Posted on 06/09/2010 8:11:25 AM PDT by HandsOffMyFreedom
If you’ve ever been issued a traffic ticket by a red light or speeding camera, you will revel in the bittersweet justice one luck recipient bestowed upon his local nanny state police department.
Upon receiving a speeding ticket in the mail, Brian McCrary followed the citation’s payment instructions and attempted to pay his $90 fine on the Bluff City Police Department’s (BCPD) website. Much to his surprise, he discovered its domain name was about to expire.
Instead of paying his fine, McCrary saw it as a rare opportunity to literally ‘pay back’ the police department for violating his civil liberties with ‘Big Brother’ traffic cameras ...
(Excerpt) Read more at nannystateliberationfront.wordpress.com ...
LOL...Seattle bashing (I love it).
Speaking of the Constitution: “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions which are unbridled by morality and true religion.”
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
So the question is: is it immoral for local law enforcement agencies to use technology to catch lawbreakers, or is the act of breaking a law that was made to protect innocent people immoral?
Did you even read that post? The idea is that the yellow is supposed to be long enough for people to drive through if they can’t stop safely when the light changes from green. Doing so is not “breaking the law”. That’s why you have the yellow in the first place.
So those laws are unjust?
What’s my point? It’s obviously that Seattle encourages drivers to report speeders, which is a Nanny State mentality.
It doesn't matter where I live, I don't have any twisted "loyalty" to someone that is recklessly driving down a street or highway endangering innocent lives. Should I be "loyal" to someone that very well might be drunk or high on drugs and not report it to the police?
So if you're driving down the freeway with your wife and small children and someone recklessly speeds by you at 90-100 MPH, you just ignore it?
So if I’m speeding and you don’t like it, move over to the right lane and mind your own damn business. If Mr. Law-Dog thinks I’m a nuisance, he’ll make it his business.
Public safety is MY business. Again, unlike you I have no twisted "loyalty" to people that don't respect the moral laws of man. I'd not only report you in a second, I'd stop and give the police officer the full details of your disrespect for your fellow human beings.
I couldn’t agree with your post more. So let me ask you this: if that same government totally ignored people who break the laws of civil society, would they not be adding to irresponsible behavior by allowing it to occur?
Ping
I’m defending the role of a legitimate government in a moral society; that of enforcing “just” laws. Do you not agree with that statement?
read about the nanny state.
aka Big Government Conservative.
The passive citizen - is he just lazy or is liberty too much for him?
You sound like a cop hater! (do I really need a sarcasm tag with you?) ;-]
Let's see he's 11 miles over the speed limit and a danger to society? You protest too much.
The speed trap camera will generate over a million dollars split 50/50 with the private company that owns the camera.
Cui bono? Certainly not the free people of the United States of America.
They should be pulled over for reckless endangerment, but how often does that happen? When's the last time you saw someone stopped for tail-gating or excessive lane changing?
Study after study show that drivers never drive faster than they are comfortable with.
I'm sorry, I cannot follow your remarks. Which post? Several goof balls noted that it wasn't a red light. What does going through a yellow light have anything to do with this?
Now if someone runs a solid red light. That is a danger, but no camera is set to capture those egregious and truly dangerous violators because there's no money in it.
No nanny state in the world's known history ever created a responsible citizenry.
You're asking the impossible and it is a lie.
Government rarely protects. Caveat emptor is the rule and the Natural Law.
Don’t we have this thing called a “speed bump”?
Of course, speed bumps generate zero revenue for government.
You're a milking cow, stop being so happy about it.
You have hooves - kick man, kick!
Excellent. I’ve seen some on Chicago’s south side that look beaten.
They point upwards, backwards or at the wrong angle.
Of course the south side is mostly black and they take their civil liberties seriously.
In fairness, the north side has a large police population as homeowners so maybe those tickets are taken care of.
“is it immoral for local law enforcement agencies to use technology to catch lawbreakers,”
If the motivation is the crime its one thing, if the motivation is revenue its another. Everyone knows that police dept’s enforce traffic laws more aggressively when budgets are tight.
Police are hardly the ones to preach about morality. They speed illegally all the time.
Park an empty squad car and you’d get the same effect. Moving it every once in a while.
Nonsense. These cameras pick the person last entering the intersection. 99+% of those clear safely and always have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.