This is great. Red light runners are killers and maimers and deserve
to pay. I say make criminals pay big fines so law-abiding citizens pay
less taxes.
Red-light cameras boost coffers, rile drivers
Kevin Fagan
Sunday, February 5, 2012
California has the most expensive red-light camera tickets in the
world - the fine is so steep that one camera in Oakland generates more
than $3 million a year - and a Fremont man is launching a protest
group to do something about that.
Anyone in California snapped violating a red light pays a fine of
$480, and according to the traffic-watch site TheNewspaper.com, no
other jurisdiction anywhere has a tab that high. The second-highest
fine in the United States is $250, and it is usually more like $100.
The Legislature passed two bills in the past two years that would have
reduced the fine or limited the cameras' use, but both were vetoed.
When he killed the most recent measure, Gov. Jerry Brown said the
matter should be left to local jurisdictions.
snip
__________________
Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals
put together!
Affirmative action is double racism. Persecuting whites in the belief
blacks can't make it on ability
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:00:47 -0800 (PST), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS wrote:
> This is great. Red light runners are killers and maimers and deserve
> to pay. I say make criminals pay big fines so law-abiding citizens pay
> less taxes.
> Red-light cameras boost coffers, rile drivers
> Kevin Fagan
No problem a little sledge hammer and a pair of wire cutters wouldn't cure.
Or, drill a hole in the side and shoot in a tube of expanding foam.
Or a few gallons of water.
Shoot the lens out. When they replace the lens, shoot it out again.
On Feb 6, 10:32 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> No problem a little sledge hammer and a pair of wire cutters wouldn't cure.
> Or, drill a hole in the side and shoot in a tube of expanding foam.
> Or a few gallons of water.
> Shoot the lens out. When they replace the lens, shoot it out again.
Red light runners are killers and yet you support them.. Why are you a
criminal coddler?
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:14:33 -0800 (PST), "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS" <josegoldb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 10:32 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> No problem a little sledge hammer and a pair of wire cutters wouldn't cure.
>> Or, drill a hole in the side and shoot in a tube of expanding foam.
>> Or a few gallons of water.
>> Shoot the lens out. When they replace the lens, shoot it out again.
>Red light runners are killers and yet you support them.. Why are you a
>criminal coddler?
There's probably nothing more dangerous that you can do with a car
than run a red light, BUT the gov't has been f'ing with the lights,
shortening the yellows, etc. in order to catch more people doing it.
Additionally, the cameras have been studied and found to CAUSE more
accidents than they prevent, and there's just no defense against it.
You can't follow so far back that the bozo in front of you clamps the
brakes in a full broadslide the second the yellow shows, and if you
do, you still also have to clamp the brakes full-on and will get hit
by the guy behind you anyway. Red light cameras are counterproductive
to safety, and only good for revenue enhancement. If they want to
enforce traffic lights, then get a cop to do it.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:14:33 -0800 (PST), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:32 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> No problem a little sledge hammer and a pair of wire cutters wouldn't cure.
>> Or, drill a hole in the side and shoot in a tube of expanding foam.
>> Or a few gallons of water.
>> Shoot the lens out. When they replace the lens, shoot it out again.
> Red light runners are killers and yet you support them.. Why are you a
> criminal coddler?
That may be. RLC's are installed purely to generate revenue. The criminal
act is the fact that the business that installs them gets a percentage of
the fine. What other citations issued support a business? None.
I do not support RLC's. If a cop sees you violating a law, you get cited on
the spot. What if cops decided to send you a ticket to your home two weeks
later?
And what about "due process" and the right to face my accusers and cross
examine them? How does one cross examine a camera?
The only reason RLC's exist is to generate revenue.
Then why don't you move there, you disingenuous american (sic) sack of
shit?
-- Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:
"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?
Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."
Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com>
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:32:27 -0500, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
<< snip judy's bullshit >>
>That may be. RLC's are installed purely to generate revenue. The criminal
>act is the fact that the business that installs them gets a percentage of
>the fine. What other citations issued support a business? None.
>I do not support RLC's. If a cop sees you violating a law, you get cited on
>the spot. What if cops decided to send you a ticket to your home two weeks
>later?
>And what about "due process" and the right to face my accusers and cross
>examine them? How does one cross examine a camera?
>The only reason RLC's exist is to generate revenue.
Bullis, you *do* know that you are trying to reason with the biggest
idiot in the US, right?
--
S&DDAM admits to putting others in danger with its beater:
"Foot pumps are a joke. I had one once and since the piston only moves like
2 inches it took 50 pumps to raise the pressure by one psi. Go with the
hand pumps where the piston moves around 15 inches. One of my tires has
exposed cords and i have to pump it up every week. "
On Feb 7, 12:32 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> And what about "due process" and the right to face my accusers and cross
> examine them? How does one cross examine a camera?
Red light running is an infraction, not a misdemeanor or felony.
There is no possibility of jail time with an infraction and that is
why you don't get to face your accuser.
On Feb 7, 11:39 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> Additionally, the cameras have been studied and found to CAUSE more
> accidents than they prevent,
Oh shut up with that silly argument. The cameras don't cause crashes.
What happens is criminals like you decide to run the red light but the
guy in front decides to obey the law and stop and you rear-end him.
It's YOUR fault, not the camera's, you moron.
>On Feb 7, 11:39 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
>> Additionally, the cameras have been studied and found to CAUSE more
>> accidents than they prevent,
>Oh shut up with that silly argument. The cameras don't cause crashes.
>What happens is criminals like you decide to run the red light but the
>guy in front decides to obey the law and stop and you rear-end him.
>It's YOUR fault, not the camera's, you moron.
Yes, it is the camera's fault. The guy who stopped made the decision
to stop based on the presence of the camera and its excessive fines,
knowing full well that the driver behind him is going to hit him if he
does stop. And the company that owns the camera and the government
that they contracted with should be held civilly and criminally liable
for the guy's injuries.
Now, then, please do the free world a favor: get a .357 Magnum and use
it to blow your brains (what brains you have) out.
-- Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:
"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?
Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."
Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com>
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg
>On Feb 7, 12:32 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> And what about "due process" and the right to face my accusers and cross
>> examine them? How does one cross examine a camera?
>Red light running is an infraction, not a misdemeanor or felony.
>There is no possibility of jail time with an infraction and that is
>why you don't get to face your accuser.
Yeah, nice way to get around the Constitution, you fascist fuckwad.
--
Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS says that
drinking and driving is acceptable:
"Oh no - drinking and driving are constitutional rights."
--Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, 1/3/09
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:46:20 -0800 (PST), "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS" <josegoldb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 11:39 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
>> Additionally, the cameras have been studied and found to CAUSE more
>> accidents than they prevent,
>Oh shut up with that silly argument. The cameras don't cause crashes.
>What happens is criminals like you decide to run the red light but the
>guy in front decides to obey the law and stop and you rear-end him.
>It's YOUR fault, not the camera's, you moron.
You're an idiot, and you will crash just like anyone else in that
situation.
On 02/08/2012 11:46 AM, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS wrote:
> On Feb 7, 11:39 am, Dave Head<rally...@att.net> wrote:
>> Additionally, the cameras have been studied and found to CAUSE more
>> accidents than they prevent,
> Oh shut up with that silly argument. The cameras don't cause crashes.
> What happens is criminals like you decide to run the red light but the
> guy in front decides to obey the law and stop and you rear-end him.
> It's YOUR fault, not the camera's, you moron.
I'll laugh when you get rear ended. But your brakes probably don't work anyway.
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:32:27 -0500, richard<mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> That may be. RLC's are installed purely to generate revenue. The criminal
>> act is the fact that the business that installs them gets a percentage of
>> the fine. What other citations issued support a business? None.
> Certain agencies use a 3rd party agency to handle ticket processing -
> speeding ticket, parking ticket, etc. They get a percentage of the
> fine.
>> I do not support RLC's.
> I do, and proud to admit I do.
>> If a cop sees you violating a law, you get cited on
>> the spot. What if cops decided to send you a ticket to your home two weeks
>> later?
> Technically, he could do that.
>> And what about "due process" and the right to face my accusers and cross
>> examine them? How does one cross examine a camera?
>> The only reason RLC's exist is to generate revenue.
> Good.
> I hope you call 911 one day, and are told the nearest cop will be 45
> minutes away.
> Why? Budget. Had they installed RLC's, they'd be able to afford more
> cops.
> Till then, sit tight while your house is being robbed, and wait for
> the cops.
The cops will help how? Doesn't matter whether they show up 10 minutes or 45 minutes later, they're still going to fill out the same reports.
> >On Feb 7, 11:39 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> >> Additionally, the cameras have been studied and found to CAUSE more
> >> accidents than they prevent,
> >Oh shut up with that silly argument. The cameras don't cause crashes.
> >What happens is criminals like you decide to run the red light but the
> >guy in front decides to obey the law and stop and you rear-end him.
> >It's YOUR fault, not the camera's, you moron.
> Yes, it is the camera's fault. The guy who stopped made the decision
> to stop based on the presence of the camera and its excessive fines,
> knowing full well that the driver behind him is going to hit him if he
> does stop. And the company that owns the camera and the government
> that they contracted with should be held civilly and criminally liable
> for the guy's injuries.
> >On Feb 7, 12:32 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> And what about "due process" and the right to face my accusers and cross
> >> examine them? How does one cross examine a camera?
> >Red light running is an infraction, not a misdemeanor or felony.
> >There is no possibility of jail time with an infraction and that is
> >why you don't get to face your accuser.
> Yeah, nice way to get around the Constitution, you fascist fuckwad.
Read the 6th amendment. It applies to "criminal prosecutions" and
infractions are not classed as such.
>>On Feb 7, 11:39 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
>>> Additionally, the cameras have been studied and found to CAUSE more
>>> accidents than they prevent,
>>Oh shut up with that silly argument. The cameras don't cause crashes.
>>What happens is criminals like you decide to run the red light but the
>>guy in front decides to obey the law and stop and you rear-end him.
>>It's YOUR fault, not the camera's, you moron.
>Yes, it is the camera's fault. The guy who stopped made the decision
>to stop based on the presence of the camera and its excessive fines,
>knowing full well that the driver behind him is going to hit him if he
>does stop. And the company that owns the camera and the government
>that they contracted with should be held civilly and criminally liable
>for the guy's injuries.
You hit somone from behind you are almost always at fault. The fact
that the person ahead was making a legal stop only reinforces that.
> On Feb 8, 10:09 am, necromancer
> <Zidane's_Last_Red_Card@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>> Judy "Shit 4 Brains" Dairya spewed:
>>> On Feb 7, 12:32 pm, richard<mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> And what about "due process" and the right to face my accusers and cross
>>>> examine them? How does one cross examine a camera?
>>> Red light running is an infraction, not a misdemeanor or felony.
>>> There is no possibility of jail time with an infraction and that is
>>> why you don't get to face your accuser.
>> Yeah, nice way to get around the Constitution, you fascist fuckwad.
> Read the 6th amendment. It applies to "criminal prosecutions" and
> infractions are not classed as such.
Which is bullshit. If I'm being prosecuted and punished for something it doesn't matter if you call it a crime or a really really bad thing, the effect is the same.
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:07:59 -0500, Nate Nagel<njna...@roosters.net>
> wrote:
>> The cops will help how? Doesn't matter whether they show up 10 minutes
>> or 45 minutes later, they're still going to fill out the same reports.
> I've called a few times for non life threatening issues (Graffiti,
> vandalism, B&E), and often had officers arrive before I hung up - and
> we were talking a 2 -3 minute call.
Where the hell do you live?
I called in once because I was watching someone try to break into a neighbor's car and I was going to try to have the a-hole arrested rather than just scare him off. The cops *NEVER* showed up.
>> >On Feb 7, 12:32 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> And what about "due process" and the right to face my accusers and cross
>> >> examine them? How does one cross examine a camera?
>> >Red light running is an infraction, not a misdemeanor or felony.
>> >There is no possibility of jail time with an infraction and that is
>> >why you don't get to face your accuser.
>> Yeah, nice way to get around the Constitution, you fascist fuckwad.
>Read the 6th amendment. It applies to "criminal prosecutions" and
>infractions are not classed as such.
That's what I said, you stupid fucking american (sic). That's a
convenient way to get around the Constitution. Learn how to read you
fucking idiot and then eat a bullet. The world will be a better place
once you are not fouling the air the rest of us have to breathe, you
lame assed septic...
-- Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:
"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?
Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."
Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com>
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:45:36 -0500, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com>
wrote:
>You hit somone from behind you are almost always at fault. The fact
>that the person ahead was making a legal stop only reinforces that.
If I get hit from behind, I'm going to go after all that I consider
responsible for the accident. That includes camera operators if I make
a decision to stop based on the presence of a RLC and subsequently get
hit.
--
"But I'm happy to say that on Election Day I stayed home.
And I did essentially what you did. The only
difference is when I got finished masturbating
I had something to show for it."
<Zidane's_Last_Red_Card@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:45:36 -0500, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com>
>wrote:
>>You hit somone from behind you are almost always at fault. The fact
>>that the person ahead was making a legal stop only reinforces that.
>If I get hit from behind, I'm going to go after all that I consider
>responsible for the accident. That includes camera operators if I make
>a decision to stop based on the presence of a RLC and subsequently get
>hit.
<LOL> Yeah right, and go after the people that make and install the
red lights at intersections too... either way, you'll be laughed out
of court.
>On 02/09/2012 10:55 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:07:59 -0500, Nate Nagel<njna...@roosters.net>
>> wrote:
>>> The cops will help how? Doesn't matter whether they show up 10 minutes
>>> or 45 minutes later, they're still going to fill out the same reports.
>> I've called a few times for non life threatening issues (Graffiti,
>> vandalism, B&E), and often had officers arrive before I hung up - and
>> we were talking a 2 -3 minute call.
>Where the hell do you live?
>I called in once because I was watching someone try to break into a >neighbor's car and I was going to try to have the a-hole arrested rather >than just scare him off. The cops *NEVER* showed up.
>nate
I called 911 in El Paso for a drunk that was wandering in and out of
traffic on I-10. I waited 10 minutes and no one showed up so I left.
Don't know if they ever showed up. By the time I left some citizens
had stopped and corralled the guy.
