket? What would be the point of that, except if people who were guilty were using such arguments as these to get out of tickets? Laws restricting rights like this are enacted all the freaking time because of behavior like this article.
What are you asking me? States put laws together for any variety of motives. Did it occur to you that the law was put together because states enjoy the income driven by automated ticketing? Are you seriously trying to argue that the government takes away rights and freedoms because people keep excercising them when the gov prosecutes them?
I don't think we read the same article. From his letter I understood somebody else was driving the vehicle: "I also see find no legal requirement for me to implicate someone else in this process, as it is the government’s responsibility to prove a person’s guilt. It is also my 5th amendment right to remain silent on the matter."
It's just a speeding ticket but I hope that for something more serious they aren't so lazy on proofs. Hand-wavy justice is not good either for the system.
I don't follow most laws because i'm afraid of jail. I follow most laws because i think they make society better, and it's my duty. Speed limits are one of the laws that i think make society better. I'd pay the ticket, not because i had to, but because i have a fucking conscience.
Consider that in America, everything is a crime, we all commit crimes every day, from jay walking to improper lane changing to viewing pirated content on the internet.
Legal rights also protect you from the a government's overzealous, overreaching, and overbearing enforcement.
Indeed he is, and not much better than the cop that pulled him over in the other story that he linked to. He lost all moral high ground to me, by assuming that fuck them, I can get away with it! attitude. I can be a staunch libertarian and renegade all I want, but if I blow a light and get ticket, I know I deserve the fine and I'll pay it. This guy, on the other hand, is so far on the end of the spectrum that doesn't realize he is just being a jerk. Things taken to the extreme are seldom good.
The constitution was intended to defend and hold together the nation, not to allow people to weasel out of trouble. In my view: if you get caught you pay, if you don't get caught you count yourself lucky.
1. Drive a car with enough Ron Paul bumper stickers to create a local gravitational distortion and bend light away from your license plate. Which you only have because government FATCATS force you to REGISTER impeding your natural right of FREE MOTION! Fascists.
2. When issued a ticket because you were going 70 in a 45mph zone (presumably because driving as fast as possible is what segregates the Men of Action from the taker scum), respond with the most passive-aggressive note possible, citing every single Bill of Rights item (it'll be hard to connect your camera ticket to quartering, but you've got enough Ron Paul quotes to find a way).
3. After producing enough laughter to lighten the entire week of a DC government schlub and her entire cubicle farm (not to mention the years of entertainment they'll get from putting your absurd essay on the immorality of the very concept of a "speed" "limit" and the gross infringement on the natural right of man to drive as fast as possible, as far as possible, in order to demonstrate his mastery over the laws of nature just as chain-smoking demonstrated the Objectivists' mastery over fire), get waived out so that you don't fill up an hour of a judges time (again) with an "opening statement" that reads the entire Wikipedia page on Ayn Rand into the court record.
First of all, this doesn't work everywhere since some jurisdictions have joint liability for the registered owner and driver[1] and some don't care at all and the registered owner is ticketed regardless of the driver (protip- don't lend your car to people who break the law).
But secondly, reading the post it seems like OP did break the law and is trying to get off on some technicality, which I admit I can't support. Sorry, don't drive like a jerk if you don't want to deal with the consequences. While fines might not discourage some people, points on the license tend to stop repeat offenders.
- Recording a license plate associated with some dubious activity, and then ticketing the owner of the car; and
- Recording an IP address associated with some dubious activity, and suing (or worse) the person who pays for the internet connection.
There is a large and schizophrenic body of law about when an owner is responsible for the operation of "their" machine, even if they're not doing the immediate operating (going all the way back to "who pays the man gored by a rented ox"). With automated systems subject to shitty algorithms the problem becomes much more acute but it is by no means a new problem.
I find it annoying when vets use their service to get out of stuff, get free stuff, etc. as if we're owed something. It's a privilege to serve and it's voluntary. Act like it.
> "I am in the habit of not taking “plea deals”, and I am always in the habit of fighting my tickets...so I don’t have to go to court... I just about always record my interactions with the police..."
Dude, how often does this guy get tickets and/or stopped by the police? I've been stopped maybe three times in my life. And I'm black. He sounds like a jackass.
We live in a very generous and trusting society in many respects, thus the flexibility. Use it when you need to, but don't take advantage of it.
Um, so was this guy actually driving his car when it was photographed speeding, or not? He doesn't say, but I'm guessing yes.
And so this post is simply a tip on how to break the law and get away with it?
That may be fine (sorry!) if it were a useless and unfair law[1]. Perhaps that is the case with speed limits on some sections of road, which seem designed to gather revenue rather than enhance safety.
But in general I find speeding to be a fairly selfish and not very useful crime. It doesn't really speed journey times significantly, but puts other road users at greater risk of iinjury or even death.
--
[1] It may be ok to ignore stupid laws, under some moral frameworks. Though, if you're not going to follow the actual law, what are you going to follow? How does society function when people have different ideas of right?
Its protest against unfair implementation. You can't charge a person with a crime when you can't even identify that person. But thats what the government is doing. And people are scared enough (or ignorant of their rights) that they simply submit.
People aren't "scared enough" that they submit, they submit because they have been caught.
I'm not sure what makes an automated radar with a camera any different than a state trooper holding a radar gun, can you elaborate why that's an "unfair"?
There are many ways this isn't unfair. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you refuse to pay the ticket, but deny your car was stolen, it would be simple enough for the state to revoke your license. Same as with failing to submit to a breathalyser can result in a suspended license. The state can simply make it your duty to monitor who drives your car.
A traffic citation is not a felony charge, and hence different rules apply. There is a general, and reasonable (please feel free to argue how it is unreasonable) expectation that the registered owner is the driver of the vehicle or is aware of who is driving the vehicle at any given time.
First off, I'm not going to argue with your sentiment on the legality of speeding, it is wrong and unlawful and I'm not condoning it. BUT to play devils advocate if I may, here are some thoughts:
> ...fairly selfish and not very useful crime. It doesn't really speed journey times significantly, but puts other road users at greater risk of injury or even death.
There's no doubt that driving at greater speeds increases the risk of fatality or increased damage in a wreck, but your points about it not saving time and putting others at risk is a little unfounded. Here's why I think that, in a ten minute commute, speeding 10MPH over the speed limit will only save you at best a minute. Depending on traffic conditions however, one could argue the more aware you are of your surroundings and at a faster pace, you could beat out traffic lights and other things that would normally slow down a driver going with the flow.
I would argue that, speed limits and legality aside, good, well trained drivers that go faster than everyone else, are generally safer and more aware of their surroundings because they are more focused on driving. The real risk here would be going 100MPH down an interstate and a person talking on their phone or looking up a song on Spotify (guilty) swerves a little into the other lane. But if the driver is cautious and is paying attention, he should be able to avoid a collision as long as the speed is appropriate for it's surroundings. Going 100MPH (for example) on a six lane interstate between major cities is a lot different than going 100MPH through a very metropolitan (like Atlanta) downtown area, especially when you introduce intersections.
As for time, let's do some quick math. On a 100 mile trip here are some figures based on average MPH, including the speeds stopping/starting and in between: 90MPH = 1.11hrs; 50MPH = 2hrs; 30MPH = 3.33hrs; So there is an obvious time saving factor at travelling at a higher rate of speed over long distances travelled. Let's take 2500 miles for laughs: 90MPH = 27.77hrs; 50MPH = 50hrs; 30MPH = 83hrs; Even if you spread out your commute of 2500 miles a year, traveling at a faster pace would save you hours of time each year of driving.
I will also include a reference to some of the cross-country NYC to SF underground races that have occurred over the years. The Cannonball Run occured in the late 70s/early 80s and had a record of no accidents. The drivers were carefully picked and had the upmost care in their races. It was very illegal, but they achieved a huge feat. Alex Roy went on in 200X to beat the record. There's a documentary about it that's worth a watch. He too did it with no accident, and many since. These guys were averaging 90+ MPH across the country. It's pretty crazy. I AM NOT condoning such behavior, just stating the fact it was done and the results.
Below are some links to studies about speed and crash risk, they are interesting as well. As I mentioned, there is no doubt the more speed the more likelihood of going out in a flaming glory, but the crash risk associated with higher speeds isn't certain to the driver more so than it is other drivers.
Very interesting. The only thing I don't get is that if the government knows it can't enforce these red-light and speeding camera tickets, why implement them? Is it really because they know that the majority of people will just pay and not fight it?
Yeah, they can't prove it was you, but we both know that you were speeding. Furthermore since it is your car, in 99% of cases it is either you or someone you lent your car to.
Would this be different if it was a drink driving case? I'm sorry, but for all your opinion on why it's legal for you to do this, I think you're a fucking douchebag.