2 ms·

> The numbers are not very different because the denominator is so much larger than the numerator True for an individual case. However, my argument was that, a

> The numbers are not very different because the denominator is so much larger than the numerator True for an individual case. However, my argument was that, at scale, the difference is massive, and adding speeding cameras doesn't stop cops from pulling people over. You just have police AND speeding cameras, both of which have problems, and the problems of neither are mitigated by the presence of the other. > And the time in court is what ruins the most vulnerable people! > Last time I fought a ticket (before I wised up to the fact paying the judge's friend who is a lawyer reverses time in such a way you never sped?) it took 2 full days off work. 1 day to wait in line so I plead not guilty, 1 to actually contest, and officer was a no-show And when this is much easier at scale, municipalities can create more of these headaches with less work on their part. > Your other comments also imply a lack of understanding in the role traffic stops play in modern policing. Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions... How do speeding cameras prevent this?! I ask a second time. > Traffic stops are the leading springboard for all of these ills How do speeding cameras prevent this? > Compared to all this, cameras end up having shortcomings that police have, but with a fraction of the terrible abuse that can come from it. I again don't understand how having speeding cameras prevents police from pulling people over. > Also, this isn't the point of the comment, but cameras don't sleep, but they can be turned off. Here in New York City speed cameras are not on 24/7. They only operate during school opening and closing hours when kids are likely to be coming and going And are pull-overs allowed outside of those times? > And not every state allows them everywhere (in fact I don't know of any that do, but some might). And are pull-overs allowed outside of those zones?

BoorishBears 6y ago
> However, my argument was that, at scale, the difference is massive, and adding speeding cameras doesn't stop cops from pulling people over. So somewhere along the line you came up with your own point that wasn't mine and argued against it? Because literally in the comment you replied to: > Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation) The entire comment chain is about something that has never been done before, using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops. You literally managed to miss the entire point of the conversation yet replied so confidently? Half the contextomies you're bringing up make 0 sense if you understood that. Yes they're allowed to pull people over outside those times and inside them, that's the whole damn problem. You literally don't understand the most basic issue here and you keep replying by quoting tiny parts of a comment and ignoring their context and going "gotcha!" I'm glad I replied for the benefit of others who might read these comments because it's stuff more people need to hear, but I'm done wasting my time with this.
- ppseafield 6y ago
  > > Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation) > The entire comment chain is about something that has never been done before, using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops. I keep asking how you that happens, and you keep not answering. How does camera based enforcement stop bullshit pullovers? It doesn't, it just changes the bullshit "reason" people get pulled over. And the examples you present - by your own admission - don't address the actual problems, and where the cameras are limited in scope (time and zone), the original problem remains. > You literally don't understand the most basic issue here and you keep replying by quoting tiny parts of a comment and ignoring their context and going "gotcha!" I'm continually asking questions about the core premise that 'using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops' prevents abuse by authorities. You haven't provided any evidence that it does. You've just provided some ad hominem and say I don't understand. > having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation So when they're barred from pulling people over for "speeding", then... this prevents them from pulling over people for other bullshit reasons? I just don't see how having shitty police and cameras are going to prevent these abuses of power.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    Going forward I'll mostly reply with excerpts from comments I already wrote, because, like I said, enough time's been wasted on your replies: > I keep asking how you that happens, and you keep not answering. How does camera based enforcement stop bullshit pullovers? It doesn't, it just changes the bullshit "reason" people get pulled over. And the examples you present - by your own admission - don't address the actual problems, and where the cameras are limited in scope (time and zone), the original problem remains. >So when they're barred from pulling people over for "speeding", then... this prevents them from pulling over people for other bullshit reasons? >> Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions* (man you couldn't even read the fucking quote in the comment you replied to) would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation) >> If an officer stops you they can give you a warning because they like your tone (you speak like them, or you're kind of pretty, or you don't look the type who'll do this again). Or they can give you a reduced speed. >> Or they can give you an additional ticket because you they don't like your tone, or rather... you didn't full stop at that stop sign. The other cars going through it didn't either, but they weren't the marks. >> Or they can say they smell weed and start pushing the boundaries of your rights and take advantage of the fact they target the populations with the least experience with their legal rights due to systemic failings in education >> How many innocent people do you think took plea deals sending them to jail for what started as a traffic stop? That would still be free today if a camera had sent a ticket by mail? - > I'm continually asking questions about the core premise that 'using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops' prevents abuse by authorities. You haven't provided any evidence that it does. You've just provided some ad hominem and say I don't understand. Ah, so you understood it referred to large classes of traffic stops when you reached this part of your comment, so you read the reply? But yeah: >> Cameras are not able to kill people in self-defense. >> Cameras are not able to trump up or discard charges and offenses based on mood or inclination, or prejudice. >> (And before you miss the point and retort, but they can do that in court!!! Yeah... just like they can with the police officer's ticket. The point isn't "cameras fix the biased legal system!" it's cameras ferret out one facet of the legal systems biases) >> Cameras are not able to try and push an illegal search or exploit ignorance to convince someone to give up their rights >> Cameras are not able to seize assets on suspicion someone has too much cash on them. >> Cameras can't falsely detain people. >> Seriously, again, there are real people in jail, rotting, for everything from having a ounce or two of weed on them, to literally nothing at all (see: plea deals) off what started as a routine traffic stop. How would a ticket in the mail do these things? Let me know if I can repeat any of this for you any slower...

BoorishBears 6y ago

> However, my argument was that, at scale, the difference is massive, and adding speeding cameras doesn't stop cops from pulling people over. So somewhere along the line you came up with your own point that wasn't mine and argued against it? Because literally in the comment you replied to: > Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation) The entire comment chain is about something that has never been done before, using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops. You literally managed to miss the entire point of the conversation yet replied so confidently? Half the contextomies you're bringing up make 0 sense if you understood that. Yes they're allowed to pull people over outside those times and inside them, that's the whole damn problem. You literally don't understand the most basic issue here and you keep replying by quoting tiny parts of a comment and ignoring their context and going "gotcha!" I'm glad I replied for the benefit of others who might read these comments because it's stuff more people need to hear, but I'm done wasting my time with this.

ppseafield 6y ago
> > Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation) > The entire comment chain is about something that has never been done before, using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops. I keep asking how you that happens, and you keep not answering. How does camera based enforcement stop bullshit pullovers? It doesn't, it just changes the bullshit "reason" people get pulled over. And the examples you present - by your own admission - don't address the actual problems, and where the cameras are limited in scope (time and zone), the original problem remains. > You literally don't understand the most basic issue here and you keep replying by quoting tiny parts of a comment and ignoring their context and going "gotcha!" I'm continually asking questions about the core premise that 'using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops' prevents abuse by authorities. You haven't provided any evidence that it does. You've just provided some ad hominem and say I don't understand. > having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation So when they're barred from pulling people over for "speeding", then... this prevents them from pulling over people for other bullshit reasons? I just don't see how having shitty police and cameras are going to prevent these abuses of power.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Going forward I'll mostly reply with excerpts from comments I already wrote, because, like I said, enough time's been wasted on your replies: > I keep asking how you that happens, and you keep not answering. How does camera based enforcement stop bullshit pullovers? It doesn't, it just changes the bullshit "reason" people get pulled over. And the examples you present - by your own admission - don't address the actual problems, and where the cameras are limited in scope (time and zone), the original problem remains. >So when they're barred from pulling people over for "speeding", then... this prevents them from pulling over people for other bullshit reasons? >> Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions* (man you couldn't even read the fucking quote in the comment you replied to) would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation) >> If an officer stops you they can give you a warning because they like your tone (you speak like them, or you're kind of pretty, or you don't look the type who'll do this again). Or they can give you a reduced speed. >> Or they can give you an additional ticket because you they don't like your tone, or rather... you didn't full stop at that stop sign. The other cars going through it didn't either, but they weren't the marks. >> Or they can say they smell weed and start pushing the boundaries of your rights and take advantage of the fact they target the populations with the least experience with their legal rights due to systemic failings in education >> How many innocent people do you think took plea deals sending them to jail for what started as a traffic stop? That would still be free today if a camera had sent a ticket by mail? - > I'm continually asking questions about the core premise that 'using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops' prevents abuse by authorities. You haven't provided any evidence that it does. You've just provided some ad hominem and say I don't understand. Ah, so you understood it referred to large classes of traffic stops when you reached this part of your comment, so you read the reply? But yeah: >> Cameras are not able to kill people in self-defense. >> Cameras are not able to trump up or discard charges and offenses based on mood or inclination, or prejudice. >> (And before you miss the point and retort, but they can do that in court!!! Yeah... just like they can with the police officer's ticket. The point isn't "cameras fix the biased legal system!" it's cameras ferret out one facet of the legal systems biases) >> Cameras are not able to try and push an illegal search or exploit ignorance to convince someone to give up their rights >> Cameras are not able to seize assets on suspicion someone has too much cash on them. >> Cameras can't falsely detain people. >> Seriously, again, there are real people in jail, rotting, for everything from having a ounce or two of weed on them, to literally nothing at all (see: plea deals) off what started as a routine traffic stop. How would a ticket in the mail do these things? Let me know if I can repeat any of this for you any slower...