Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
'Three-strikes' battle returns to fall ballot in California
1 view
Skip to first unread message
J
Aug 23, 2012, 12:48:05 AM8/23/12
to
If anything, the law should be changed to 'two strikes'. I'm in favor of
giving someone who may have in their youth committed a non-violent crime
a second chance, after serving a lengthy prison sentence. Two felonies?
Put them away and never, ever let them out.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/22/4746637/three-strikes-battle-returns-to.html#storylink=cpy
Stanford legal minds conceived the measure. A prosecutor from Los
Angeles vetted it. The godfather of its original design is fighting it.
Come November, California voters will decide if it stands.
Proposition 36 gives the state's electorate another opportunity to weigh
in on California's 18-year-old "three-strikes" law, the toughest
career-criminal sentencing statute in the nation.
Twice in as many decades, voters have sided in favor of a three-strikes
law that allows judges to impose a life prison term for offenders who
commit a third felony – no matter how minor – if they have two previous
serious or violent criminal convictions on their records.
Proposition 36 proponents want to change the law to restrict the
25-years-to-life sentences, with some exceptions, to criminals whose
third felony was serious or violent; nothing less than a residential
burglary would qualify as a strike.
--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com
http://www.americandecency.org/
Jeanne Douglas
Aug 23, 2012, 1:03:33 AM8/23/12
to
In article <5t127d....@news.alt.net>, J <jdyo...@ymail.com>
wrote:
> If anything, the law should be changed to 'two strikes'. I'm in favor of
> giving someone who may have in their youth committed a non-violent crime
> a second chance, after serving a lengthy prison sentence. Two felonies?
> Put them away and never, ever let them out.
How much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
wrote:
> If anything, the law should be changed to 'two strikes'. I'm in favor of
> giving someone who may have in their youth committed a non-violent crime
> a second chance, after serving a lengthy prison sentence. Two felonies?
> Put them away and never, ever let them out.
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
Syd M.
Aug 23, 2012, 4:18:52 AM8/23/12
to
On Aug 23, 12:48 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> If anything, the law should be changed to 'two strikes'. I'm in favor of
> giving someone who may have in their youth committed a non-violent crime
> a second chance, after serving a lengthy prison sentence. Two felonies?
> Put them away and never, ever let them out.
>
>
Gee, so much for all that RCC 'forgiveness'.
> If anything, the law should be changed to 'two strikes'. I'm in favor of
> giving someone who may have in their youth committed a non-violent crime
> a second chance, after serving a lengthy prison sentence. Two felonies?
> Put them away and never, ever let them out.
>
>
Syd M.
Aug 23, 2012, 4:19:24 AM8/23/12
to
On Aug 23, 1:03 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <5t127d.ldo.1...@news.alt.net>, J <jdyou...@ymail.com>
He wants this to be a kind of 'unfunded mandate'.
> In article <5t127d.ldo.1...@news.alt.net>, J <jdyou...@ymail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If anything, the law should be changed to 'two strikes'. I'm in favor of
> > giving someone who may have in their youth committed a non-violent crime
> > a second chance, after serving a lengthy prison sentence. Two felonies?
> > Put them away and never, ever let them out.
>
> How much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
>
Don't be stupid.
>
> > If anything, the law should be changed to 'two strikes'. I'm in favor of
> > giving someone who may have in their youth committed a non-violent crime
> > a second chance, after serving a lengthy prison sentence. Two felonies?
> > Put them away and never, ever let them out.
>
> How much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
>
He wants this to be a kind of 'unfunded mandate'.
Dakota
Aug 23, 2012, 5:32:37 AM8/23/12
to
priests. Raping two kids means life. I'm in favor of that one. I'm
more in favor of life imprisonment for anyone who rapes a child even once.
Mike Painter
Aug 23, 2012, 3:19:06 PM8/23/12
to
On 8/22/2012 9:48 PM, J wrote:
>
> If anything, the law should be changed to 'two strikes'. I'm in favor of
> giving someone who may have in their youth committed a non-violent crime
> a second chance, after serving a lengthy prison sentence. Two felonies?
> Put them away and never, ever let them out.
Why not move all the way back to the bible?
>
> If anything, the law should be changed to 'two strikes'. I'm in favor of
> giving someone who may have in their youth committed a non-violent crime
> a second chance, after serving a lengthy prison sentence. Two felonies?
> Put them away and never, ever let them out.
Kill them, make them slaves, or make them pay money.
Bill Graham
Aug 23, 2012, 5:26:55 PM8/23/12
to
But today, the states have made almost anything a felony. Even minor
offenses of the past can today be defined as felonies, is ome local DA is
rabid enough to want to do so. There are many non-violent crimes on the
books that can be so defined, and some are almost laughable. Perhaps some
day you may commit one of these, and be threatened with life in prison as a
result....
Mike Painter
Aug 23, 2012, 10:47:14 PM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/2012 2:26 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>
> This would be true for felonies as defined by our laws of 1950 and
> before. But today, the states have made almost anything a felony. Even
> minor offenses of the past can today be defined as felonies, is ome
> local DA is rabid enough to want to do so. There are many non-violent
> crimes on the books that can be so defined, and some are almost
> laughable. Perhaps some day you may commit one of these, and be
> threatened with life in prison as a result....
How exactly does this happen?
>
> This would be true for felonies as defined by our laws of 1950 and
> before. But today, the states have made almost anything a felony. Even
> minor offenses of the past can today be defined as felonies, is ome
> local DA is rabid enough to want to do so. There are many non-violent
> crimes on the books that can be so defined, and some are almost
> laughable. Perhaps some day you may commit one of these, and be
> threatened with life in prison as a result....
How can a misdemeanor be "defined" as a felony?
Do you know the difference between the two?
The very term you use "can be defined" argues against statutory law.
There is, of course, one state where this argument could be true because
it follows a different form of law (in theory anyway)
Bill Graham
Aug 24, 2012, 12:15:56 AM8/24/12
to
all crimes can be prosecuted as either misdemeanors or felonies. The choice
is up to the local DA. I have to admit that I don't know if this is true in
other states. But as Califoirnia goes, so goes the rest of the world. Just
give the liberals a little more time.....
Dakota
Aug 24, 2012, 12:27:05 AM8/24/12
to
On 8/23/2012 4:26 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> J wrote:
>> If anything, the law should be changed to 'two strikes'. I'm in favor
>> of giving someone who may have in their youth committed a non-violent
>> crime a second chance, after serving a lengthy prison sentence. Two
>> felonies? Put them away and never, ever let them out.
>>
>> http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/22/4746637/three-strikes-battle-returns-to.html#storylink=cpy
>>
>> Stanford legal minds conceived the measure. A prosecutor from Los
>> Angeles vetted it. The godfather of its original design is fighting
>> it.
>> Come November, California voters will decide if it stands.
>>
>> Proposition 36 gives the state's electorate another opportunity to
>> weigh in on California's 18-year-old "three-strikes" law, the toughest
>> career-criminal sentencing statute in the nation.
>>
>> Twice in as many decades, voters have sided in favor of a
>> three-strikes law that allows judges to impose a life prison term for
>> offenders who commit a third felony � no matter how minor � if they
> J wrote:
>> If anything, the law should be changed to 'two strikes'. I'm in favor
>> of giving someone who may have in their youth committed a non-violent
>> crime a second chance, after serving a lengthy prison sentence. Two
>> felonies? Put them away and never, ever let them out.
>>
>> http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/22/4746637/three-strikes-battle-returns-to.html#storylink=cpy
>>
>> Stanford legal minds conceived the measure. A prosecutor from Los
>> Angeles vetted it. The godfather of its original design is fighting
>> it.
>> Come November, California voters will decide if it stands.
>>
>> Proposition 36 gives the state's electorate another opportunity to
>> weigh in on California's 18-year-old "three-strikes" law, the toughest
>> career-criminal sentencing statute in the nation.
>>
>> Twice in as many decades, voters have sided in favor of a
>> three-strikes law that allows judges to impose a life prison term for
>> have two previous serious or violent criminal convictions on their
>> records.
>> Proposition 36 proponents want to change the law to restrict the
>> 25-years-to-life sentences, with some exceptions, to criminals whose
>> third felony was serious or violent; nothing less than a residential
>> burglary would qualify as a strike.
>
> This would be true for felonies as defined by our laws of 1950 and
> before. But today, the states have made almost anything a felony. Even
> minor offenses of the past can today be defined as felonies, is ome
> local DA is rabid enough to want to do so. There are many non-violent
> crimes on the books that can be so defined, and some are almost
> laughable. Perhaps some day you may commit one of these, and be
> threatened with life in prison as a result....
The Republicans have to keep the private for-profit prisons full.
>> records.
>> Proposition 36 proponents want to change the law to restrict the
>> 25-years-to-life sentences, with some exceptions, to criminals whose
>> third felony was serious or violent; nothing less than a residential
>> burglary would qualify as a strike.
>
> This would be true for felonies as defined by our laws of 1950 and
> before. But today, the states have made almost anything a felony. Even
> minor offenses of the past can today be defined as felonies, is ome
> local DA is rabid enough to want to do so. There are many non-violent
> crimes on the books that can be so defined, and some are almost
> laughable. Perhaps some day you may commit one of these, and be
> threatened with life in prison as a result....
Bill Graham
Aug 24, 2012, 12:30:51 AM8/24/12
to
other. The cops can't possibly bust everyone all the time for breaking
dozens of laws every day, so they ration their time and just bust: Those
they don't like. Or, enforce those laws they do like, or for whatever reason
want to enforce. (like, the ones that will net them the most money, or win
the most votes in an upcoming election, or whatever. So, we now have a
situation where everyone's lives and ability to enjoy life is in the hands
of the local policemen who can make your life a living hell if they don't
like you for some reason or another.
Is this the way you really want to live? Are these cops who you want to be
in control of your life, liberty and persuit of happiness?
deadrat
Aug 24, 2012, 1:12:44 AM8/24/12
to
infractions. Felonies are crimes that carry the punishments of death
and state prison time; misdemeanors are crimes that carry the
punishments of country jail time or finds; infractions are crimes that
are neither.
For crimes that carry either felony or misdemeanor punishments, the
California penal code defines the discretion of courts and prosecutors
to designate the crimes as misdemeanors. So sometimes a crime may be
designated a felony and sometimes a misdemeanor, but that doesn't apply
to all crimes. Criminal trespass, for instance, is always a misdemeanor.
> Just give the liberals a little more time.....
Jeanne Douglas
Aug 24, 2012, 4:44:43 AM8/24/12
to
In article <2NqdnQlQ5tKhdqvN...@giganews.com>,
Mike Painter <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 8/23/2012 2:26 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> >
> > This would be true for felonies as defined by our laws of 1950 and
> > before. But today, the states have made almost anything a felony. Even
> > minor offenses of the past can today be defined as felonies, is ome
> > local DA is rabid enough to want to do so. There are many non-violent
> > crimes on the books that can be so defined, and some are almost
> > laughable. Perhaps some day you may commit one of these, and be
> > threatened with life in prison as a result....
>
>
> How exactly does this happen?
> How can a misdemeanor be "defined" as a felony?
They change the law.
> On 8/23/2012 2:26 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> >
> > This would be true for felonies as defined by our laws of 1950 and
> > before. But today, the states have made almost anything a felony. Even
> > minor offenses of the past can today be defined as felonies, is ome
> > local DA is rabid enough to want to do so. There are many non-violent
> > crimes on the books that can be so defined, and some are almost
> > laughable. Perhaps some day you may commit one of these, and be
> > threatened with life in prison as a result....
>
>
> How exactly does this happen?
> How can a misdemeanor be "defined" as a felony?
Mike Painter
Aug 24, 2012, 2:15:18 PM8/24/12
to
was a cop for some of them.
A felony can be reduced to a lessor included offense which might be a
misdemeanor, but the converse is not true unless specifically stated in
the penal code and supported by case law.
That lessor included offense is what the person would be tried for and
is usually done because the actual crime can't be proven. All penal code
section subsume any crimes that might have been committed at the time
the major one was.CAL. PEN. CODE § 487
If I steal $101.00 worth of avocados and you can't prove they were worth
over $100.00 dollars,I might be charged with petty theft.
If you can't prove I took them I might be charged with receiving stolen
property.
And the DA assigned to the case is going to be pissed.
Mike Painter
Aug 24, 2012, 2:18:59 PM8/24/12
to
On 8/23/2012 9:30 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>
> Consider a world where almost everything anyone does is against some law
> or other. The cops can't possibly bust everyone all the time for
> breaking dozens of laws every day, so they ration their time and just
> bust: Those they don't like. Or, enforce those laws they do like, or for
> whatever reason want to enforce. (like, the ones that will net them the
> most money, or win the most votes in an upcoming election, or whatever.
> So, we now have a situation where everyone's lives and ability to enjoy
> life is in the hands of the local policemen who can make your life a
> living hell if they don't like you for some reason or another.
> Is this the way you really want to live? Are these cops who you want to
> be in control of your life, liberty and persuit of happiness?
Then go someplace where there are no cops and try that system.
>
> Consider a world where almost everything anyone does is against some law
> or other. The cops can't possibly bust everyone all the time for
> breaking dozens of laws every day, so they ration their time and just
> bust: Those they don't like. Or, enforce those laws they do like, or for
> whatever reason want to enforce. (like, the ones that will net them the
> most money, or win the most votes in an upcoming election, or whatever.
> So, we now have a situation where everyone's lives and ability to enjoy
> life is in the hands of the local policemen who can make your life a
> living hell if they don't like you for some reason or another.
> Is this the way you really want to live? Are these cops who you want to
> be in control of your life, liberty and persuit of happiness?
The cops I worked with always spent about four times what a cup of
coffee cost when they were on duty.
The restaurants never charged us so we left more than enough to cover
the cost and the tip.
Bill Graham
Aug 24, 2012, 5:04:00 PM8/24/12
to
either as misdemeanor or a felony or both any time they want.
Bill Graham
Aug 24, 2012, 5:15:16 PM8/24/12
to
>
> If I steal $101.00 worth of avocados and you can't prove they were
> worth over $100.00 dollars,I might be charged with petty theft.
>
> If you can't prove I took them I might be charged with receiving
> stolen property.
>
> And the DA assigned to the case is going to be pissed.
I never said it was not specifically stated in the penal code. They can
> If I steal $101.00 worth of avocados and you can't prove they were
> worth over $100.00 dollars,I might be charged with petty theft.
>
> If you can't prove I took them I might be charged with receiving
> stolen property.
>
> And the DA assigned to the case is going to be pissed.
specifically state anything they want in the penal code. All I said was that
there are a bunch of laws on the books in
California that can be prosecuted as either misdemeanors or felonies, and it
is up to the DA to decide which. So you have to K.A, as necessary to get him
to prosecute whatever law you are accused of breaking as a misdemeanor.
And what is so unusual about this? Accused persons are threatened with stuff
like this all the time. That's why so many people plead guilty to stuff they
didn't have anything to do with. Better to spend a couple of years in the
slammer than to risk some rabid jury giving you 20 to life. Then, w2hile you
are cooling your heels, you can (hopefully) have your lawyers and others on
the outside working to find more proof that you are innocent... What a
screwed up system we live under! I am sure glad I decided to be an Engineer
rather than a lawyer... Working with machines is a hell of a lot more
logical.
Bill Graham
Aug 24, 2012, 5:22:08 PM8/24/12
to
many laws, (and never seems to get rid of any) so the local cop on the beat
gets effectively way too much power. It is the essence of why I am a
libertarian. As a matter of fact, the restraint shown by most cops is
remarkable, considering the potential they have to destroy ones life. But
will this continue to be true in the future? There are places where it isn't
true right now. Fortunately, they are few and far between....
Wayne
Aug 24, 2012, 5:28:36 PM8/24/12
to
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
news:as6dnaGKI_AZbarN...@giganews.com...
Mike Painter wrote:
> On 8/23/2012 9:30 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> Consider a world where almost everything anyone does is against some
>> law or other. The cops can't possibly bust everyone all the time for
>> breaking dozens of laws every day, so they ration their time and just
>> bust: Those they don't like. Or, enforce those laws they do like, or
>> for whatever reason want to enforce. (like, the ones that will net
>> them the most money, or win the most votes in an upcoming election,
>> or whatever. So, we now have a situation where everyone's lives and
>> ability to enjoy life is in the hands of the local policemen who can
>> make your life a living hell if they don't like you for some reason
>> or another. Is this the way you really want to live? Are these cops who
>> you want
>> to be in control of your life, liberty and persuit of happiness?
>
> Then go someplace where there are no cops and try that system.
>
> The cops I worked with always spent about four times what a cup of
> coffee cost when they were on duty.
> The restaurants never charged us so we left more than enough to cover
> the cost and the tip.
damn
# many laws, (and never seems to get rid of any) so the local cop on the
beat
# gets effectively way too much power. It is the essence of why I am a
# libertarian. As a matter of fact, the restraint shown by most cops is
# remarkable, considering the potential they have to destroy ones life. But
# will this continue to be true in the future? There are places where it
isn't
# true right now. Fortunately, they are few and far between....
I know a number of LEOs from various shooting ranges and find them generally
to be standup folks.
But, the number of laws and policies occasionally overwhelms them, such that
they play it safe by kicking the can down the road for a supervisor to
handle.
Bill Graham
Aug 24, 2012, 5:53:43 PM8/24/12
to
people. The state legislature should make laws carefully, and spend some
time getting obsolete ones off the books. There is nothing wrong with them
getting advice on this from the local police force, either. But when we have
so many laws that you can't walk down the street without breaking several
dozen, the potential for misery is too great for my taste. - I can't help
it... I will push libertarianism until the day I die.
deadrat
Aug 24, 2012, 6:16:04 PM8/24/12
to
On 8/24/12 4:22 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Mike Painter wrote:
>> On 8/23/2012 9:30 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> Consider a world where almost everything anyone does is against some
>>> law or other. The cops can't possibly bust everyone all the time for
>>> breaking dozens of laws every day, so they ration their time and just
>>> bust: Those they don't like. Or, enforce those laws they do like, or
>>> for whatever reason want to enforce. (like, the ones that will net
>>> them the most money, or win the most votes in an upcoming election,
>>> or whatever. So, we now have a situation where everyone's lives and
>>> ability to enjoy life is in the hands of the local policemen who can
>>> make your life a living hell if they don't like you for some reason
>>> or another. Is this the way you really want to live? Are these cops
>>> who you want
>>> to be in control of your life, liberty and persuit of happiness?
>>
>> Then go someplace where there are no cops and try that system.
>>
>> The cops I worked with always spent about four times what a cup of
>> coffee cost when they were on duty.
>> The restaurants never charged us so we left more than enough to cover
>> the cost and the tip.
>
> It isn't the cops I am bitching about. Its the system that generates so
> damn many laws, (and never seems to get rid of any) so the local cop on
> the beat gets effectively way too much power. It is the essence of why I
> am a libertarian.
Don't kid a kidder. You're not a libertarian as long as you're sucking
> Mike Painter wrote:
>> On 8/23/2012 9:30 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> Consider a world where almost everything anyone does is against some
>>> law or other. The cops can't possibly bust everyone all the time for
>>> breaking dozens of laws every day, so they ration their time and just
>>> bust: Those they don't like. Or, enforce those laws they do like, or
>>> for whatever reason want to enforce. (like, the ones that will net
>>> them the most money, or win the most votes in an upcoming election,
>>> or whatever. So, we now have a situation where everyone's lives and
>>> ability to enjoy life is in the hands of the local policemen who can
>>> make your life a living hell if they don't like you for some reason
>>> or another. Is this the way you really want to live? Are these cops
>>> who you want
>>> to be in control of your life, liberty and persuit of happiness?
>>
>> Then go someplace where there are no cops and try that system.
>>
>> The cops I worked with always spent about four times what a cup of
>> coffee cost when they were on duty.
>> The restaurants never charged us so we left more than enough to cover
>> the cost and the tip.
>
> It isn't the cops I am bitching about. Its the system that generates so
> damn many laws, (and never seems to get rid of any) so the local cop on
> the beat gets effectively way too much power. It is the essence of why I
> am a libertarian.
on the public teat as hard as you can.
<snip/>
deadrat
Aug 24, 2012, 6:17:16 PM8/24/12
to
last pull on the public teat.
Mike Painter
Aug 25, 2012, 2:25:28 AM8/25/12
to
On 8/24/2012 2:22 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> It isn't the cops I am bitching about. Its the system that generates so
> damn many laws, (and never seems to get rid of any) so the local cop on
> the beat gets effectively way too much power.
Cops deal with criminal law.
> It isn't the cops I am bitching about. Its the system that generates so
> damn many laws, (and never seems to get rid of any) so the local cop on
> the beat gets effectively way too much power.
I've spent a bit of time with the penal code and with rare exception all
those laws came about *after* somebody decided the action was criminal.
The exceptions are mostly (in California) in what constitutes grand
theft. PC 487.
Bill Graham
Aug 25, 2012, 2:50:46 AM8/25/12
to
Street bridge that takes pictures and gives out tickets to people who turn
right on red after a rolling stop at $275 a whack is, "dealing with criminal
law". It is making money for the city. It is unable to distinguish between
someone who is willfully running a red light and someone who is trapped in
the intersection during the rush hour and is tryine to get out of the way of
heavy traffi8c going the other way. It has no common sense (it is, after
all, just a machine) so it can't evaluate the dozens of circumstances where
people may be forced to break the law in the interest of safety or
expediency. And, finally, it is blatently unconstitutional, since it can't
argue its case in court, or answer the arguments of the opposition before
the court. It ies, IOW, just a money machine who is collecting money from
poor slobs who have to work for a living and have no choice but to cross the
bridge and go through that intersection.
Mike Painter
Aug 25, 2012, 1:49:06 PM8/25/12
to
On 8/24/2012 11:50 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>
> I don't think that machine at the base of the Marion
> Street bridge that takes pictures and gives out tickets to people who
> turn right on red after a rolling stop at $275 a whack is, "dealing with
> criminal law". It is making money for the city. It is unable to
> distinguish between someone who is willfully running a red light and
> someone who is trapped in the intersection during the rush hour and is
> tryine to get out of the way of heavy traffi8c going the other way.
If any part of the vehicle is in the intersection *before* the light
>
> I don't think that machine at the base of the Marion
> Street bridge that takes pictures and gives out tickets to people who
> turn right on red after a rolling stop at $275 a whack is, "dealing with
> criminal law". It is making money for the city. It is unable to
> distinguish between someone who is willfully running a red light and
> someone who is trapped in the intersection during the rush hour and is
> tryine to get out of the way of heavy traffi8c going the other way.
turns red it has the legal right of way in California.
If you have evidence that this machine is not calibrated to take
pictures after the light turns red then it should be presented to the
proper authorities.
Personally, and based on years of a little game I play when red lights
are involved, I would guess that 99.9% of these poor innocent people
were pushing their luck and tried to beat the yellow.
Bill Graham
Aug 25, 2012, 5:00:16 PM8/25/12
to
That is within the spoirit of our constitution. You don't throw out any
babies with the bathwater. In my case. I had just stopped, lookjed, and seen
that it was clear to go, so I went. The light went from yellow to red in the
fraction of a second between when I saw that it was clear to go and stepped
on the gas. So, it "said" I didn't stop on red. A machine is blind until
some action tells it to start seeing. It was tole to look when the light
turned red. It didn't even look the fraction of a second before when the
light was yellow and I was stopped and looking to see if it was cleqar to
go. IOW, it was screwed up, and this will always be the case with machines.
They have no common sense, and they can't be interrogasted in court. I
couldn't explain my situation to the machine on the witness stand, and have
it say. "Oh! I'm sorry, I wasn't looking when you stopped and saw that it
was clear to go." And that is why these machines are unconstitutional, in
spite of what a bunch of liberal lawyers will say. (They have the same
common sense as the machine...:^) - And for much the same reason.
Mike Painter
Aug 25, 2012, 8:12:19 PM8/25/12
to
On 8/25/2012 2:00 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>
> That may be true, but if just one isn't then the machine should be
> trashed. That is within the spoirit of our constitution. You don't throw
> out any babies with the bathwater. In my case. I had just stopped,
> lookjed, and seen that it was clear to go, so I went. The light went
> from yellow to red in the fraction of a second between when I saw that
> it was clear to go and stepped on the gas.
The truth comes out, you were stopped on a yellow and decided to take a
>
> That may be true, but if just one isn't then the machine should be
> trashed. That is within the spoirit of our constitution. You don't throw
> out any babies with the bathwater. In my case. I had just stopped,
> lookjed, and seen that it was clear to go, so I went. The light went
> from yellow to red in the fraction of a second between when I saw that
> it was clear to go and stepped on the gas.
chance, if you were not *IN* the intersection when it turned red you
broke the law, you lost.
Yellow does not mean speed up or take a chance.
Those laws and cameras are there because a lot of us have seen what have
seen what happens when you decide that it's OK to get through on a
yellow and the truck to your right has timed the light so he will not
have to stop.
Bill Graham
Aug 25, 2012, 8:55:41 PM8/25/12
to
the situation at all. The traffic coming from my left was stopped. The car
ahead of me stopped, saw that it was clear to go, and went. I stopped, saw
that it was clear to go, and went. Neither of us bothered to look at the
light, because we were both conserned with both cars and pedestrians, and it
is legal in this state to stop, see that it is clear to go, and go whether
the light is red, gree3n or yellow. There was no hurrying or rushing to beat
the light or anything like that. The street I was on was a one w2ay street,
and the traffic stopped at the light to my left was also on a one way
street. But the machine was programmed to make sure that anyone who turns
right on red stops first, and it never "knew" that I had just been stopped,
seen that it was clear to go, and then made my turn, because there was no
time lag whatsoever between when the light turns red and when it decides
that you are at fault. However, it is typical of you liberqals to nelieve
that anything the government deos, and any machine the government sets up
and uses, has to be the cat's whiskers and can do no wrong. Because of this
ticket, I no longer approach that intersection from that street. I now
arrange my route through there from the left, where the traffic was stopped,
so the machine can't make the same mistake again. If I could avoid that
intersection altogether I would, but that bridge is the only way I can get
across the river, and there is no way to get on it without going through
that intersection from one direction or the other.
Dakota
Aug 25, 2012, 10:35:21 PM8/25/12
to
up the photo-ticket schemes get a cut of the profits. To increase
their own revenue and that of their state or municipal partners, they
encourage the authorities to alter the timing of traffic lights so
there's a much shorter yellow before switching to red.
The scammers reaped some serious cash before they were tossed out of
my present home town of Sioux Fall, South Dakota.
Dakota
Aug 25, 2012, 10:46:30 PM8/25/12
to
Bill Graham
Aug 26, 2012, 1:42:36 PM8/26/12
to
California and Oregon, it is legal to stop, see that it iws clear to go, and
then turn right, whether the light is green, yellow2, or red. So, over the
course of my 50 yeqrs or more of driving, I have developed the habit of not
looking at the light at all if I wanted to make a right turn. I just stop,
see that it is clear to go, and go. Now, I can no longer do this. Part of my
attention has to observe the status of the light, since I can no longer just
pay ateention to cars and pedestrians at such intersections. Should the
light change colors while I am making my right turn, I may be hit with a
fine of nearly $300. I find this to be highly objectionable because it
interferes with both common sense, and the general safety of my driving
about town.
lib_duster
Aug 26, 2012, 2:05:49 PM8/26/12
to
Bill Graham
Aug 26, 2012, 2:42:05 PM8/26/12
to
lib_duster wrote:
> You're a couple of bricks shy of a pallet, pal.
I am greatly impressed by your careful consideration of the situation and
> You're a couple of bricks shy of a pallet, pal.
your application of its logic and general application to the public
safety... Have you considered becoming a traffic engineer?
lib_duster
Aug 26, 2012, 2:55:09 PM8/26/12
to
Mike Painter
Aug 27, 2012, 9:13:51 PM8/27/12
to
On 8/25/2012 5:55 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> Yellow does not mean speed up or take a chance.
>>
>> Those laws and cameras are there because a lot of us have seen what
>> have seen what happens when you decide that it's OK to get through on
>> a yellow and the truck to your right has timed the light so he will
>> not have to stop.
>
> You are completely wrong, and it isd evident to me that you don't
> understand the situation at all. The traffic coming from my left was
> stopped. The car ahead of me stopped, saw that it was clear to go, and
> went. I stopped, saw that it was clear to go, and went. Neither of us
> bothered to look at the light, because we were both conserned with both
> cars and pedestrians, and it is legal in this state to stop, see that it
> is clear to go, and go whether the light is red, gree3n or yellow.
So now you don't know the condition of the light at the time, a bit
>>
>> Yellow does not mean speed up or take a chance.
>>
>> Those laws and cameras are there because a lot of us have seen what
>> have seen what happens when you decide that it's OK to get through on
>> a yellow and the truck to your right has timed the light so he will
>> not have to stop.
>
> You are completely wrong, and it isd evident to me that you don't
> understand the situation at all. The traffic coming from my left was
> stopped. The car ahead of me stopped, saw that it was clear to go, and
> went. I stopped, saw that it was clear to go, and went. Neither of us
> bothered to look at the light, because we were both conserned with both
> cars and pedestrians, and it is legal in this state to stop, see that it
> is clear to go, and go whether the light is red, gree3n or yellow.
different from before, yet you were concerned about cars.
In this state it is also legal to turn right on a red light unless
otherwise posted AND it is safe to proceed.
A light that has just turned red means another light has just turned
green, that would be thee traffic to your left. It was not safe to
proceed because those drivers are going to assume that you will give
them the right of way.
Your initial story had you mentioning a busy traffic situation and a
defensive driver would realize that the oncoming traffic might be in a
hurry.
You gambled with your life and that of others and won. You lived.
Maybe next time you will stop when the light is yellow and not try to
beat the traffic that had a legal green light.
I once heard some one tell me that he was speeding because he wanted to
get home before his car exploded and I still wrote him.
Mike Painter
Aug 27, 2012, 9:20:24 PM8/27/12
to
On 8/26/2012 10:42 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
> it is legal to stop, see that it iws clear to go, and then turn right,
> whether the light is green, yellow2, or red.
That is not true and never has been in California and probably in all
> it is legal to stop, see that it iws clear to go, and then turn right,
> whether the light is green, yellow2, or red.
other states.
CVC 21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall
stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the
crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then
before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an
indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision
(b).
(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver,
after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady
circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way
street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield
the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk
and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall
continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver
can proceed with reasonable safety.
Bill Graham
Aug 27, 2012, 9:32:41 PM8/27/12
to
photograph of me turning right with the light red. The photograph meant
nothing otherwise, because it is legal to turn right on red, so it only
showed me doing something that was perfectly legal. The stupid authorities
however, think this is, "proof" that I didn't stop and see that it was clear
to go.. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you
liberals... I have written it up ast least three times now. The automatic
policeman is flawed. Period. If you think that just because the city
government takes several thousand dollars of the taxpayers money and uses it
to build a robo-cop that that means they can do no wrong then you can
congratulate yourself on having the liberals attitude.... You will go a long
way in the new society, my son. Il, however, am very happy that I lived most
of my life working with intelligent people who thought for themselves and
accepted the word of no man when it came to understanding a problem and how
to solve it. I fear foir the futures of my grand kids, but there is no
helping that. At 77, I can't be held responsible for them.
Bill Graham
Aug 27, 2012, 9:38:41 PM8/27/12
to
clear to turn right, and make your turn if the light is green? (I do this
all the time, so I won't run down pedestrians) And where in all that does it
say that you can't stop, see that it is clear to go, and then turn right is
the light is yellow? (I'm sure I have done that before, too, since I never
look at the light if I am going to make a right turn) There is nothing in
the law that says it is illegal for me to stop, see that it is clear to go,
and then turn right regardless of the status of the light. - And so I did.
Ans so I will continue to do so in the future until I can no longer drive
because of my poor vision.
Dakota
Aug 28, 2012, 12:54:04 AM8/28/12
to
stop using the system. I was too lazy to fight the ticket as were all
but two others in town. When the camera cops where thrown out, only
those two got the money back. Alas.
Bill Graham
Aug 28, 2012, 12:04:14 PM8/28/12
to
to do in the old days... Put "garage sale" plates on my car, so their
tickets go to never-never land....:^) And, if they install too many of these
"robo-cops" at the intersections around town, I may have to do just
that..... At one time, I was wall papering my bedroom with parking tickets
that I got in Sausalito, California... They would give you a ticket every
hour if you parked there to buy stuff from the local stores. (Those
California liberals never ceise to amaze me)
In Palo Alto, the local merchants got together and made the city remove
their parking meters. And then, when they were building bicycle lock bars
all over town, you'd think they would have realized that the parking meter
posts could be easily converted into bike lock bars, and convert them, but
nooooo.....
0 new messages