Red light camera tickets funeral procession...

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
. com...
> On 2/23/2012 2:16 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>> "necromancer"
>> <Zidane's_Last_Red_Card@worldofnecromancer_no_spam _no_way.org> wrote in
>> message ...
>>> ...even though is is clear on the video that they are proceeding
>>> through the intersection legally and FL law backs them up.
>>>
>>> RefL http://www.wsvn.com/features/article...oward/MI92368/
>>>
>>> Let's see some of you RLC loving assholes defend this.
>>>
>> Um, yeah, they'll just dismiss the funeral procession red light tickets.
>> Remember a person does review the red light tickets.
>
> Did you even read the article or watch the video. Or are you an imbecile?
>

If it's video, I don't watch it. Usenet is a text only format and I don't
expect to go over to bloated video sites using Flash or whatever else
format. One should be prepared to also post a text summary of what the video
shows when they post the link to the video.

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:53:26 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:

> On 2012-02-23, richard > wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:54:07 -0500, necromancer wrote:
>>
>>> ...even though is is clear on the video that they are proceeding
>>> through the intersection legally and FL law backs them up.
>>>
>>> RefL http://www.wsvn.com/features/article...oward/MI92368/
>>>
>>> Let's see some of you RLC loving assholes defend this.
>>
>> In probably every state, the directions of an officer over rides the
>> functions of a traffic light. So even if some idiot cop actually did sign
>> off on the ticket, the judge would over rule and dismiss the charges.
>
> Red light camera tickets do not go before real judges unless those
> ticketed press it far enough and pay the costs of doing so. Often those
> costs exceed just paying the ticket.
>
>> Maybe the cop who signed off on the tickets got kick backs for doing so.
>> Just a possibility.
>
> Maybe, rubber stamp or no such cop even exists are more probable.

I challenged a cop on the principle of his ticket writing campaign.
I wasn't about to pay a $60 fine for something that was legal.
You have the legal right to challenge ANY ticket.
When it comes to automated RLC tickets, hell, I'm not gonna further the
company's business by paying the fine without a fight.

On 2/23/2012 11:56 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message

>>> Um, yeah, they'll just dismiss the funeral procession red light tickets.
>>> Remember a person does review the red light tickets.
>>
>> Did you even read the article or watch the video. Or are you an imbecile?
>>
>
> If it's video, I don't watch it. Usenet is a text only format and I
> don't expect to go over to bloated video sites using Flash or whatever
> else format. One should be prepared to also post a text summary of what
> the video shows when they post the link to the video.

So it's obvious you didn't read my response or the article. I suspect
that reading comprehension isn't one of your strengths.

On Feb 23, 7:08*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 9:53 AM, Harry K wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 5:37 am, Arif > *wrote:
> >> On 2/23/2012 2:16 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> >>>> RefLhttp://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/helpmehoward/MI92368/
>
> >>>> Let's see some of you RLC loving assholes defend this.
>
> >>> Um, yeah, they'll just dismiss the funeral procession red light tickets.
> >>> Remember a person does review the red light tickets.
>
> >> Did you even read the article or watch the video. *Or are you an imbecile?
>
> > Ya mean this portion?:
>
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > Opa-Locka then told me an officer is supposed to look at every ticket
> > but that sometimes things slip through the cracks. A sergeant then
> > looked at the tapes, told me the police officers were clearly visible
> > on the tapes, the tickets should not have been issued and were
> > immediately dismissed.
>
> > -----------------------------------
>
> > Granted the "review" was apparently only after the tickets were
> > challenged locally.
>
> That's the point. *The review that they claim is supposed to be done is
> supposed to happen *BEFORE* the ticket is issued, not *AFTER*.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

True as I basically said. Rubber stamp obviously.

Too bad there is no reasonable way for those ticketed to be paid for
their time spent contesting what should not have been issued.

Harry K

On 2012-02-24, richard > wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:53:26 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>
>> On 2012-02-23, richard > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:54:07 -0500, necromancer wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...even though is is clear on the video that they are proceeding
>>>> through the intersection legally and FL law backs them up.
>>>>
>>>> RefL http://www.wsvn.com/features/article...oward/MI92368/
>>>>
>>>> Let's see some of you RLC loving assholes defend this.
>>>
>>> In probably every state, the directions of an officer over rides the
>>> functions of a traffic light. So even if some idiot cop actually did sign
>>> off on the ticket, the judge would over rule and dismiss the charges.
>>
>> Red light camera tickets do not go before real judges unless those
>> ticketed press it far enough and pay the costs of doing so. Often those
>> costs exceed just paying the ticket.
>>
>>> Maybe the cop who signed off on the tickets got kick backs for doing so.
>>> Just a possibility.
>>
>> Maybe, rubber stamp or no such cop even exists are more probable.
>
> I challenged a cop on the principle of his ticket writing campaign.
> I wasn't about to pay a $60 fine for something that was legal.
> You have the legal right to challenge ANY ticket.
> When it comes to automated RLC tickets, hell, I'm not gonna further the
> company's business by paying the fine without a fight.

You might have the right, but the government doesn't recognize it and
they have the guns. When people start sticking up for each other this
crap will go away, until then well...

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
m...
> On 2/23/2012 11:56 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
>
>>>> Um, yeah, they'll just dismiss the funeral procession red light
>>>> tickets.
>>>> Remember a person does review the red light tickets.
>>>
>>> Did you even read the article or watch the video. Or are you an
>>> imbecile?
>>>
>>
>> If it's video, I don't watch it. Usenet is a text only format and I
>> don't expect to go over to bloated video sites using Flash or whatever
>> else format. One should be prepared to also post a text summary of what
>> the video shows when they post the link to the video.
>
> So it's obvious you didn't read my response or the article. I suspect
> that reading comprehension isn't one of your strengths.
>

I read the article. I don't bother with bloated videos. If you want your
point understood, you still need to provide an excerpt of the article and a
summary of the video in the event the links become invalid later.

And there ought to be a law like that.

For example: If the officer writes an invalid ticket then the officer must
pay 10 times the amount of the ticket, per ticket issued, upon dismissal of
each invalid ticket. (So then the officer had better be sure that the ticket
they write will not be dismissed.)

Another example: If the officer writes another invalid ticket after having
previously been found guilty of writing an invalid ticket, then the officer
will spend 10 days in the general population of the county jail, per ticket
issued, upon another occurrence of the dismissal of those tickets.

"Harry K" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 23, 7:08 am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 9:53 AM, Harry K wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 5:37 am, Arif > wrote:
> >> On 2/23/2012 2:16 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> >>>> RefLhttp://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/helpmehoward/MI92368/
>
> >>>> Let's see some of you RLC loving assholes defend this.
>
> >>> Um, yeah, they'll just dismiss the funeral procession red light
> >>> tickets.
> >>> Remember a person does review the red light tickets.
>
> >> Did you even read the article or watch the video. Or are you an
> >> imbecile?
>
> > Ya mean this portion?:
>
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > Opa-Locka then told me an officer is supposed to look at every ticket
> > but that sometimes things slip through the cracks. A sergeant then
> > looked at the tapes, told me the police officers were clearly visible
> > on the tapes, the tickets should not have been issued and were
> > immediately dismissed.
>
> > -----------------------------------
>
> > Granted the "review" was apparently only after the tickets were
> > challenged locally.
>
> That's the point. The review that they claim is supposed to be done is
> supposed to happen *BEFORE* the ticket is issued, not *AFTER*.- Hide
> quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

True as I basically said. Rubber stamp obviously.

Too bad there is no reasonable way for those ticketed to be paid for
their time spent contesting what should not have been issued.

Harry K

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 06:42:55 -0800, Evan Platt wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:30:10 -0500, richard >
> wrote:
>
>>I challenged a cop on the principle of his ticket writing campaign.
>
> WTF does that mean?
>
>>I wasn't about to pay a $60 fine for something that was legal.
>
> If it was legal, why did you get a ticket?
>
>>You have the legal right to challenge ANY ticket.
>>When it comes to automated RLC tickets, hell, I'm not gonna further the
>>company's business by paying the fine without a fight.
>
> What company's business?

I'm going to explain this fully, just for you evan, one more damn time.
Every Memorial and Labor day weekend, the Cincinnati Police dept plays a
ticket writing game. Just to see who can write the most tickets.
At the time, I owned a pickup truck, which had no rear bumper. Ohio law has
never required pickups to have rear bumpers. The dealer sold it that way.
That Sunday I had to go get something out of my truck in the company yard.
Got what I needed and was returning home. Within blocks of the yard, the
cop stops me. He said I had no rear bumper and that was what I was cited
for.
The truck is 10 years old. All of a sudden it is illegal without a rear
bumper? What about the other 10 years?
In Ohio, you show up for arraignment and plead your case. I pled not
guilty. I showed up at the full court and talked to the ADA. Still pleading
not guilty. Because I had explained to the ADA that Ohio law had no such
requirements for pickup trucks, the case was dropped.

Why am I going to pay a $60 fine for something that was legal to begin
with?
I don't give a damn if the fine was $10. I'd still fight it.


In answer to your question "what company/s business?", I was speaking of
the RLC company that owns and operates the company. When I pay a fine,
ain't no part of it gonna go to some damn business. Not a damn dime of it.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:05:49 -0500, richard >
wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 06:42:55 -0800, Evan Platt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:30:10 -0500, richard >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I challenged a cop on the principle of his ticket writing campaign.
>>
>> WTF does that mean?
>>
>>>I wasn't about to pay a $60 fine for something that was legal.
>>
>> If it was legal, why did you get a ticket?
>>
>>>You have the legal right to challenge ANY ticket.
>>>When it comes to automated RLC tickets, hell, I'm not gonna further the
>>>company's business by paying the fine without a fight.
>>
>> What company's business?
>
>I'm going to explain this fully, just for you evan, one more damn time.
>Every Memorial and Labor day weekend, the Cincinnati Police dept plays a
>ticket writing game. Just to see who can write the most tickets.
>At the time, I owned a pickup truck, which had no rear bumper. Ohio law has
>never required pickups to have rear bumpers. The dealer sold it that way.
>That Sunday I had to go get something out of my truck in the company yard.
>Got what I needed and was returning home. Within blocks of the yard, the
>cop stops me. He said I had no rear bumper and that was what I was cited
>for.
>The truck is 10 years old. All of a sudden it is illegal without a rear
>bumper? What about the other 10 years?
>In Ohio, you show up for arraignment and plead your case. I pled not
>guilty. I showed up at the full court and talked to the ADA. Still pleading
>not guilty. Because I had explained to the ADA that Ohio law had no such
>requirements for pickup trucks, the case was dropped.
>
>Why am I going to pay a $60 fine for something that was legal to begin
>with?

Because... it took you >3 hrs to do that off work, you make at least
$20 / hr, and the money you could have gotten for "turning in" the
unused vacation hours either at the end of the year or when you retire
was the same as the $60 you would have paid anyway...

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:59:37 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>You might have the right, but the government doesn't recognize it and
>they have the guns.

Just a tiny point of fact, we have more guns than they do.

>When people start sticking up for each other this
>crap will go away, until then well...

It may yet take a full-scale revolution.

If you watch "Stossel" on Fox, I think it's on again at 9 tonight, he
says that according to experts, someone who knows all the laws can
follow you around and charge you with at least 3 felonies on any day
of the week. The laws are so pervasive, its impossible not to break
some of them.