There's a simple solution to the red-light camera problem.

Don't frigging run red-lights.

Quote:Technically the guy is merely using his first amendment rights.

See this is my problem. I even have to agree with Nate on this one. (Which is something I hate to do ) But once you are in jail or on death row you should lose all your rights. Honestly if you choose not to abide by the laws of this nation then you should forfeit your right to call upon them in your defense. It is like someone claiming to not believe in GOD and then quoting the Bible to prove a point.

You (and nate) are right but that is not what the law of the land is. Even on death row the fact is he still has first amendment rights. Whether we think that is fair or not doesnt matter, its not going to change.

Another thing to consider is the Bill of Rights were not intended to be merely laws written in a book but they are natural human rights, rights that are given by nature but must be protected by the law.

But as I said earlier IMO the issue of the first amendment rights in this case appears to be more in the hands of the person publishing this stuff than the person who is creating it, the guy in prison doesnt have the ability to publish this stuff on the web, therefore IMO it is the person he is corresponding with who is excercising his first amendment rights and not the prisoner.

I'm another proponent of "you breaka da law & get incarcerated, you leave all rights except for basic human rights at the door". By basic human rights, I'm talking the right to decent food & bedding & basic medical treatment. Beyond that, no...no more TV, workout rooms, playtime, etc. I don't consider free speech a basic human right; we all can live perfectly fine lives without it, thus so can those people in prison. What this man is doing is a form of torture for the family & friends of the victim, by vividly describing (with seeming glee) what he did to this woman, and the idiot who is helping this criminal is just as horrible.

FWIW, I had a friend who was a guard at a local correctional facility. At one point when he was down on his luck, he actually considered committing a few minor crimes so he could get locked up and actually live an easier life for awhile...free meals, medical & dental treatment, work on his bachelors degree, free cable...all on the taxpayers' dime. If we made life in prison not so easy, perhaps that would be a little more of a deterrent to potential criminals.

Decent food, bedding, healthcare and the like aren't rights. They are privileges.

flyingswoosh Wrote:yes, they are legal, but they are an infringement on my civil rights and therefore should be illegal. You want to know why?

1) You have the right to face your accuser. If a cop pulls you over for speeding he or she is present at the court. In the case of red light cams, they are your accuser, yet they aren't present so thereore you aren't facing your accuser.

2) They do random charging. Which means that they charge one red light runner and do nothing to the other. That is not fair at all.

That is why I and the Libertarian party are fighting for freedom. You and the other authoritarians are obtrusive.

Problems with your arguement:

1. The camera is not your accuser! How many times do I have to tell you this? Its just used to provide evidence. The camera takes a photo of people who go through the intersection during the red light that aren't suppose to. They charge everyone who goes through (in CH), unless the plate is unreadable. Photos at red lights are very solid evidence that hold up in a court of law. People have the right to appeal though. If you appeal, then your accuser is the company, and the company has the backing and authority of the city.

2. They charge everyone in CH. This is not an infringment on your civil rights.

3. Even if they chose who to charge, thats their choice and not an infringement on your rights. If they charge you without evidence, it is an infringment. But they have frickin photos! Unaltered!

Even lawsuits that went through state supreme courts have declared these cameras legal and not in violation of civil rights. If they violate the civil rights, then they are illegal. They go hand in hand.

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Decent food, bedding, healthcare and the like aren't rights. They are privileges.

But you still have the right to [b]work for and earn[/] these privillages regardless of who you are. Just not guarenteed.

Lucy Wrote:FWIW, I had a friend who was a guard at a local correctional facility. At one point when he was down on his luck, he actually considered committing a few minor crimes so he could get locked up and actually live an easier life for awhile...free meals, medical & dental treatment, work on his bachelors degree, free cable...all on the taxpayers' dime. If we made life in prison not so easy, perhaps that would be a little more of a deterrent to potential criminals.

Prisoners are the only people guarenteed health care. I think we should take the cable away, internet usage, and other luxories not essential to life (I could care less if they worked for a bachelors because if they get out, maybe they'll actually do something with their life). Food and health care must be provided otherwise its considered cruel and unusual punishment.

But amen to make prison not enjoyable.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:yes, they are legal, but they are an infringement on my civil rights and therefore should be illegal.  You want to know why? 

1)  You have the right to face your accuser.  If a cop pulls you over for speeding he or she is present at the court.  In the case of red light cams, they are your accuser, yet they aren't present so thereore you aren't facing your accuser.

2)  They do random charging.  Which means that they charge one red light runner and do nothing to the other.  That is not fair at all.

That is why I and the Libertarian party are fighting for freedom.  You and the other authoritarians are obtrusive.

Problems with your arguement:

1. The camera is not your accuser! How many times do I have to tell you this? Its just used to provide evidence. The camera takes a photo of people who go through the intersection during the red light that aren't suppose to. They charge everyone who goes through (in CH), unless the plate is unreadable. Photos at red lights are very solid evidence that hold up in a court of law. People have the right to appeal though. If you appeal, then your accuser is the company, and the company has the backing and authority of the city.

2. They charge everyone in CH. This is not an infringment on your civil rights.

3. Even if they chose who to charge, thats their choice and not an infringement on your rights. If they charge you without evidence, it is an infringment. But they have frickin photos! Unaltered!

Even lawsuits that went through state supreme courts have declared these cameras legal and not in violation of civil rights. If they violate the civil rights, then they are illegal. They go hand in hand.

i don't care how many ****** times you tell me. The camera is your accuser. if they aren't, then who is? I see you forgot to mention that. You like to ramble don't you? I never said photos aren't solid evidence, but without an accuser being present, they shouldn't be evidence. The photo is the evidence and the camera catches you in the act, therefore accusing you. Prosecution and accuser are different.

If infringement and illegal go hand in hand, then the cameras should be illegal.

So the supreme court passed them. 1) it's made up of republicans who are anti-freedom like you. 2) they're humans and make mistakes.

It's too bad you're anti-freedom, hopefully you'll get drafted when the government pushes through their conscription bill. yes, this will happen, unless us Libertarians and pro-freedom people put a stop to it.

lastly, i understand not charging everyone isn't an infringement, but it still isn't fair.

flyingswoosh Wrote:i don't care how many ****** times you tell me. The camera is your accuser. if they aren't, then who is? I see you forgot to mention that. You like to ramble don't you? I never said photos aren't solid evidence, but without an accuser being present, they shouldn't be evidence. The photo is the evidence and the camera catches you in the act, therefore accusing you. Prosecution and accuser are different.

If infringement and illegal go hand in hand, then the cameras should be illegal.

So the supreme court passed them. 1) it's made up of republicans who are anti-freedom like you. 2) they're humans and make mistakes.

It's too bad you're anti-freedom, hopefully you'll get drafted when the government pushes through their conscription bill. yes, this will happen, unless us Libertarians and pro-freedom people put a stop to it.

lastly, i understand not charging everyone isn't an infringement, but it still isn't fair.

1. Looks like someone failed to read the post:

Quote:If you appeal, then your accuser is the company, and the company has the backing and authority of the city.

Therefore your accuser is the city. The camera cannot be an accuser because it does not file the charges against you. Inanimate objects cannot charge you with a violation. They are just equipment used to provide evidence.

The cameras aren't illegal cause they aren't infringments.

2. So you're basically calling people who have studied law their whole life idiots. Real classy. These people are experts in understanding and interpreting the laws. You still haven't explained how Republicans are anti-freedom. You are anti-intelligent.

3. Just cause its not fair isn't a good enough reason to do away with them.

Swoosh, get on IM.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:i don't care how many ****** times you tell me.  The camera is your accuser.  if they aren't, then who is?  I see you forgot to mention that.  You like to ramble don't you?  I never said photos aren't solid evidence, but without an accuser being present, they shouldn't be evidence.  The photo is the evidence and the camera catches you in the act, therefore accusing you.  Prosecution and accuser are different.

If infringement and illegal go hand in hand, then the cameras should be illegal.

So the supreme court passed them.  1)  it's made up of republicans who are anti-freedom like you.  2)  they're humans and make mistakes.

It's too bad you're anti-freedom, hopefully you'll get drafted when the government pushes through their conscription bill.  yes, this will happen, unless us Libertarians and pro-freedom people put a stop to it.

lastly, i understand not charging everyone isn't an infringement, but it still isn't fair.

1. Looks like someone failed to read the post:

Quote:If you appeal, then your accuser is the company, and the company has the backing and authority of the city.

Therefore your accuser is the city. The camera cannot be an accuser because it does not file the charges against you. Inanimate objects cannot charge you with a violation. They are just equipment used to provide evidence.

The cameras aren't illegal cause they aren't infringments.

2. So you're basically calling people who have studied law their whole life idiots. Real classy. These people are experts in understanding and interpreting the laws. You still haven't explained how Republicans are anti-freedom. You are anti-intelligent.

3. Just cause its not fair isn't a good enough reason to do away with them.

of course i read the post.

Now i got what i wanted to hear. You said camera's are the one that provide the evidence. That means they accuse you. Obviously. When a cop pulls you over he writes a ticket and uses the honor system, that's the evidence. So if a camera catches you it creates evidence, like you said. Which means it's your accuser.

they are experts, who let politics blind them. They don't follow the constitution all the time, because they are for a certain party and have "morals."

Republicans are anti-freedom because, as you might know, they're anti-abortion, and anti-gay rights.

hey genius, if you haven't recognized, our country is turning into what george orwell said in "1984." the government is putting up all sorts of surveillance. School and highway. What's next?

What if you don't appeal? Duh!
You still haven't said who the accuser is. You said if there's an appeal, the accuser is the city. What about when the person first goes to court.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Decent food, bedding, healthcare and the like aren't rights. They are privileges.

But you still have the right to [b]work for and earn[/] these privillages regardless of who you are. Just not guarenteed.

That's all well and good. They still aren't rights. If you have to earn something, that something isn't a right.

Get on IM. I'm sick of waiting for you to post.

THE CITY IS ALWAYS THE ACCUSSER. THE CAMERA IS USED TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE (THE PHOTO).

Is that clear enough for you?

If you don't appeal, then you accept the charges brough against you by the CITY.

Cameras are inanimate. They do not bring the charges upon you. They don't send out the citations. They don't even frickin talk! They don't charge you. They are just instruments. If someone records you admiting to the murder, is the recording device accusing you? No. Its a tool to obtain the evidence. The accuser is who ever brings the charges upon you.

Republicans are anti-gay based on immoral reasons, but have never passed any legislation against them (like making it illegal). Republicans are anti-abortion because its infanticide. Or murder in short. You don't have the right to take another human's life (the fetus/baby).

"1984" is a seperate arguement that takes too long to type. I'll argue at school.

You're so ****in paranoid. (hope Geoff didn't hear that. He may try and stick his finger in my face again).

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:That's all well and good. They still aren't rights. If you have to earn something, that something isn't a right.

Basically I think we're saying the same thing in two different ways. Just ignore my post then.

The accuser is the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the city/state (depending on what court sees the case). The traffic cop, the highway patrolman, the red-light camera, etc are all used by the state as means of catching those who break the law. They provide the evidence.

Quote:they are experts, who let politics blind them. They don't follow the constitution all the time, because they are for a certain party and have "morals."
Republicans are anti-freedom because, as you might know, they're anti-abortion, and anti-gay rights.
hey genius, if you haven't recognized, our country is turning into what george orwell said in "1984." the government is putting up all sorts of surveillance. School and highway. What's next?

Who are "they?" Plus, that's a cute little rant but it proves nothing.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:That's all well and good. They still aren't rights. If you have to earn something, that something isn't a right.

Basically I think we're saying the same thing in two different ways. Just ignore my post then.

My mistake. I misread your post. Carry on.

T-Monay820 Wrote:Get on IM. I'm sick of waiting for you to post.

THE CITY IS ALWAYS THE ACCUSSER. THE CAMERA IS USED TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE (THE PHOTO).

Is that clear enough for you?

If you don't appeal, then you accept the charges brough against you by the CITY.

Cameras are inanimate. They do not bring the charges upon you. They don't send out the citations. They don't even frickin talk! They don't charge you. They are just instruments. If someone records you admiting to the murder, is the recording device accusing you? No. Its a tool to obtain the evidence. The accuser is who ever brings the charges upon you.

Republicans are anti-gay based on immoral reasons, but have never passed any legislation against them (like making it illegal). Republicans are anti-abortion because its infanticide. Or murder in short. You don't have the right to take another human's life (the fetus/baby).

"1984" is a seperate arguement that takes too long to type. I'll argue at school.

You're so ****in paranoid. (hope Geoff didn't hear that. He may try and stick his finger in my face again).

i will post one more time before i get on IM.

You friggin contradict yourself so much.

You are right, the city charges you. But they don't accuse you. The cameras create an accusation, whether with words pics, or sign language, i don't care.

If someone records you admitting to murder, the person is the accuser, because they were working the recorder. if the recorder were left in one constant location, then the recorder is the accuser, and then a DA will charge based on the accusation the tool makes. it's pretty simple.

Anti-gay is a nice way of saying anti-freedom. You should have the freedom to be gay if you want or adopt children. i disagree with their lifestyle, but it's the way they act, and they were born like that. So they can't help it anyway.

I'm not paranoid, i just want politics to follow what the founding fathers laid down for us.

Quote:If someone records you admitting to murder, the person is the accuser, because they were working the recorder. if the recorder were left in one constant location, then the recorder is the accuser, and then a DA will charge based on the accusation the tool makes. it's pretty simple.

No, that'd be a witness.

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:

Quote:If someone records you admitting to murder, the person is the accuser, because they were working the recorder. if the recorder were left in one constant location, then the recorder is the accuser, and then a DA will charge based on the accusation the tool makes. it's pretty simple.

No, that'd be a witness.

no, because that person brings about the accusations. they can serve as a witness, but they accuse