Fight them to the bitter end - how far would YOU go? (Long and OT but please read)

[djmcmath]

Sam (Dr.),
Before this degenerates into a "Beat up on Sammy" discussion, I want to make sure this one thing is clear -- I thoroughly respect your position and your views. You are obviously a moral person, of the sort that this country could use a lot more of ... especially in leadership positions.

But this isn't a moral discussion. It isn't about whether or not he committed the crime -- it's about a complete failure of the legal system. I feel like we're two ships passing in the night, here -- I agree with you on a moral level, but disagree on a constitutional and legal level. Morally, yes, you should admit guilt whenever you're guilty. In a perfect society, this would work perfectly. But it isn't a perfect society, and the state has learned quite rapidly that they can walk all over people's rights in certain areas. Madison had it right in Federalist #51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to government men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." How are we to "oblige it to control itself" without standing up for failures in the system?

I completely agree that in a wonderfully moral society, we should all admit guilt whenever we are guilty. However, the state will not police itself, and is corrupt to the core, and will, if given the opportunity, take advantage of the citizenry. The state will wrongly accuse the citizens, and must therefore be policed. If charges can be brought against someone on such shaky evidence as has been presented here, what is the next step? Hauling people off to prison on trumped up charges because someone in power felt threatened or unhappy? Holding someone that you don't like just because, with no charges, no trial? I'm sure this sounds bizarre and a bit of a stretch, but you need to look at the history of where this country came from and why our constitution is written the way it is.

Thanks for your views; intelligent people thrive on intelligent discussion. Please, continue to stand up for what you believe is right, and please raise those kids in a godly fashion. This country could desperately use more godly men and women.


Dan

[HarryD]

Originally posted by djmcmath
Sam (Dr.),
Before this degenerates into a "Beat up on Sammy" discussion, I want to make sure this one thing is clear -- I thoroughly respect your position and your views. You are obviously a moral person, of the sort that this country could use a lot more of ... especially in leadership positions....snip....

Thanks for your views; intelligent people thrive on intelligent discussion. Please, continue to stand up for what you believe is right, and please raise those kids in a godly fashion. This country could desperately use more godly men and women.


Dan

Dan,

I totally agree. I hope no one felt I was part of the "Beat up on Sammy" crowd because at some point in each of our lives, we will be in the same place. I do not really think Sam's and my position are in opposition. Just seen slightly differently.

I have 8 and 10 year old children. I feel I am there now. I want them to always do the right thing. I hope that by word and deed, I show them how to "do the right thing". However, in my book, "doing the right thing" includes standing up for their rights. Part of this entails defending them when others want to take them away through laziness or sloppy work.

[Victor]

"George Orwell was an optimist"

Now that belongs on a T-shirt.

Dr. Sam, please do not suggest that the price of my self respect is $100.

Especially when we are talking Australian dollars.

[sammyg2]

I wasn't trying to insult anyone, please accept my apology if it appeared that way.
I appreciate that we can express out differing opinions on this subject without name calling or disrespecting each other. This has stayed very civil and informative and I thank you for that.

Dan, you really brought back some memories quoting the Federalist papers. I remember reading them in college and I was so overwhelmed with the wisdom of Madison I almost became obsessed with his writings. IMO no other individual had more to do with creating the United States government than he. I am amazed he didn't get more credit for his contributions.

There are two completely seperate topics here and I'm to blame for introducing the second. It started out based mostly on legal precident and procedure, I took it off on a tangent by expressing a version of the moral implications.
The two are sometimes parallel but never identical.

Hopefully society can follow one without losing sight of the other.

[djmcmath]

Good insight, Sam. This country really has gone down the tubes of moral decay. I guess it's fairly telling of the state of things when in order to stand up for your rights and police the government we have to plead "not guilty" to an offense that we know we're guilty of.

Thanks for the good discussion. Ya'll are awesome.


Dan

[power]

Originally posted by Victor
... She is informed that they have a photo of my car. I ask whether I can access this image of the alleged crime........
...........
To my astonishment, the photo arrives in the mail three days later....

I like to take a picture of the money for the fine and mail the picture back to them.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by djmcmath
Holding someone that you don't like just because, with no charges, no trial?

that's already happening at the moment,
does Guantanamo ring a bell?

[CamB]

I like to take a picture of the money for the fine and mail the picture back to them.

The (I suspect apocryphal) story then goes that you get sent a photo of some handcuffs...

[Victor]

Adam,

Attached is a poor photo of the image sent to me. I don't have a scanner and the proper camera is at home. The idea of posting this was to give you an idea of the size of the car compared to the keys.

Damning evidence it isn't.

[CamB]

I clearly didn't read the post carefully enough.

How do they actually know it is your car? Does the wonder-photographer take the photo, then write down the number plate and a description of the car, then they match it up back at home? Or can they actually ID the car from the photo...

Just send them back a letter thanking them for a photograph of a car similar to yours. Deny deny deny.

[Victor]

Cam,

They have admitted that they cannot ID the car from the photo.

What they are now claiming is that they do not need to be able to do this for the fine to "stick". They say that the statement of a parking officer is also enough for a conviction - no photo or on the spot ticket required. It is this part of the relevant law that I am seeking to have clarified as it just simply cannot be true.

[Reg]

If in fact you were moving in this shot, they'd perhaps fine you $200 for tailgating.

I find it hard to find proof it was you in that shot.

[targa911man]

When I got back in town last night I perused Sunday's Washington Post. In the magazine section, there was a timely and relevant (to this thread) "Below the Beltway" column by Gene Weingarten, the subject of which was his experience fighting (unsuccessfully) a radar camera 16 over ticket. It seems that he and his son both drive the car in question, and they couldn't recall who was driving on the day in question. The radar camera photo was too fuzzy to show who was driving. The hearing officer's response to that was "When it is not clear who is driving, the registered owner is held presumptively liable." So according to the DC government, if we're not guilty of a radar camera ticket we should keep a written log of the dates and times anyone uses our car, and turn in the offender (most likely our wife or child) when that ticket comes in the mail? Not me. I'll fight it and pay the fine or go to jail myself first. Call me an anarchist, but my loyalty to family comes way before my loyalty to government bureaucracy, and I hope my kids grow up with the same value.

[svandamme]

if the car is in your name, then you are supposed to know who drove it,
that's the way it works in most of Europe, mostly because without that rule, speeding camera's would be near useless...
all they need is the numberplate on the radar pic, they leave it up to the registred owner to find out who did the actual offence, to me , that's sort of reasonable, a car isn't something that's given out like a lawnmower is.. saying you didn't know who it was, sounds like a poor excuse to me..
unless it was reported stolen, i do not find this a big thing, you or close family got caught, you deal with the matter internally
i think that's perfectly fair from any standpoint, if you think it's not, i guess you better make sure wife and kids have their own car in their own name, nobody drives anybody elses car.. and that problem is solved.

[targa911man]

Informing on your family is not dealing with the matter "internally", IMO.

[svandamme]

who says you need to inform?? just pay the fine
and ground whoever actually drove for 2 weeks!

if you give your relatives your car to drive with, they you should get them to keep you in mind when they go about racking up speeding tickets, if they don't have enough respect for you and the fact that your name is on the cars title, then i don't see the point of allowing them to drive it in the first place. you are responsible for the car, if you cannot handle the responsibility ... not a problem the police should think twice about...

[Rick Lee]

This is getting way too into the nitty gritty. Traffic cops should be on the ground, issuing tickets personally for offenses they witness. I don't care what's on the photograph, I don't care what it looks like. I will fight ANY camera ticket I ever get for any reason and I am sure I will win. If for no other reason, I'll do it just to make them lose money on their revenue writing policy.

[svandamme]

well , i live in a country with more speeding cameras then trees..

all in all, they're so visible, i never get tickets
and if it catches the bozo's that run redlights and speed in areas around schools, then that's just fine by me

in the off event that i am careless about my speed in an area where i shouldn't, and get a ticket for 15mph over the limit... then i'll just pay it..
i don't see the point in wasting my time over it, you might think you're wasting theirs, but you forget that the governement has more time then you, and more means to make it stick. so unless it's something worth fighting for, you're just wearing yourself out over something you should have prevented in the first place by not speeding.

if you gonna drive over the limit, then don't call in a technicality when you get a fine, that's like murderes getting free over paperwork..
maybe a strong comparison, but it's the same principle

[Rick Lee]

In the US we have totally bogus speed limits, which stay that low just so the cops can cash in when they need money. It has absolutely no relation to public safety or the environment, which is why I have no guilty conscience whatsoever when I speed on an empty road or do the same as 100% of the other cars on the hwy. Do you think anyone in the US ever drives 55mph on the hwy? NEVER! Does that mean we all deserve to be fined? I think the gov't. needs to be challenged to start punishing those who pose a threat to public safety. Our speed limits are a joke and eveyrone knows it. Plenty of traffic cameras are in areas with very little traffic, but with high-end cars, while the real danger zones have no cameras. I will never feel guilty about fighting any ticket in court. Not guilty does not mean you're lying about not having done it. It means the state has to prove their case against me. If they can't, then they should go after a more sound case - i.e. real criminals, bad drivers, drunks, left lane squatters, car thieves, etc.

[svandamme]

i know how traffic in the US is, i've been there, indeed it's a joke to drive 55 on a highway, but that's the way it is, take it or leave it
the speed limits in holland are about the same (because most of the country is in permanent roadworks with 90km/h speedlimits which are also a joke if it's not rushhour traffic), the idea is to drive slow where you're not familiar, since there might be cameras... and to drive fast where you know where they are, good brakes and accelleration is all it takes.

to me it doesn't make sense going to court, fighting every ticket
because in the end, your time also costs money
you might get a moral victory out of it once , but don't tell me you're going to get a kick out of it if it means going to court 4 times a year, or more?
i'm all for playing the system, but if caught, i'll play along , fighting it is futile, i rather spend my time elsewhere than in a court room