Gun Control

Quote: Gandler

So is your opinion law enforcment can only make arrests and issue citations on crimes that they personally witnessed in the flesh? They can't examine documents or survliance systems?

This would make mail fraud and pretty much all financial crimes impossible to prosecute.....

you have a constitutional right to confront your accuser is all. Your accuser could be someone who used surveillance and then prosecuted you successfully, but in the meantime at some point you would be able to dispute the claims. If my vehicle is caught on speedcamera or whatever they call it, I can simply establish that no one knows who was driving. You might think there is a concern you'd have to make up some false story, but you are not required to give evidence as to who was driving, so you remain silent. It is up to the accuser to say who was driving.

Sorry, I jumped in on this one

Quote: Gandler

So is your opinion law enforcment can only make arrests and issue citations on crimes that they personally witnessed in the flesh? They can't examine documents or survliance systems?

This would make mail fraud and pretty much all financial crimes impossible to prosecute.....

No, because they would actually be investigating the crime.

My opinion is we should not have machines issuing tickets to raise revenue. Also my opinion the cameras probably cause as many accidents as they save.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, because they would actually be investigating the crime.

My opinion is we should not have machines issuing tickets to raise revenue. Also my opinion the cameras probably cause as many accidents as they save.

Your opinion is wrong, there are many studies locally and nationally about traffic cameras (red light and school zone speed cameras), they decrease collisions (both with vehicles and pedestrians).

We don't have machines issuing tickets, its cops (or other certified personnel depending on the state) who manually review each video when a incident is flagged by the camera. So they do investigate the crime.

As to the defense that you are not driving the car, a little-known trick is in virtually every State there is an affidavit (you can probably find your State's version online on your City website somewhere) that you can send certifying that you were not driving the car when the ticket was issued (and if the camera did not pick up a clear photo of the driver, the ticket is automatically dismissed).

Now, there are some States that treat it like a parking ticket and issue the ticket against the vehicle so to speak, and do not care who is driving, but these States usually do not add points to your license for the violation. For example, where I currently live, red light cameras (I am not 100% sure about school zones cameras as these are a newer concept here and I have only briefly looked into them) are treated like parking tickets, and you either pay them or your vehicle goes onto the collection list after X amount of months of nonpayment (which means it gets added to the boot list essentially, and the parking enforcement will boot and tow you if they catch your vehicle in the city like with unpaid parking tickets, in fact parking enforcement is the one who collects unpaid red light tickets). But, it will not effect your driving record, it will at most cause your car to be seized. And, the tickets are pretty negligible as far as cost, I think it is like 50 bucks, so it is not worth taking the time off work to fight or risking your car being seized, so it is easy to just pay it. Though if you live outside of City Limits and never park inside the city, there is virtually nothing they can do to you (other than civil action, which unless you rack up several thousands dollars, is not worth their time).

Quote: odiousgambit

you have a constitutional right to confront your accuser is all. Your accuser could be someone who used surveillance and then prosecuted you successfully, but in the meantime at some point you would be able to dispute the claims. If my vehicle is caught on speedcamera or whatever they call it, I can simply establish that no one knows who was driving. You might think there is a concern you'd have to make up some false story, but you are not required to give evidence as to who was driving, so you remain silent. It is up to the accuser to say who was driving.

Sorry, I jumped in on this one

Exactly and that is why most States have an affidavit that automatically voids the ticket for just this purpose (even if most people do not know to do this). This is an affirmative defense (you are admitting it is your vehicle, but you were not in control of it), so you do have to speak (write technically) to use it.

Otherwise, you have the option of going to a hearing and letting the State (City) prove it's case (this is usually not worth the time to miss a day of work for a 50 dollar ticket).

Quote: Gandler

Your opinion is wrong, there are many studies locally and nationally about traffic cameras (red light and school zone speed cameras), they decrease collisions (both with vehicles and pedestrians).

There is a chance they decrease T-bones. Bigger chance they increase rear-ends.

Quote:

We don't have machines issuing tickets, its cops (or other certified personnel depending on the state) who manually review each video when a incident is flagged by the camera. So they do investigate the crime.

Sorry, it is machines. Just because a cop processes it does not mean the machine is not issuing it. I will keep stating it. The people who like these machines are people who think blind compliance is a virtue and like to be told what to do and how to live. The type that would have loved East Germany.

Quote: AZDuffman

There is a chance they decrease T-bones. Bigger chance they increase rear-ends.

That is simply false. Read the NIH studies (or any local study after installation).

Quote: AZDuffman

Sorry, it is machines. Just because a cop processes it does not mean the machine is not issuing it. I will keep stating it. The people who like these machines are people who think blind compliance is a virtue and like to be told what to do and how to live. The type that would have loved East Germany.

That logic is odd. Machines do a lot that involve a final decision being made by a human. When hospitals use AI to review blood results or MRI scans, and flag potential issues to a provider who reviews and writes a report, are "the machines issuing you a diagnosis"? If a computer program reviews your rental history and credit score to give your property manager a recommendation on approval or denial who then manually reviews, "is a machine renting or denying a property"? If an AI screens applicants based on applications, uploaded documents, and resumes and gives a general approval to HR on who should be interviewed, "is a machine impacting the hiring process"?

There is a lot that AI and data programs compile together and submit to varies types of authorities that streamline their work. I don't know why law enforcement should be any different. So yes, "machines" help with a lot (which in turn makes products cheaper because it streamlines repetitive data and admin tasks).

For example, a red light ticket issued by a cop is almost exactly -within a couple dollars- 2X what a red light ticket issued by a camera is (and that is assuming the cop does not tack on a lot of other offenses for more tickets, which they likely will if you ran a red light, and you will also get 3 points on your DL a a minimum-unlike a camera which cannot give points-). So even this service saves money by reducing costs (and perpetual costs, because points on your DL lead to increased insurance for several years). School zone cameras are similar (they give a ticket for 11 over or more in a speed zone for a flat fee -even if you are 50 over- with no points or state penalties for speeding in a school zone, but I have not done a math breakdown of the different speeds, but at any speed I can say they save you money and points without dispute).

So strictly from an economic perspective, any sane person would prefer a ticket from a camera than a ticket from a cop (without even getting into camera tickets are far easier to fight or other nuances in the discussion).

It's on the docket when the Supreme court convenes again.

The U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case of United States v. Rahimi, determining whether someone with a history of domestic violence may own a gun,

Quote:

February, the U.S. 5th Circuit reversed the decision, based on new Supreme Court rulings that expanded rights to gun ownership to those “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Since the Founding Fathers hadn’t specifically mentioned domestic violence, they argued, domestic abusers should be free to own the weapons of their choice.

-Good grief.
-
-
-

As of July1, all people in Florida can conceal carry without a permit or license. One week in and I am surprised I haven't heard any stories about idiots pulling guns in public (other than our normal Florida shootings).

Quote: DRich

As of July1, all people in Florida can conceal carry without a permit or license. One week in and I am surprised I haven't heard any stories about idiots pulling guns in public (other than our normal Florida shootings).

Why would you be surprised? When you think the other person might be carrying you tend to be more careful.

No surprise.

Quote:

A northern Indiana gun shop police have called a key supplier of Chicago's criminal firearms market announced this week it is closing its doors in what gun violence prevention advocates say is a win for public safety in a city that grapples with thousands of shootings a year.

"For years, Westforth was the No. 1 supplier of out-of-state crime guns recovered by Chicago police, fueling our city’s gun violence crisis," Chicago city attorney Mary Richardson-Lowry said in a statement Friday, calling the store's closing a "significant victory."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/police-tied-a-decades-old-gun-shop-in-indiana-to-hundreds-of-chicago-crimes-it-s-shutting-down/ar-AA1euEIW

Guy is retiring. They didn't shut him down.