5 ms·

Because video cameras are arguably illegal. You can't face your accuser in court, therefore it should be thrown out. Got a speeding ticket from one of these lo

by meritt 12y ago

Because video cameras are arguably illegal. You can't face your accuser in court, therefore it should be thrown out. Got a speeding ticket from one of these lovely cameras in the state of Iowa, then I was sent a bill from some company in Phoenix with bold threats that if I didn't pay the fine, it'd be submitted to a collection agency and negatively impact my credit score (because otherwise I'd just have not paid it. I'd happily live the rest of my life without ever entering Iowa where they could arrest me with a bench warrant) It's corrupt, illegal and immoral. However, since I (like most people, I'd wager) don't have the time nor energy to fight, I paid my $200 fine and moved on.

valarauca1 12y ago
Its just extortion, not even law enforcement. "We saw you do this, pay us $50 and it goes away. No insurance report, no evidence, nobody knows." Law enforcement does this all the time, so does the mob. Its not even worth it to fight it (economic speaking), the time you'll spend out of work, stressed, etc. Then if you get a lawyer involved. You'll end up spending >$300 in time and money to not spend $50.
Karunamon 12y ago
This is a common myth. The camera is not your accuser; the state is, using the camera as evidence of your violation. It would be no different than a security camera catching you breaking into a building. The camera doesn't sue, the owner of the building does.
- bmelton 12y ago
  Moreover, I'd think it would be quite trivial to place the camera in the court room if any judge were to seriously consider that defense, while the camera furiously exerts its right to silence.
  - icelancer 12y ago
    Testimony from a witness that no longer presents information when questioned isn't a very good witness.
- mnarayan01 12y ago
  The "right to face your accuser" refers to witnesses. The state is _always_ the prosecutor in criminal cases (in the US, IANAL).
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    So what happens when you are caught breaking into a building, and the camera is evidence of your crime? This entire line of reasoning would completely destroy any kind of automated crime detection (security systems, security cameras), which is ridiculous on its face. Further, what happens when you commit a crime where there are no witnesses? People are rightfully convicted of crimes based on "things" rather than the testimony of a person who saw it, regularly.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      In order to introduce the video as evidence, they have to put somebody on the stand who will explain how the camera works and so on. And right there is your opportunity to confront them. You can ask all sorts of questions, like when was the last time they cleaned the lenses.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - brianpgordon 12y ago
        I'm going to need a source on that. I'm pretty sure a video can be entered as evidence without any actual witness to present it. Maybe you live in a state with unusual rules.
        tedunangst 12y ago
        Google "entering evidence at trial" and then click on just about any of the first ten results. They all lay out roughly the same procedure.
    - mnarayan01 12y ago
- vaadu 12y ago
  This is not a myth. The government wants people to think this because they don't want the veracity of the camera being questioned. That would be too fair for a system based on cash-register justice.
DanBC 12y ago
> Because video cameras are arguably illegal. You can't face your accuser in court, therefore it should be thrown out. You can go to court and ask to challenge the evidence the camera has provided.

by meritt 12y ago

valarauca1 12y ago

Its just extortion, not even law enforcement. "We saw you do this, pay us $50 and it goes away. No insurance report, no evidence, nobody knows." Law enforcement does this all the time, so does the mob. Its not even worth it to fight it (economic speaking), the time you'll spend out of work, stressed, etc. Then if you get a lawyer involved. You'll end up spending >$300 in time and money to not spend $50.

Karunamon 12y ago

This is a common myth. The camera is not your accuser; the state is, using the camera as evidence of your violation. It would be no different than a security camera catching you breaking into a building. The camera doesn't sue, the owner of the building does.

bmelton 12y ago
Moreover, I'd think it would be quite trivial to place the camera in the court room if any judge were to seriously consider that defense, while the camera furiously exerts its right to silence.
- icelancer 12y ago
  Testimony from a witness that no longer presents information when questioned isn't a very good witness.
mnarayan01 12y ago
The "right to face your accuser" refers to witnesses. The state is _always_ the prosecutor in criminal cases (in the US, IANAL).
- Karunamon 12y ago
  So what happens when you are caught breaking into a building, and the camera is evidence of your crime? This entire line of reasoning would completely destroy any kind of automated crime detection (security systems, security cameras), which is ridiculous on its face. Further, what happens when you commit a crime where there are no witnesses? People are rightfully convicted of crimes based on "things" rather than the testimony of a person who saw it, regularly.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    In order to introduce the video as evidence, they have to put somebody on the stand who will explain how the camera works and so on. And right there is your opportunity to confront them. You can ask all sorts of questions, like when was the last time they cleaned the lenses.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - brianpgordon 12y ago
      I'm going to need a source on that. I'm pretty sure a video can be entered as evidence without any actual witness to present it. Maybe you live in a state with unusual rules.
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        Google "entering evidence at trial" and then click on just about any of the first ten results. They all lay out roughly the same procedure.
  - mnarayan01 12y ago
vaadu 12y ago
This is not a myth. The government wants people to think this because they don't want the veracity of the camera being questioned. That would be too fair for a system based on cash-register justice.

DanBC 12y ago

> Because video cameras are arguably illegal. You can't face your accuser in court, therefore it should be thrown out. You can go to court and ask to challenge the evidence the camera has provided.