City of Houston prepares to infringe Tony's rights

[Tricky]

The Houston city council has passed an ordinance which approves mounting cameras at dangerous intersections (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/wall/2954901) in order to catch red-light runners.

I can just see that big vein in Tony's temple beginning to throb.

Personally, I feel that this is a good idea. Too many motorists in this town have been infringing on my right to pass through an intersection safely.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Tricky
The Houston city council has passed an ordinance which approves mounting cameras at dangerous intersections (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/wall/2954901) in order to catch red-light runners.

I can just see that big vein in Tony's temple beginning to throb.

Personally, I feel that this is a good idea. Too many motorists in this town have been infringing on my right to pass through an intersection safely.

That would kick a** in L.A. except there'd have to be a whole bureau dedicated to it. I've almost gone a day without seeing someone run a red light...

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Tricky
The Houston city council has passed an ordinance which approves mounting cameras at dangerous intersections (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/wall/2954901) in order to catch red-light runners.

I can just see that big vein in Tony's temple beginning to throb.

Personally, I feel that this is a good idea. Too many motorists in this town have been infringing on my right to pass through an intersection safely. I also like the idea. I would like it a lot more if the costs to collect would be low enough to make this a real revenue maker. I think there are enough idiot drivers around to make this an endless stream of money.

[Tmy]

Its a violation with due process.

All it proves is that a car went thru the stoplight. It doesnt prove who was driving. The owner gets ticked but theres no proof he was driving. The state should have to prove who was driving. But they dont. When it comes to tickets your presumed guilty until proven innocent.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its a violation with due process.

All it proves is that a car went thru the stoplight. It doesnt prove who was driving. The owner gets ticked but theres no proof he was driving. The state should have to prove who was driving. But they dont. When it comes to tickets your presumed guilty until proven innocent. I have no problem with the owner getting the ticket (based on picture of the license plate). Unless the car was stolen, the owner can then go after the person how used their car to recoup the fine.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I have no problem with the owner getting the ticket (based on picture of the license plate). Unless the car was stolen, the owner can then go after the person how used their car to recoup the fine.

Thats great. EXCEPT THIS IS AMERICA! Let the govt catch the scofflaws.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its a violation with due process.

All it proves is that a car went thru the stoplight. It doesnt prove who was driving. The owner gets ticked but theres no proof he was driving. The state should have to prove who was driving. But they dont. When it comes to tickets your presumed guilty until proven innocent.

I agree with you on this. The way it works here in LA is that the owner gets a ticket, but if they can't show that the owner and the driver are the same people the ticket is void. Which is an easy loophole to make by registering a car to a person who won't be driving it.

Of course the problem I have with this is that you have to go to court to prove that you are innocent. Which is opposite of our legal system.

[SezMe]

IIRC, this was tried in San Diego with embarrassing results. Turns out the manufacturer of the system got some portion (quite significant) of the proceeds. So the timing of the camera was adjusted so that even yellow light "runners" were nailed. When the private profitable aspect of the system came out, the whole thing was dumped (I think - this was some time ago and my memory is not complete).

Legal issues such as raised by Tmy (which I agree with) aside, there are lots of details which could make or break this approach.

[Anathema]

They just need to tie the system into a scanner that can read our RFID implants, and all problems will be solved. Reckless driving will succumb to automation!

[patnray]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its a violation with due process.

All it proves is that a car went thru the stoplight. It doesnt prove who was driving. The owner gets ticked but theres no proof he was driving. The state should have to prove who was driving. But they dont. When it comes to tickets your presumed guilty until proven innocent.

In many states, but unfortunately not California, the owner of the car is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. Thus the owner can be cited for any infraction. The owner can then pay the fine or, in some states, state who was driving the car at the time. Civil rights issues are usually by passed because you "agree" to these rules as a condition for accepting your driver's license or registration.

In California, all the owner has to do is say "That's not me in the picture". Although they have no legal responsibility to inform on the identity of the driver, they often do...

That said, I think the sight of real officers giving tickets on the spot is a greater deterrent than after the fact tickets by mail. But the fines are not high enough to pay to put officers on the road...

[Rob Lister]

In Virginia Beach you get the ticket in the mail along with the photo of your license plate. The ticket is $25 of which $15 (IIRC) goes to the contractor (forgot who - very big corp). The ticket does NOT count against your points nor is it reported to your insurance.

If you want to dispute it you can do so in court but if you are found guilty the fine will be much more than $25, you will lose points and your insurance company will be notified. On going to court, you'll only get a bench hearing and the judge will probably find you guilty based on the evidence. You can appeal to a jury but they'll be pissed at you wasting their time and find you just as guilty. I'm not sure what would happen if you actually brought in the person that was really driving you car.

I think of the $25 as a worthwhile bribe.

[Cleopatra]

In Athens the project had embarassing results since the photo is sent to the offender at home along with the ticket. The cameras caught many illegal couples in the cars :)

[gnome]

A cute story about the intersection cameras:

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/handcuff.asp

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its a violation with due process.

All it proves is that a car went thru the stoplight. It doesnt prove who was driving. The owner gets ticked but theres no proof he was driving. The state should have to prove who was driving. But they dont. When it comes to tickets your presumed guilty until proven innocent.

When the prosecution gives the court a photo of your car in the middle of a crime, they have met their burden of proof.

If you want to create reasonable doubt, all you have to do is show a shred of believable evidence that there was a terrorist in the back seat making you drive that way, or that the car had been teleported by aliens, or that you were in Europe that day, or whatever you want.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by crimresearch

If you want to create reasonable doubt, all you have to do is show a shred of believable evidence that there was a terrorist in the back seat making you drive that way, or that the car had been teleported by aliens, or that you were in Europe that day, or whatever you want. Here, even when the car owner proves that he wasn't the one who was driving the car he doesn't get completely cleared because it is considered that he has the responsibility of the behavior of those he lets todrive his car unless of course somebody has stolen his car.
So, in the States if your son for example violates the code of driving while driving your car , does he end to the court alone? In Greece the owner of the car shares the responsibility with the person who dove his car and violated the code.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Here, even when the car owner proves that he wasn't the one who was driving the car he doesn't get completely cleared because it is considered that he has the responsibility of the behavior of those he lets todrive his car unless of course somebody has stolen his car.
So, in the States if your son for example violates the code of driving while driving your car , does he end to the court alone? In Greece the owner of the car shares the responsibility with the person who dove his car and violated the code. I like this concept, but you've used the word responsibility twice and the U.S. is moving away from that concept. Here it's catch me if you can and if you do, it's the other guy's fault. Sorry, feeling a bit sarcastic tonight.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by SezMe
IIRC, this was tried in San Diego with embarrassing results. Turns out the manufacturer of the system got some portion (quite significant) of the proceeds. So the timing of the camera was adjusted so that even yellow light "runners" were nailed.

What I don't get is why they needed cameras. There are intersections leading to freeways where the people turning left will fill up the intersection while they have the green, then spend the entire red light slowly entering the freeway. The upshot is that maybe one or two people turning right onto the freeway get through each cycle. One cop could pass out hundreds of tickets each evening. Just walk up to each car stuck in the intersection and hand them a ticket. Why bother buying cameras?

DavidJamesI have no problem with the owner getting the ticket (based on picture of the license plate). Unless the car was stolen, the owner can then go after the person how used their car to recoup the fine.Except that points aren't transferrable.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Except that points aren't transferrable. There is no reason that can't be addressed by current process, namely fight it in court.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by crimresearch
When the prosecution gives the court a photo of your car in the middle of a crime, they have met their burden of proof.

If you want to create reasonable doubt, all you have to do is show a shred of believable evidence that there was a terrorist in the back seat making you drive that way, or that the car had been teleported by aliens, or that you were in Europe that day, or whatever you want.

That aint much evidence. All you have to do is show that you have allowed other people to drive your car. You dont have to testify against yourself and they cant use that agianst you. There's your reasonable doubt.

Is it so unreasonable to think that someone other than the owner was driving a car? Happens all the time.

[elle_inquisitor]

Photo radar is extensively used here in Canada. This page by a private citizen certainly raises a lot of issues with the practice.

http://www.cryaloud.com/photo_radar_red_light_intersection_cameras.htm

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tmy
That aint much evidence. All you have to do is show that you have allowed other people to drive your car. You dont have to testify against yourself and they cant use that agianst you. There's your reasonable doubt.

Is it so unreasonable to think that someone other than the owner was driving a car? Happens all the time.

People get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time...

In the case of car photos, seems like there are 2 choices...either the owner was driving the car, or someone else was...

Are you really going to label the first choice as the less likely?

Like I said, all you have to do is provide a shred of *believeable* evidence... not just conjecture and speculation.

[c0rbin]

There you go again, imagining Tony's throbbing vein...

[WildCat]

There's another problem w/ cameras no one has brought up yet. It has the effect of making police lax in traffic enforcement. The camera can't tell whether or not the driver has a license, is insured, is drunk or drugged, has a dead body in the trunk, etc.

They have these all over Chicago now, but they do nothing to stop people who turn left from the right lane, or go straight from a turn only lane, which also causes many accidents. It also ignores the reality that the only way to turn left in this city during rush hours (which is 6 am to 7 pm) is to get out in the intersection and wait for the red light to stop oncoming traffic so you can then turn left after the light has changed. Illegal, yes, but the only way possible in this city that apparently doesn't believe in left turn arrows. I'd love to organize a protest of this by organizing 20 cars to turn left by legal means only - in a matter of minutes the left turners will completely block the traffic lanes (since there will never be enough room to make the turn, until evening hours) and bring the street to a stand still...

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by WildCat
There's another problem w/ cameras no one has brought up yet. It has the effect of making police lax in traffic enforcement. The camera can't tell whether or not the driver has a license, is insured, is drunk or drugged, has a dead body in the trunk, etc.

They have these all over Chicago now, but they do nothing to stop people who turn left from the right lane, or go straight from a turn only lane, which also causes many accidents. It also ignores the reality that the only way to turn left in this city during rush hours (which is 6 am to 7 pm) is to get out in the intersection and wait for the red light to stop oncoming traffic so you can then turn left after the light has changed. Illegal, yes, but the only way possible in this city that apparently doesn't believe in left turn arrows. I'd love to organize a protest of this by organizing 20 cars to turn left by legal means only - in a matter of minutes the left turners will completely block the traffic lanes (since there will never be enough room to make the turn, until evening hours) and bring the street to a stand still... Can you support your claim, with evidence, about policy getting lax?

I'm with you on all your gripes in your second paragraph, but they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Actually, more camera's at intersections may allow the police the opportunity to catch some those offenders, thanks for supporting the cause :)

[Charlie Monoxide]

Back in the late 90's I was working for a company that was bidding on the program to setup red-light cameras in San Francisco. The issue of identifying the driver was somewhat sticky. You needed to have a positive id of the driver in order to issue the ticket (ie the driver must look like their driver license photo). This is one instance where it is an advantage to be a "person of color". It was really tough to discern black drivers.

Although there is always the issue of DWB.

Charlie (driving while black) Monoxide

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky
The Houston city council has passed an ordinance which approves mounting cameras at dangerous intersections (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/wall/2954901) in order to catch red-light runners.

I can just see that big vein in Tony's temple beginning to throb.

Personally, I feel that this is a good idea. Too many motorists in this town have been infringing on my right to pass through an intersection safely.

They did this in Charlotte. Then they reduced the yellow-light time to catch more red-light runners. They also send tickets to people making protected right turns, either the normal right-on-red (legal in NC unless otherwise posted) or even a protected green-arrow turn, because the forward lanes have the red light. It's a moneymaking scam, nothing more.

They also have speeding cameras (http://www.shanekillian.org/files/SpeedInCharlotte.mp3).

[shanek]

Originally posted by gnome
A cute story about the intersection cameras:

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/handcuff.asp

That's great!

If I were that guy, I would have followed up the picture of the handcuffs with a picture of the Bill of Rights.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Can you support your claim, with evidence, about policy getting lax?

I'm with you on all your gripes in your second paragraph, but they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Actually, more camera's at intersections may allow the police the opportunity to catch some those offenders, thanks for supporting the cause :)
Support w/ evidence? I've lived in Chicago for 20 years. Chicago cops don't spend much time writing traffic tickets. About the only place you have to worry about getting one is Lake Shore Drive. Only a few squad cars even have radar, and it's the kind that hang out on a boom. Seems the police think the hand held ones give you cancer or something.

The cameras are for ticket revenue, nothing more. They only appeared now, after the city has taxed everything else to death. We have the highest sales tax (9%) and one of the highest property taxes in the nation.

No, I don't have any evidence that's not anecdotal. But I don't need any stinkin' evidence! ;)

BTW, can you tell me what is the "discussion at hand" here?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by DavidJames
There is no reason that can't be addressed by current process, namely fight it in court. But you said that the car owner shouldn't be able to fight it.

crimresearch
In the case of car photos, seems like there are 2 choices...either the owner was driving the car, or someone else was...

Are you really going to label the first choice as the less likely?In criminal cases, it's not an issue of what's "less likely". It's an issue of what's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Like I said, all you have to do is provide a shred of *believeable* evidence... not just conjecture and speculation.
All that is necessary for a defense is that it be established that the defendant's innocence is reasonably possible. It is not necessary to produce evidence that he is actually innocent, only that it is a reasonable possibility.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
crimresearch
In criminal cases, it's not an issue of what's "less likely". It's an issue of what's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


All that is necessary for a defense is that it be established that the defendant's innocence is reasonably possible. It is not necessary to produce evidence that he is actually innocent, only that it is a reasonable possibility.

A couple of commonly held misconceptions.

In reality, the court is completely able to address which of two scenarios is more likely, and raising an unlikely, or even less likely scenario is not always enough to establish reasonable doubt.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by crimresearch
A couple of commonly held misconceptions.

In reality, the court is completely able to address which of two scenarios is more likely, and raising an unlikely, or even less likely scenario is not always enough to establish reasonable doubt. What I said stands:

1. Innocence need not be the most likely possibility for a finding of not guilty.
2. The existance of any scenario which involves innocence and which is reasonably likely requires a not guilty verdict.

[a_unique_person]

So it is preferable to let people run red lights. The idea that I have to look left and right before proceeding on a green light is crazy, but that is what the current situation is getting too.

I saw with my own eyes a large truck come over a hill on a road where the speed limit is 60kmh, doing about 80. The pedestrian crossing had changed the lights to red, and about 5 seconds after the lights had changed, the truck went through at full speed. If he had tried to stop, he would have locked all the wheels on the truck and risked a jacknife. Fortunately, the person crossing had waited to check that, even thought the light for him was green, there was no-one coming.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
So it is preferable to let people run red lights.

I say it's preferable to increase yellow-light times and synchronize the lights with the speed limits. But that doesn't make $$$ for GovCo...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek
I say it's preferable to increase yellow-light times and synchronize the lights with the speed limits. But that doesn't make $$$ for GovCo...

synchronisation only works in one direction. When you have a grid, someone has to lose out and hit the reds.

Either way, people have to stop at red lights. The trend to red light abuse is growing, imho, and it is a deadly problem. I was just about to start at a green light a month or so ago, only to see a car sail serenly past me. My children have to cross a busy road, and we have instilled in them the importance of always looking both ways, even after the 'walk' signal has come up, to make sure that there are no cars coming. An intersection near us is regularly littered with broken glass from bingles, and is a popular route to the local primary school.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
What I said stands:

1. Innocence need not be the most likely possibility for a finding of not guilty.
2. The existance of any scenario which involves innocence and which is reasonably likely requires a not guilty verdict.

Except that what you said was:

"In criminal cases, it's not an issue of what's "less likely". It's an issue of what's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

Maybe you meant to say something else,or to qualify the statement, but in any case, you wound up saying that in criminal cases, 'less likely' is not an issue.

The reality is that in some criminal cases it can be...and an absolute blanket statement to the contrary is false.

You also said:
"All that is necessary for a defense is that it be established that the defendant's innocence is reasonably possible."

Which is merely a restatement of the original claim I made,
(which you appear to be arguing against), that "If you want to create reasonable doubt, all you have to do is show a shred of believable evidence... "

Now if you want to explain how you are going to create reasonable doubt using UNbelievable evidence, I'll be all ears.

The bottom line is that there are criminal cases in which the defendant was unable to reach the level of reasonable doubt *merely* by offering the unsupported theory that someone else might have committed the crime.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
synchronisation only works in one direction. When you have a grid, someone has to lose out and hit the reds.

That just isn't true. In fact, synchronization works best in grids. And it can easily be two-directional as both directions of traffic do not always have to be going at the same time.

Several cities have successfully implemented this. Greensboro is one. It works.

Either way, people have to stop at red lights.

But most of the running happens immediately after the light changes from yellow to red. In fact, this is hte only time the Charlotte cameras actually take the pictures.

An intersection near us is regularly littered with broken glass from bingles, and is a popular route to the local primary school.

Then something is wrong with the traffic flow around and leading up to that intersection. Putting a band-aid on the problem won't solve anything; it'll only make more money for GovCo.

[CBL4]

In Portland, OR, a local talk show host checked half a dozen lights that had the cameras. Everyone one of them had a shorter yellow light cycle than the previous or next light on the same road.

In order to guarantee revenue, they shortened the yellow light each time they installed a camera.

CBL

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
But you said that the car owner shouldn't be able to fight it.
Sorry, just reviewed my comments and I didn't see where I said that.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its a violation with due process.

All it proves is that a car went thru the stoplight. It doesnt prove who was driving. The owner gets ticked but theres no proof he was driving. The state should have to prove who was driving. But they dont. When it comes to tickets your presumed guilty until proven innocent.

This is not necessarily true. I remember when my dad got a speeding ticket in Germany (on an on-ramp) when I was a kid. Even back then, they had a good enough system set up where they sent you a picture of the car, license plate AND driver's face visible (ok, this wouldn't always happen depending on lighting conditions), and your speed in the corner, along with your bill.

Personally, I dislike traffic cameras because they can't take into account things such as too-short yellows (several around here - and this is possibly an avenue for extra revenue - by shortening yellows, though this is a poor argument not based on evidence) and road conditions.

[Tmy]

Whats so bad about running red lights anyway? These lights are more orange than red (that poinyt when yellow turns red). Its hardly a safety concean since the cross light hasnt even turned green at this point. WHO THE HELL RUNS A FULL RED LIGHT?? Almost never happens.

Its juts about money making. If you want to talk safety, you could be placing cameras in high crime areas instead.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Tmy
Whats so bad about running red lights anyway? These lights are more orange than red (that poinyt when yellow turns red). Its hardly a safety concean since the cross light hasnt even turned green at this point. WHO THE HELL RUNS A FULL RED LIGHT?? Almost never happens.

Its juts about money making. If you want to talk safety, you could be placing cameras in high crime areas instead. Don't get me wrong; I would have gotten flattened by a garbage truck speeding through a "barely" red light a few months ago while I was on my motorcycle if I hadn't had the mentality that everyone on the road is out to get me. I just see traffic cameras as a questionable fix for the reasons I mentioned before.

[crimresearch]

Oh, almost no one runs red lights Tmy...just the occasional rare ballplayer, on his way to get some steroids...and you know how that never happpens..
:p

[Luke T.]

You guys have totally ruined a Colombo episode. The murderer's alibi is a speed trap photo that has his face in the picture.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by DaveW
Don't get me wrong; I would have gotten flattened by a garbage truck speeding through a "barely" red light a few months ago while I was on my motorcycle if I hadn't had the mentality that everyone on the road is out to get me. I just see traffic cameras as a questionable fix for the reasons I mentioned before.

well maybe you shouldntve been so quick to take off on the green like some dragracer! You couldve hurt that garbage truck driver!:p

I wish somone woudl do a study on the # of tickets on the records of City Councilors and police officers. Im sure they are well below the average............cause they dont break the law!

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Sorry, just reviewed my comments and I didn't see where I said that.

I have no problem with the owner getting the ticket (based on picture of the license plate). Unless the car was stolen, the owner can then go after the person how used their car to recoup the fine.

shanek
They also send tickets to people making protected right turns, either the normal right-on-red (legal in NC unless otherwise posted) or even a protected green-arrow turn, because the forward lanes have the red light. It's a moneymaking scam, nothing more.

Which is another big problem: red light cameras don't allow for much of a defense. If you're stopped by a cop after going through a red light, you can dispute it with such defense as (it wasn't really red" or "the yellow wasn't long enough" or "I was making a right turn" or "I was dring my child to the hospital because of a life-threatening emergency". One time I went through a red light because I had already waited through two complete cycles without getting a green. But if you receive a ticket in the mail, are you going to remember the circumstances?

Yellow lights are another issue. If a cop issues the ticket, he can offer testimony that the yellow was lon enough. But with a camera, we just have to trust that it works correctly.

crimresearch
"In criminal cases, it's not an issue of what's "less likely". It's an issue of what's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

Maybe you meant to say something else,or to qualify the statement, but in any case, you wound up saying that in criminal cases, 'less likely' is not an issue.There's a big difference between "not an issue of" and "not an issue". "An issue of" means that it is the determining factor. "An issue" just means that it is a factor.

Which is merely a restatement of the original claim I made,
(which you appear to be arguing against), that "If you want to create reasonable doubt, all you have to do is show a shred of believable evidence... "You left out the most important part: "...not just conjecture and speculation." Conjecture and speculation is sufficient, as long it is not outlandish. "There's no evidence that aliens didn't fly down and commit this murder" isn't a viable defense, but "there's not evidence that her jealous ex-husband didn't kill her" is. The latter defense requires absolutely no evidence that the ex-husband did it (although it would help). As long as the ex-husband killing her is a reasonable explanation, the proper verdict is "not guilty". Also, your statement implies that believable evidence is required. If the prosecution's case doesn't rule out other explanations, and it manifestly evident that such other explanations exist, then the defense is not required to present any case at all. Usually, though, if the prosecution's case is so weak that the defense doesn't need to present a case, the case won't get to trial, which is why we don't see many cases in which the defense immediately rests.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
But if you receive a ticket in the mail, are you going to remember the circumstances?

Moreover, are you even going to know the circumstances? Especially if it's an intersection you go through every day, or even more often, there'd be no possible way you could remember which circumstances you were in on which day weeks later when the ticket comes in.

[crimresearch]

You're just playing word games Art.

I correctly stated the situation, and you still seem to be arguing against it.

The defense in a murder trial cannot just go through the phone book claiming
"There is no proof that Mr Brown didn't do this crime...Oh he was dead at the time? Well, then there is no proof that Mr Charles didn't do it..."

And as I said, there has to be a reasonable and believable theory from the defense, that meets the rules of evidence before a judge will even allow it to be heard.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by crimresearch
You're just playing word games Art.Ah, accusations of "word games". The last refuge of someone with no real argument. You're the one playing games. I said"there's [no] evidence that her jealous ex-husband didn't kill her" is [a valid defense].
You then try to imply that my position is that "There is no proof that Mr Brown didn't do this crime...Oh he was dead at the time? Well, then there is no proof that Mr Charles didn't do it..." is a valid defense. There are two major misrepresentations there. First, you are changing "jealous ex-husband" to "random people from the phone book". The fact that I specifically stated that presenting aliens as a suspect is not a valid defense should have made it clear that merely grasping at straws is not sufficient. The other change that you made, and one which completely changes the meaning, is replacing "evidence" with "proof". Sure, "there is no proof that Mr Charles didn't do it" isn't much of a defense, but "there is no evidence that Mr Charles didn't do it" is not only grounds for a not guilty verdict, it is grounds for dismissal. The prosecution's job is to present evidence which conflicts with the possibility that someone else did it. Proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendent did it means (barring accomplices) proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no one else did it. If the defense can honestly say "I could open up the phone book to any page and find someone with a better case against him than the defendant" that would demand a not guilty verdict. No, they can't just claim that there is no proof that Mr Charles didn't do it. But if they say that there is no reasonable basis for believing that Mr Charles didn't do it, and the jury agrees, then the jury should acquit.

And as I said, there has to be a reasonable and believable theory from the defense, that meets the rules of evidence before a judge will even allow it to be heard. There is no requirement for a specific theory. They do not need to name a specific alternate suspect, they do not have to specify an alternate time of death, they do not have to specify an alternate murder weapon. "We have absolutely no idea what happened, and neither do you" is completely reasonable thing for the defense attorney to say to the jury.

[crimresearch]

And your example of an ex-husband is any more relevant than random names, exactly how?

Remember, it is YOU who has rejected the standard of a single shred of credible evidence, and put yourself in the position of claiming that it isn't required. You can't have it both ways.

The "It wasn't me, I wasn't there, I didn't do it, it must have been someone else' defense, that falls under denial, or alibi defenses:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALIBI

Alibi is an affirmative defense to certain crimes or their lesser included offenses - that the defendant was in another location at the time of commission of the alleged offense(s). Defendant must allege where he / she was located, and offer evidence thereof. If any credible alibi evidence is presented that the defendant was in a location other than that alleged at the time of commission of the alleged offenses, the prosecution has the burden of proving was not present in the location claimed, but present at the location of the alleged crime at the relevant date and time.
SOURCE: McGregor v. People, 490 P.2d 287, 176 Colo. 309 (1971)
Hampton v. People, 465 P.2d 112, 171 Colo. 101 (1970)
People v. Villa, 605 P.2d 481, 43 Colo. App. 284 (1979)
CRS 16-7-102 and CRS 18-1-407
http://www.criminal-defense-colorado-springs.com/Affirmative-Defenses.htm


The accused-appellant’s uncorroborated defense of denial and alibi must fail. The defense of alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to contrive and difficult to prove .15 [People vs. Abdul, July 13, 1999, G.R. No. 128074 at p. 6.] ...
For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused establish two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed, and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission.13 [People vs. Batulan, 253 SCRA 52, 53 (1996)] The defense of alibi and the usual corroboration thereof are disfavored in law since both could be very easily contrived.14 [People vs. De Castro, 252 SCRA 341, 352 (1996)]
http://pinoymurder.freeservers.com/Murder.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under criminal procedure, just claiming that "We have absolutely no idea what happened...", is NOT sufficient to compel an acquital.

And as far as traffic cameras go, the rest of your claim, "... and neither do you" is negated by the fact that the camera gives an idea of what happened. In other cases, the prosecution's circumstantial evidence can serve the same role.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by crimresearch
And your example of an ex-husband is any more relevant than random names, exactly how? Are you serious?

Remember, it is YOU who has rejected the standard of a single shred of credible evidence, and put yourself in the position of claiming that it isn't required. You can't have it both ways.
More precisely, evidence isn't necessarily required. How am I trying to have it both ways? The idea that a shred of evidence would tip the scales in all or even most cases is absurd.

The "It wasn't me, I wasn't there, I didn't do it, it must have been someone else' defense, that falls under denial, or alibi defenses
Every not guilty plea includes, at least implicitly, a denial of the charges. You seriously believe that all defenses are affirmative? What you seem to have missed is that an alibi, when it is used to impeach credible evidence to the contrary, requires credible evidence. In the absence of any prosecution evidence, an alibi requires absolutely no evidence. Which would have been more clear if you had included the beginning of the quote: "Given the positive identification made by the lone prosecution witness, the accused-appellant’s uncorroborated defense of denial and alibi must fail. " (If you're going to rewrite a quote, the usual thing to do is to note that you are doing so, e.g. "[T]he accused-appellant’s uncorroborated defense of denial and alibi must fail")

Under criminal procedure, just claiming that "We have absolutely no idea what happened...", is NOT sufficient to compel an acquital.Duh, of course not. It is not the claim of this that compels an acquital, it is the fact of this that does. If the jury has no idea what happened, it must acquit.

[Tony]

I'm not surprised Tricky supports this police state initiative.

Personally, I feel that this is a good idea. Too many motorists in this town have been infringing on my right to pass through an intersection safely.

You're really not under the pathetic illusion that this idea will result in safer streets, are you? This is nothing more than a way for the city government to extort money from citizens.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
I'm not surprised Tricky supports this police state initiative.

You're really not under the pathetic illusion that this idea will result in safer streets, are you? This is nothing more than a way for the city government to extort money from citizens.
Ah, welcome Tony. I was wondering when you would check in.

So tell me, do you slow down when you see a police car? If so, then why do you do it? Is is because you don't want to get a ticket?

Now, assuming that you do slow down to avoid tickets, would you not also avoind running red lights to avoid tickets if there were an "electronic cop" watching? So even if this is designed more as a way to to "extort" money from lawbreaking motorists, don't you think that it would also result in safer streets? Do you think that those people who are foiled at red-light running will carry their boiling anger elswhere and be provoked to do dangerous things in places where they won't be caught?

But don't worry too much. The measure has been challenged and has been sent to the capitol in Austin where is will either be killed or die of malnourishment. Another victory for lawbreakers!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tricky
Ah, welcome Tony. I was wondering when you would check in.

So tell me, do you slow down when you see a police car? If so, then why do you do it? Is is because you don't want to get a ticket?

No he uses his constitutional right and with with his gun he kills the cops who infinge his freedom . ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky
So tell me, do you slow down when you see a police car? If so, then why do you do it? Is is because you don't want to get a ticket?

Now, assuming that you do slow down to avoid tickets, would you not also avoind running red lights to avoid tickets if there were an "electronic cop" watching?

There is a fallacy here. One knows when one is speeding and one can directly measure the speed one is going. So slowing down for a cop is something he can actually help.

4.5 seconds seems to be a good interval for yellow lights. (There also appears to be a 1-2 second delay between the light turning red and the lights the other way turning green.) But in Charlotte, the intersections with red light cameras have shorter yellow-light times, some as low as 3 seconds. So if Tony comes up to an intersection and the light turns yellow, he may evaluate that he cannot stop before he reaches the intersection so he goes through the yellow light...but it turns red faster than expected and the camera snaps his license plate.

Note that they have the cameras at these particular intersections because they're the ones with the most accidents caused by red-light runners. Note that they could reduce the number of accidents at these intersections by increasing the yellow-light times to 4.5 seconds and giving a 1-2 second delay before turning the lights green. But they don't.

Now, why do you think that is?

[c0rbin]

So it is preferable to let people run red lights. The idea that I have to look left and right before proceeding on a green light is crazy, but that is what the current situation is getting too.

No.

If you don't look both ways at all intersections--no matter what that little in-animate light that cares nothing for your safety says--then you deserve to be T-Boned by a drunk trucker doing 80 kph.

Drive defensively and take your safety into your own hands.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Alibi is an affirmative defense to certain crimes or their lesser included offenses - that the defendant was in another location at the time of commission of the alleged offense(s). Defendant must allege where he / she was located, and offer evidence thereof. If any credible alibi evidence is presented that the defendant was in a location other than that alleged at the time of commission of the alleged offenses, the prosecution has the burden of proving was not present in the location claimed, but present at the location of the alleged crime at the relevant date and time.


You dont need to alledge an affirmative defense. The prosecution has to prove you commited a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Its like finding someone guilty because they own the gun that was identified as the murder weapon. While it can be proof that they were the shooter, by itself it does not rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The govt gets around this cause tickets arent really crimes, so they dont need to prove things like they do in a criminal case.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by c0rbin
No.

If you don't look both ways at all intersections--no matter what that little in-animate light that cares nothing for your safety says--then you deserve to be T-Boned by a drunk trucker doing 80 kph.

Drive defensively and take your safety into your own hands. I look both ways at all intersections, sorry but your "deserves" comment is asinine.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I look both ways at all intersections, sorry but your "deserves" comment is asinine.

Yikes, no kidding! Extra vigilence is essential when driving, but to say someone deserves to get creamed if they don't look both ways when going through a green light is crazy!

[c0rbin]

Sure, no one deserves to be mangled by a speeding truck in the sense that there is some justice in the mangling people who put their well-being into the hands of little lights.

However, driving is a potentially dangerous business and anyone who does it blindly is asking (the source of my use of "deserve") for danger.

I am glad you look both ways when you drive. Perhaps your affirmation of good driving skills will rub off on a_unique_person who seems to find the concept "crazy."

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by c0rbin

However, driving is a potentially dangerous business and anyone who does it blindly is asking (the source of my use of "deserve") for danger.


Agreed. When I'm driving, I always assume that all others are idiots and could do something unpredictable at any moment (ie. run a red light).

[crimresearch]

Defendant must allege where he / she was located, and offer evidence thereof.


Originally posted by Tmy
You dont need to alledge an affirmative defense. The prosecution has to prove you commited a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Its like finding someone guilty because they own the gun that was identified as the murder weapon. While it can be proof that they were the shooter, by itself it does not rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The govt gets around this cause tickets arent really crimes, so they dont need to prove things like they do in a criminal case.

Tmy, I didn't write those words, I quoted them from a legal reference, and they apply to alibi defenses as a whole, not just to traffic tickets....that is the way the law works if you talk to lawyers, judges, and law professors.

You and and many others are quoting the law as you understand it after watching a few TV shows...but in the real world, people do get convicted on circumstantial evidence, unless they can prove otherwise.

I'm sorry that the way the legal system really works doesn't match your preconceived notions, but take it up with the people who actually said those words, not with me.

[Art Vandelay]

You and and many others are quoting the law as you understand it after watching a few TV shows...but in the real world, people do get convicted on circumstantial evidence, unless they can prove otherwise.

You can make all these irrelevant statements and oblique digs that you want, but the fact remains that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. An affirmative defense is needed only if that burden is met. This is no more a "preconceived notion" than is the idea that Paris is the capital of France. There is no legal requirement that a person make an affirmative defense. For instance, if a person kills someone in self defense, and is charged with murder, that person can simply plead not guilty, refuse to testify, and not say anything about self defense. I find your implied assertion that we are unqualified to discuss legal matters offensive. A JD, or whatever piece of paper you have, does not make you better than everyone else.

[crimresearch]

Art, you've had every opportunity to find a single reference that disproves with my initial premise, (which included the condition that the prosecution had already met their burden of proof), and you simply can't do it.

Rather than admit that I might actually be right on a fundamental item, you resort to stalking me through the thread, twisting words around, reversing your claims, changing the subject from alibis to self defense, fabricating assertions, anything and everything except proving your point, if indeed you ever had one.

If it galls you that much to be exposed to things you didn't already know, and to see those new ideas backed up with citations, you are in the wrong forum.

[gnome]

Originally posted by crimresearch
You and and many others are quoting the law as you understand it after watching a few TV shows...but in the real world, people do get convicted on circumstantial evidence, unless they can prove otherwise.

I agree. I don't think there's anything inherently insufficient about circumstantial evidence... you just need a lot of it to remove reasonable doubt in the mind of a juror.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Art, you've had every opportunity to find a single reference that disproves with my initial premise, (which included the condition that the prosecution had already met their burden of proof), and you simply can't do it.
The first statement of yours that I responded to in this thread was:

"In the case of car photos, seems like there are 2 choices...either the owner was driving the car, or someone else was...

Are you really going to label the first choice as the less likely?"

This, to me, implied that in all cases, the jury should choose whatever scenario is most likely, regardless of whether the burden of proof has been met. You then called my disagreement "commonly held misconceptions". I have not presented a single reference that disproves the very first statement you made in this thread, it's true. So *********** what? Your first statement in this thread was a statement of opinion with which I disagree (and which did not "include" the condition that the burden of proof had been reached, but consisted of merely asserting such), but since it is a matter of opinion, it's not an issue that can be settled with references. So does that mean that I somehow I am not allowed to disagree with anything else you say?

Rather than admit that I might actually be right on a fundamental item, you resort to stalking me through the thread, twisting words around, reversing your claims, changing the subject from alibis to self defense, fabricating assertions, anything and everything except proving your point, if indeed you ever had one.I'm sure that you are right on quite a few fundamental items. Even a broken watch is right twice a day, after all. But what sort of arguments do you bring to your defense?

I'm "stalking" you for daring to actually respond to posts directed towards me. The audacity! Do you pull this crap IRL? Do you page people, then when they call you back, say "Quit stalking me!�?

Using self-defense as an example to clarify one of my statements is “changing the subject�.

And then there's the completely unsupported accusations of "twisting words around", "reversing your claims", and "fabricating assertions". When have I ever done that?

[Rat]

Originally posted by Tmy
Whats so bad about running red lights anyway? These lights are more orange than red (that poinyt when yellow turns red). Its hardly a safety concean since the cross light hasnt even turned green at this point. WHO THE HELL RUNS A FULL RED LIGHT?? Almost never happens.

Its juts about money making. If you want to talk safety, you could be placing cameras in high crime areas instead.
Well at the junction near where I work, I have to cross a busy junction. The traffic coming straight over, from my right, almost without fail will have the last two or three cars see the light turn yellow, and accelerate. That's not the point of a yellow light. Here, at least, you can only go through a yellow light if to stop would be more dangerous (i.e. the person behind would hit you). There will always be a car coming through when the lights opposite have turned green.

So far, I have seen three people get hit by cars at this junction. All cars that have passed a yellow or red light. At least once when the crossing signal was green. All three of them a couple of feet in front of me, and with me only avoiding it because I know the junction well enough.

Why should I have to risk my life here because some people don't believe the law applies to them, because they're in a hurry? And if one of these people does something that they have been specifically prohibited from doing, by law, and thereby kills someone, why are they not prosecuted for murder?

Cheers,
Rat.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky
Ah, welcome Tony. I was wondering when you would check in.


Been busy, sorry. Have a good christmas?

So tell me, do you slow down when you see a police car?

Sometimes.

Is is because you don't want to get a ticket?

No, I don't want to get pulled over. The less I have to deal with a cop the better.

Now, assuming that you do slow down to avoid tickets, would you not also avoind running red lights to avoid tickets if there were an "electronic cop" watching? So even if this is designed more as a way to to "extort" money from lawbreaking motorists, don't you think that it would also result in safer streets? Do you think that those people who are foiled at red-light running will carry their boiling anger elswhere and be provoked to do dangerous things in places where they won't be caught?

This, not surprisingly, completely ignores the scam of shortening the yellow light times so that money keeps coming in. It's not in the government's interests to have safer streets, that would kill a source of revenue.


Now, if you want to propose a way to make streets safer, without giving the government a pretext to steal my money, I'd applaud it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Been busy, sorry. Have a good christmas?
It was okay. It was the first Christmas since Mom died, so it was kind of bittersweet. I stayed in Houston for the first time in years (and witnessed the paralyzing 1/2" snowfall) and spent Xmas with the in-laws.

Hope yours was good.

Originally posted by Tony
Sometimes.
Well, of course it depends on what the police car is doing. If he's sitting there with a radar gun stuck out the window, I'll bet you slow down. I'll also bet you don't pass them if they are driving the same way as you at exactly the speed limit.

Originally posted by Tony
No, I don't want to get pulled over. The less I have to deal with a cop the better.
LOL. What normally happens when you get pulled over, Tony? They stop to read you their latest novel? No, my lad, they give tickets. That is why being pulled over is such an unpleasant experience. I've been pulled over a few times without getting tickets, and I can assure you, I left with nothing but good feelings for the cop.

Originally posted by Tony
This, not surprisingly, completely ignores the scam of shortening the yellow light times so that money keeps coming in. It's not in the government's interests to have safer streets, that would kill a source of revenue.
If there are scams, they need to be exposed. I'm sure our local news would be glad to do that. Crooked cops always make for good TV ratings. But bad accidents are also not in the interest of the police force. They require lots of attention, lots of cops, and often, heart rending and gut wrenching scenes of tragedy. I know you don't think much of cops, but I know a few, and I have heard their voices shake when they describe some of the grisly accident scenes they have had to go to. I truly believe they would like them to be less frequent.

Originally posted by Tony
Now, if you want to propose a way to make streets safer, without giving the government a pretext to steal my money, I'd applaud it.
It's the old carrot and stick, Tony. If you want people to obey the law (thereby making streets safer) you have to provide them some incintive to do so. Now you could reward people for not running red lights, but that would be even more bureaucracy, and hence, more government spending, than it would be to punish bad behavior.

And they are not "stealing" your money. If you run a stoplight, you are offering it to them. Obey the law, and you'll probably never pay a cent in traffic fines. If you slow down when you see a yellow light, you won't even be caught by the "short light" scams (assuming they exist). You might even live longer. What is wrong with that deal?

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Tony
...the scam of shortening the yellow light times so that money keeps coming in... This is not the first time I've seen this claim and not the first time it's been unsupported with facts. care to break the trend?

I've made a quick survey around town and find the majority of yellow lights to be around 3 seconds. I suspect there are guidelines for the length of yellow lights based on factors such as posted speed limit approaching the light (and possibly others). Therefore simply timing some yellows and finding they have different lengths doesn't necessarily mean "scam".

Of course this wouldn't be an issue if those claiming same would offer evidence to support the claim. But this is a skeptics forum, I'm not holding my breath.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DavidJames
This is not the first time I've seen this claim and not the first time it's been unsupported with facts. care to break the trend?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/technology/circuits/06came.html?pagewanted=all&position=

In a court case that resulted in the dismissal of nearly 300 tickets in 2001, a former employee testified that Lockheed Martin IMS, which operated the San Diego system, regularly scouted intersections in some cities based on high traffic volume, not locations that were most accident-prone. Documents revealed that officials sought locations with steep gradients and short yellow-light times.

Although not relevant to your request, this is an interesting bit:

Studies elsewhere, however, made a striking finding: rear-end accidents have shot up at intersections with cameras. In 2002 a consultant's study in San Diego reported that the number of crashes at camera intersections had increased by 3 percent after the cameras were installed, almost all of it a result of a 37 percent increase in rear-endings. "This finding is not consistent with the program's overall objective of improving traffic safety," the report's authors concluded.

And the Law of Unintended Consequences rears its ugly head...as it always does.

Anyway, continuing:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/halotic/radar/Red%20Light%20Running%20Crisis.pdf

But why have so many people become wanton red light runners all of a sudden? The answer seems to be that changes made to accommodate camera enforcement have produced yellow light times that, in many cases, are shortened to the point that they are inadequate. And when people come upon an intersection with inadequate yellow time, they are faced with the choice either of stopping abruptly on yellow (risking a rear end accident) or accelerating. The options for those confronting such circumstances are limited and unsafe. But each time a driver faces this dilemma, government increases its odds for hitting the jackpot.