Baytown, TX Ballot Measure Press Release


Baytown Red Light Camera Coalition (BRLCC)
7-30-10 www.saferbaytown.com
281-728-7220

This Friday 7-30-10 at 4pm at the city clerk’s office [the] Baytown Red Light Camera Coalition (BRLCC) will turn in to the city of Baytown additional signatures required to overcome the deficiency they claimed our petition had at last Thursday’s city council meeting.

Based on Allegations from the lawyers working for the camera company the city declared our petition to be 12 good signatures short of being sufficent. The city, as required by the city charter, has given us 10 days to make up the deficiency. We have overcome the entire deficiency with several hundred signatures to spare. We believe that by the time the count is complete we will have exceeded the original number of signatures we turned in originally, all in less than 10 days.

The outpouring of support from Citizens in Baytown has been overwhelming since they learned the city declared our petition to be short. We have been flooded with requests to sign the petition to make sure Baytown gets to have a vote on the dangerous and abusive red light camera program.

The people demand a vote! Residents were also outraged at a recent Baytown Sun article that detailed the fact that out of state corporations that profit from red light cameras contributed $20,000 to keep Baytown from having a vote while not receiving any donations from Baytown residents.

http://baytownsun.com/news/article_b7a82ca6-9790-11df-8929-001cc4c002e0.html

If the city clerk certifies our petition as sufficient it goes to the city council on 8-12-10 where they can either accept it as a new ordinance or they are required to place it on the ballot for November elections. We are allowed to turn in petitions until Monday August 2nd so we will have a petition drive over the weekend, details are at www.saferbaytown.com

Some Baytown Red light Camera facts
  • The intersection with the most cameras; Garth at West Baker. Total accidents up 11% red light running accidents up 33% and rear end accidents up 5% source; BPD TXDOT report
  • Rear end accidents which put children at the most risk up 12.5% overall at all red light camera locations. Source; BPD TXDOT report
  • 2008, the first full year of red light cameras was the deadliest year on Baytown streets in  20 years. source; city-data.com traffic statistics
  • Total crime in Baytown up 27% since cameras were installed and we were told they would free up cops to suppress crime in other areas. source; BPD website 2007-2009
  • Red light cameras net $3.4 million for city. source; Baytown Sun 3-27-10
  • The Arizona camera company gets paid a bounty of 55% of each ticket collected in return for installing the cameras for free. source; Baytown Sun 3-27-10
  • Red Light Camera tickets Decriminalize red light running. They only issue civil penalties, no worse than a parking ticket.                   source; Texas Transportation code 707.
  • Failure to pay a red light camera ticket will not result in an arrest warrant, points on the violators license, insurance or credit. Although the law allows for vehicle registration to be blocked this isn’t happening uniformly.  Texas Transportation code 707
  • Numerous independant studies including the University of South Florida Health department, the Journal of trauma and Virginia transportation institute show an increase in accidents after cameras are installed. sources on links and resource page www.saferbaytown.com
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” — William Pitt (1783)

50 Responses to Baytown, TX Ballot Measure Press Release

  1. Sure says:

    From David Fitzgerald:

    Some of you know I’m running for the state house in LD 6 with a team of conservatives who all oppose photo radar. Together as a team will have a good chance to repeal the law so we can have another angle to getting rid of photo radar. Right now Carl Seel and I are leading in a name id study for the house seats; however Lori Klein is in a dead heat with David Braswell. We must do whatever we can to get our team elected. We are in desperate need of volunteers to help our team pull head and sprint to the finish line.

    Your time volunteering will be tripled as it will help the whole team to get elected. We have a great phone banking system that allows us to call about 40-50 per hour per person. This system will allow you to push a button to call, it displays the name, if you get a voice mail you will push a button and it leaves the message, then your off the next caller. Since we are only calling Republicans who vote all in all elections, the response has been very, very positive.

    We need 6- 8 people who will be willing to give it a try. It really is easy; at first I thought it might be tough but this phone system and the people we are calling makes it so, so easy.

    Please call me with any questions and for times. I could really use your help, Its crunch time and I need your guys help to win this. And we will have three more state legislators who I oppose photo radar and work with the group to end photo radar for good.

    We have a real chance for all three of us to win, but we need your help. Please give it a try and you’ll see it is really easy.

    Please call me to get the details. I especially need help tonight and tomorrow.

    For Freedom

    Legislative District 6

    http://www.DavidFitzgerald2010.com

    480-688-8217

  2. kandaris says:

    anyone who volunteers… don’t forget to wear your oh-so-cool CameraFraud tee-shirts!🙂

    DT and I will be there from 4-6pm on Saturday.

  3. Stacey says:

    Sandy’s daughter Jaci is very sick and the doctors haven’t been able to come up with a diagnosis yet. Sandy has asked us to keep Jaci in our thoughts and prayers.

  4. 4409 says:

    Since my comment was magicaly removed (Ross) I will post it again.

    I’m sorry but WTF is up with that Baytown website? Cops not Cameras??? I understand we use to say that but come one enough is enough. How about neither. I am sick of pandering to these pirates. The local police are on the cut.

    The website actually says “Help us [Re-criminalize] red light running…WTF????

    Can you please explain to me how running a red light is a crime? It’s stupid, but a crime??? If there is no accident, who is the victim? Where is the Corpus Delicti?

    • 4409 says:

      The post had nothing to do with condoning red light running (which are all virtually done by accident) but to get people to think and discuss what is an actually “crime” and what is a violation or citation (bill).

    • photoradarscam says:

      The purpose of CF is not to debate the merits of existing traffic laws. There’s a lot of work to be done in that area. CF’s focus is the method of enforcement, and we (if I may say so) see nothing wrong with human-enforced laws and legal processes that provide full due process.

      We cannot change or dilute our message or our focus. If you want to change the traffic laws, then that really is a different cause altogether. All Baytown is saying is that if enforcement really is the solution, then hire HUMAN officers to increase the enforcement. We know that they know that more enforcement won’t help increase safety, and that’s why they’ll never do it. They claim that they can’t afford to hire officers, but that is BS… Some quick math: $250/ticket x 4 tickets per day x 250 work days per year brings in $250k per officer. How is that not a break even or profit-making proposition? And that ignores revenue from additional citations that can be issued, or the possibility of raising fine amounts.

      • 4409 says:

        I think I would know what the purpose of CameraFRAUD is since I’m one of the founders…lol

        uhhhh and yes it IS to debate the merits of existing traffic laws. Why do you think we started CameraFRAUD in the first place? Can you tell me what planet you’re on right now?

        I am just pointing out that the issue is that running a red light is NOT a crime, It’s a civil violation so how can the baytown website claim it wants to [Re-criminalize] something that is NOT a crime in the first place?

        Red light runners are rare and stupid but you should not associate them with REAL criminals.

        • photoradarscam says:

          If that is the case then, as one of the founders, it would appear that you got the name wrong. You called it CameraFraud, not CopFraud or TrafficFraud. It’s called Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar, not AZ Citizens Against Traffic Laws.

          I’m not saying there isn’t other “work” to be done, but if the group starts to diluate and expand the original goal – which was simply to bring down the cameras – then we risk losing support for the cause. Let’s get the cameras down on city streets and then worry about expanding the scope of the cause.

      • Dr Jett says:

        Your purpose in CF is not the same as mine. Photo radar is just the tip of the iceburg. Illegal traffic laws that the states pass to garner more revenue is the larger issue. Read: http://files.meetup.com/1275333/NV_10_beatty_dornsife_mtsf.pdf
        We need the State of Arizona to start obeying the Federal Laws that are in place as this traffic case explicitly details.
        When you need a cop to do ‘real police work’ like going after criminals, you might get the same response that happened to a friend recently. The police told him that they would get back to him about a burglary at his home when they can in the next day or two. It appears that more cops are collecting revenue than doing police work that would benefit the citizens that they supposedly ‘serve and protect’.

  5. Robert E Morgan says:

    I learned today from http://www.motorist.org that for every 6 million ticket violations given for making a right turn on red without a complete stop there were only 2000 accidents, 2,000 out of 6,000,000! Said another way; for every 125 accidents there were 375,000 tickets given to drivers. And municipalities have the gall to say it’s about safety and not the money. They must think were all a bunch of ignoramuses. Politicians beware, we’re coming after you!

  6. Dr Jett says:

    Rock on 4409!!!
    It is time to go after the larger picture of ALL of the illegal traffic laws with CF! Chad Dornsife took the State of Nevada to court over an illegal application of the traffic enforcement system that applys to all 50 states. His case proves that the State of Nevada dropped the case because they didn’t want to deal with the issue of violating his Constitutional rights as a US citizen. We can do the same thing in Arizona. His website is bhspi.org. Check it out.

  7. Will Kay says:

    I love the William Pitt quote at the end, so true.

  8. photoradarscam says:

    Love this:

    • guttersn1pe says:

      More proof that if you don’t speed, you have nothing to worry about. 😉

    • Will Kay says:

      Funny how when links to incidents like this are posted none of the “If you don’t speed then you have nothing to worry about” crowd never has much to say.

  9. LoneWolf says:

    4409, what world are YOU from? Running red lights might be a civil violation for the offense itself, but they can also sock you for “aggressive driving” (ARS 28-695) which may be a misdemeanor, but it’s still a crime nonetheless. And if someone gets killed in the process, the red-light runner could be brought up on manslaughter charges (that’s if he didn’t get killed himself).

    I don’t know about you, but I do NOT embrace the idea of having lawless streets like you suggest.

    • 4409 says:

      I do not support lawless streets as you suggested…lol

      You however support Redflex that has been manipulating municipalities and running lawless in the streets for years.

      I don’t think you understand so I will go slow for you. A civil violation is CIVIL. A criminal violation is all together different. You can go to jail for a criminal violation, you won;t see jail time for civil violations unless you are in contempt of a court order.

      Research Corpus Delicti…you can’t have a crime without a victim and if you just accidentally run a red light and no one was harmed who is the victim? It’s stupid and a mistake but NOT a crime.

      Your so called aggressive driving theory(what ever aggressive means)in true terms is not a crime either if no one was harmed. It’s stupid to drive crazy because you could kill yourself and others but a crime? Now, the minute you harm someone its now a crime.

      All these laws are made up by the legislature to make revenue for the police, courts, attorneys, and insurance companies. They could care less about you, your children, or public safety but if you want to continue to live in your fantasy world that they truly love you….then rock on man…🙂

      • LoneWolf says:

        If you did the research on that particular law I pointed out, you would see how the state defines “aggressive driving”. It’s not a theory.

        And don’t confuse victimless crimes with this process called “prevention”. The purpose of citing someone for a traffic violation even though there was no victim is to ensure that the individual was aware of the mistake and doesn’t get into the habit of repeating it. The individual might not be so lucky if the same mistake (such as accidently running a red light) is made. A good driver is a focused one.

        And why are you contradicting what a lot of CF volunteers have been promoting to the public: “Cops, Not Cameras!”

  10. Dr Jett says:

    LoneWolf,
    I think PhotoradarScam and you misinterpreted 4409’s message. Both of you need to read the Nevada vs Dornsife case that I listed above. The majority of traffic tickets issued are not for safety. The real purpose is to gather revenue for all of the cops, clerks, judges, attorneys and ‘safety’ schools, dui programs, etc. This will guarantee the paychecks and retirement of this select group of people. We the citizens have been lied to and robbed for decades with this scam under the guise of safety.
    I agree red light running can cause serious injuries, but our whole country needs to increase driver training and make a drivers license require ‘real skills’ to promote and increase safety.

  11. oh my says:

    4409, So an analogy that would be the same as what your saying is that I can shoot a gun in the air as much as I want, but only be charged for it when a bullet comes down and kills someone…
    no… I can’t.. a law exists to penalize doing that and try to stop it before it happens. Thats why traffic laws exist also, to try to prevent things before they happen.
    Running red’s are the same, you can do it and do it, but chances are good somethings gonna happen, and it won’t be pretty. So, a law exists that discourages and tries to prevent red light running before it happens. Myself, I don’t care if no accident happens, if you run a red, you should be charged. It’s ridiculous to allow people to run rampant and free of penalties until there is a ‘victim’.

    • 4409 says:

      Dear oh my,

      Where you perhaps in the movie Minority Report?

      When we were a free and sane country yes, you could shoot your gun in the air as much as you wanted as long as no one was injured. However if you did injure someone that’s your ass. See, we use to have something called personal responsibility.

      A revenue generating fine does not magically stop someone from shooting their gun…the fact that you may kill someone does. People don’t say to themselves, I best not shoot this gun in the air because of the fine.

      The fine is just revenue for the state and a way to control people. You can’t legislate personal responsibility out of everything in life or you will end up in a police state and its getting close.

      If the state REALLY wanted to stop people from shooting their guns in the air, they would make a it a mandatory 2 years in jail…but its NOT about that, its about making cash off fines.

      BTW Red light running is rare. The reason red light running is rare is NOT because people are scared of some revenue generating ticket it’s because people don’t want to die…🙂

      • 4409 says:

        BTW the odds of you killing someone while firing your gun straight up in the air is probably like a billion to 1.

        So, was it to stop people from dying or was it about controlling when and where you can exercise your 2nd amendment and discharge your firearm?

      • oh my says:

        Those of us with personal responsibility don’t mind the laws.
        Those that don’t, and want to run rampant are the ones that cry about laws.
        BTW, I’m sure there’s plenty of people that would shoot guns in the air or anywhere, if they knew the cops wouldn’t show up.
        But according to your logic, someone has to get hurt or die before something is punishable. Little to late then huh?

        • LoneWolf says:

          The same applies to drunk drivers. Do we let them continue to drive drunk on the roads and hope that their drive will end up being ‘victimless’ or do we get them off the streets before they do hurt someone? I’d hate to be the one explaining to all of those saddened mothers at MADD who’ve lost loved ones because of drunk drivers, that I don’t mind it one bit if people drive drunk on our roads. As long as nobody gets hurt, it’s ok. Bull..

  12. LoneWolf says:

    Well, 4409, you seem to have an answer for everything.

    So if cops can’t collect revenue off of fines, then how do you propose cops, public defense attorneys, judges, etc get paid? Should taxpayers pay more taxes to cover these costs? Should we eliminate half of our police force? Should we just eliminate most of the street laws? Should we just allow everyone to speed and run red lights as they please with no consequence? Should we just assume that all drivers are good drivers and will never do anything to hurt anyone once law enforcement and a few hundred laws go away? Should we allow citizens to volunteer as law enforcement? What’s your answer to this?

    I see one police car per day for every 25 miles I drive here in the city. Where is this police state that you’re referring to? Because of photo enforcement, we were a surveilance state. Now we’re a police state all because there are a few laws in the books (as there have been ever since the invention of the motor vehicle) that dictate what we may or may not do on public roads?

    Good lord, I hope you’re not taking those laws too personal. I’m pretty sure they were meant for everyone. If, by law, red means stop in the driver’s manual, then there must be a reason why it’s the law. It’s a no-brainer… you are not alone on the road so therefore, when you have to stop, it’s usually to allow other vehicles the right-of-way. Now, without that stoplight or stop sign at the intersection, is it ok for everyone to go at the same time? What do you suppose will happen when Jack Rabbit and Imina Rush meet each other at an intersection containing no traffic control devices?

    I don’t care what world you live on or what cave you came from. Everything around us needs some sort of control. Do we allow our kids to run rampant throughout the store? I think not. A good parent would keep control of them. Does the cashier at Mcdonalds cuss and swear at you because you complained your burger was cold? Who would you hold responsible for controling these employees? Most of the people that are in control are either leaders or they are tyrants. If they’re tyrants, then they need to be tossed out. Most leaders and legislators only want to do what they can to help make the streets safer. But they do need to make money because they need to live just like everyone else. When we get tyrants, control freaks, and corrupt individuals in office, what do we do? Either we throw them out or we vote them out.

    But just please tell me, what is your solution to law enforcement, and if you figure out the fact that we need them after all, how will they be getting paid if not through fines and citations? Revenue has to come from somewhere. Where? Bake sales? By selling candy door to door? Flipping burgers? Prostitution? Selling the drugs they’ve confiscated? I don’t know, dude. I’m stumped by your way of thinking here.

  13. 4409 says:

    I suggest people read all the comments and they will find out that you’re nothing more than a hamster with straw man arguments and poor analogies. You deserve the government you got.

    Our conversation is over….slave on hamster!

    • LoneWolf says:

      I see, so you don’t have an answer for legitimate questions so you’re taking the easy way out. Your final answer is that we’re enslaved to a bad government.

      While I agree that the gov has plenty of room for improvement and things aren’t all that great under the current gov, they’ve never been great under any gov. Understand that no 2 people think the same. Where one man feels he doesn’t need any stinkin protection, the next guy does.. and the third wants limited protection but he doesn’t want control over his life. That my dear friend is why we the people elect our presidents. The majority of the votes wins. We get what WE voted for and we get what THEY voted for. And it’s not always the gov people need to blame for this and that, the media plays a huge part in controlling how things turn out.

      But as for the laws of the land, we the people want them. We the people can keep the laws in balance. But again, we the people have mixed reactions for everything. Our friend LAB is proof that we don’t all think the same. What he wants isn’t the same as what we want. What I want isn’t the same as what you want. It’s very rare that any of us can and will change each other’s minds. You’re not happy with the current laws but I have no complaints. I do not feel insecure and I don’t feel as though big bro is out to track my every movement. I’m sure we all have a great big profile in some central database somewhere and the day may come when it’s used in the wrong way. But until then, I’ll just keep on living my life as always.

      I know a lot about what’s going on out there. Yeah, there’s some pretty scary stuff, I’ll agree. But as for rules of the road, there are millions of cars on the streets everyday. There HAS to be some form of control. Without it, there’d be nothing but chaos. Why? Because no 2 people think alike, so therefore, no 2 people drive the same. There’ll always be a few thorns among the roses. That’s why we need law enforcement.

    • LoneWolf says:

      So how about this analogy: Cops are posing as minors in order to lure potential sex offenders for the big bust. I know this for a fact because I’ve read about it in the news many times. Many would argue that this is a victimless crime since no child was harmed in the process. So, are we going to be hypocritical by jumping on the bandwagon and say these people deserve a hundred years in prison, or do we stand on the side of potential sex offenders who themselves have become victim of government control? How do you answer this knowing that there are many loving parents out there who are concerned over their childrens’ safety and who want to see these offenders locked up for good?

  14. Dr Jett says:

    LoneWolf & Oh my,
    You both are lost in the land of the lame. READ THE DORNSIFE CASE. Who cares about stupid examples of mental masturbation. I’ve tried to help you get the information that explains the critical details about our current form of law harrassment instead of law enforcement. If the courts enforced the traffic laws uniformly as dictated in the Federal Laws in the UVC then we wouldn’t have a problem. Since the states ignore the Federal Laws to collect more revenue, we have a constant problem of our US Constitutional rights being violated by the courts. How many millionaire lawyers and judges do we need when they don’t obey the laws and are merely interested in robbing the citizens under the guise of safety.

    • LoneWolf says:

      Doc, when’s the last time you’ve been to the court houses? Something has to pay all those expenses. The buildings are enormous and the daily electricity is a thousand times more than what you pay in a single month. There are hundreds of employees who work in those buildings. They need to get paid. The police departments have several employees in each division and precinct. They all need to get paid. If attorneys are making millions, it’s probably off of investments. Do a little research on state salaries and you’ll see that salaries range from 20k/yr – 200k/yr, nobody’s making a million/yr. Our own gov makes less than a hundred grand. It’s unfortunate but true that many others within the state’s judicial and administrative branches do earn more than she does.

      I don’t sit around and mope over what these people are earning. They’ve spent 10’s of thousands on their education. Wouldn’t you expect some payback?

      As for the state generating revenue and not enforcing laws according to federal standards, I wouldn’t dispute that. It’s one of the reasons why I oppose photo enforcement… it generates extra revenue much more than what our police force would normally generate and it does absolutely nothing to remove dangerous drivers from the streets. (in addition to all the other reasons)

      I fail to see any threats here other than photo enforcement. I don’t see an out-of-control government in this state and I don’t see any fat hogs living freely off of my dollars. I do see people working hard to try and improve safety on our streets and I do take notice of various engineering tests on our roads so in order for these to be possible, someone in the state must be brainstorming.. Whenever they find something that’ll make us all happy, they’ll go with it. They tried testing photo enforcement. We hated it but a lot of other people liked it. We’d have no choice but to live with it if that’s what the majority of the people want.

      We the people still control our gov. But understand that we don’t all think the same. Read my recent response to 4409…

      • Dr Jett says:

        Read the Dornsife case. All of the citizens rights violations are clearly stated. Everything else you are talking about justifies the government robbing us. I don’t have time to explain it if you don’t want to read the Federal laws and learn. It takes less time to read than typing your meaningless blogs. It will open your eyes to the larger problem of a government run amok. Enjoy, its free to read while you still have any rights left.

        • LoneWolf says:

          Doc, the last I checked, I have lots of rights. I’m not a political doomsayer and I certainly don’t fall for conspiracy theories and political smears. Secondly, the case you pointed out has little to do with anything I’ve mentioned. Imho, states need more power over certain federal laws because the federal law doesn’t work consistently in every state. The immigration issue is one such example. I’d be a lot more concerned about the feds having more control over certain issues than I would the state.

          • Dr Jett says:

            The reason the Dornsife case has little to with your blogs is because you have no comprehension of the larger picture. The states don’t have the right to supersede the federal laws. Read the case again and pay attention this time. Then look up the statues and read them. It will clarify why this case states drivers rights better than anything else that I have seen. Don’t keep believing the tricks petrated by the state. Listen to 4409 if you need more help.

          • LoneWolf says:

            Doc, why are you all for the federal law if it happens to work in someone’s favor but not if it goes against the grain on other issues?

            When states pass laws legalizing Mary-J for medicinal purposes, the feds can still step in and bust people for using it because possession is still a federal crime. It happened to some poor unfortunate cancer patient in California and it could continue to happen to anyone who uses it even though the state legalizes its use. A lot of people want it. The state makes them happy and gives it to them. But the feds step in and says no, you can’t have it even though it’s one of the greatest pain killers around.. and a natural one at that. Who would you stand up for in this case? The feds or the state?

            Yes, I’m well aware that federal law trumps state laws. I’m also aware that states do, in fact, pass laws that break federal laws from time to time. SB1070 is possibly another example. The state enacted it because the state and most of its citizens wanted something done about illegal immigrants since the feds weren’t doing much of anything.

            Answer me this: How would you feel if the federal gov. made photo enforcement mandatory in every city and every state across the country but many of the states wrote laws to outlaw them? Those laws would be useless against the federal law, correct?

            All I’m saying is don’t be so quick to pat the federal government on the back. Liberty and the constitution works both ways.. for the gov and for the people.

            And fyi, states have lawsuits against them each and every single day because of the way some laws are written. Then we have lobbyist organizations like Redflex’s APCO who fight aggressively to change laws in their favor. You have organizations like CF which fights against them. Our laws constantly take a beating from all sides. This one case you pointed out is just one of thousands.. judges don’t all think the same. The outcome isn’t always the same. Juries are inconsistent. There is, in fact, a lot of bias over many issues. (Photo enforcement is one of them)

            And why are my blogs suddenly meaningless just because I don’t see eye to eye on the law enforcement issue? You never complained about them when I blasted photo enforcement time and time again.. (I personally don’t care what you think.. you’re entitled to the first amendment.. but I’m just saying….)

  15. Stacey says:

    Brooksvile City Council Ends Program at Last Minute:

  16. Stacey says:

    A new website called Highway of Hereos has been created to honor fallen soldiers and public servants. The website will list the funeral procession route for those who would like to pay tribute to those have died serving their country.

    At the bottom of the page there is a sign up for alerts link.

    http://www.azhighwayofheroes.com/

    • 4409 says:

      This comment is NOT anti-cop it’s pro-peace officer.

      Stacey, do you mean pay tribute to those that have died handing out revenue generating tickets, ruining people’s lives, stealing, and harassing 90% of the people they come into contact with?

      Maybe if they started acting like true servants and peace officers and not thieves I might be interested.

      They MUST stop enforcing unconstitutional “laws” and statutes and get back to protecting property but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

      These thieves make $80,000- $150,000 a year with overtime and incentives. I feel bad for anyone who has had their life ended but to worship thieves is like having Stockholm syndrome.

      No different than worshiping a troop who kills people in unconstitutional, undeclared wars of aggression.

      Thou shall not steal and thou shall not kill!

      Also if you look at the site look at why Carlos Ledesma died…for Marijuana…WTF…are you serious?

      He died because of Marijuana….I don;t like the stuff but Marijuana is a plant that god gave us, is completely harmless, and grows out of the freaking ground.

      This is why the so called War on drugs is a complete joke and his death shows you how bizarre law enforcement has become when they’re getting into shoot outs and dying over a plant.

      Sorry, but from my perspective and until they leave me alone the Police departments are becoming nothing more than gangs with dry cleaned uniforms.

      • LoneWolf says:

        Damn, 4409, get a life already! These people put their lives on the line for all of us and I’m so sorry you can’t see beyond the political red tape and understand that they are human beings, most of who wish to fulfill our need for public safety and security. A couple of bad apples don’t represent the entire police force so get over it.

        • 4409 says:

          This comment is NOT anti-cop it’s pro-peace officer.

          Keep licking to the boots of tyranny and see how far you get.

          You don’t get it and probably never will, they are NOT fulfilling a “public” need they are fulfilling THEIR needs for more revenue.

          As far as your bad apples analogy that fails on its face because their policy of enforcing unconstitutional statutes to seek revenue makes the whole cart rotten by default.

          If they were abiding by the actual “law” and were “peace officers” then I am all for the fact is they are nothing more than code enforcers for the STATE to raise revenue.

          Think about it, they won’t even come to your house and fill out a report if your car is stolen….THAT is the epitome of the service you get but some guy riding an electric bike has 7 squad cars and 14 cops surrounding him.

          Wake up and smell the coffee!

          • LoneWolf says:

            There’s nothing new here. They’ve been doing this since long before we were born. Why do you suppose we keep wearing out the old phrase “cops are out to make their quota” everytime a hundred of them seemingly appear from thin air?

            I don’t dispute the fact that the system isn’t perfect. It never has been and probably never will be. I could care less that they’re raising revenue off of violators. A lot of people learn their lessons when there’s a price to pay. And yeah, I do have a problem with cops pulling people over for doing 1 – 5mph over the speed limit. That’s obviously more of a revenue issue than a safety one.. But many cops use their own judgment and issue warnings instead of revenue-generating citations.

            I had 7 cops pull me over in Snottsdale at one time because one of my passengers threw something out of the back window of my van and it hit the car behind me. They had a friggin tow truck waiting as well. They made us all step out. I gave them permission to search the vehicle (I know I didn’t have to but I had nothing to hide) and they gave me a breathilyzer (sp?) test. The cop wasn’t happy with the results because it showed up as 0 so he made me take it again. He thought for sure it was wrong. Needless to say, the jerk found absolutely nothing on me. One passenger had a warrant (the same dumbass who tossed something out the window.. was a friend of my room-mates’ but I never cared for the guy) so he was taken in (no hard feelings on my part). But just because of this particular incident, I don’t think badly about all cops. That’s just something I’d expect from Snottsdale anyway. If you would’ve been around with a camera, you probably would’ve had a field day with this one. I’ve always thought Mesa and Snottsdale cops were the worst. I’ve never had probs with Phx cops but that’s not to say everybody doesn’t.

            But all I’m saying is that there are good cops, so-so cops, and then there are bad cops and power-hungry ones. And yeah, some of the revenue-raising is questionable. But as far as my own thoughts are concerned, the system isn’t as purely evil as you make it to be.

        • Dr Jett says:

          Wake up LoneWolf,
          Cops rarely put their lives on the line for us. Most of them are too busy robbing us. Read what 4409 says.

          • LoneWolf says:

            Got proof that they don’t? I can show you proof that they do…

            • Dr Jett says:

              I think the number of cops that use a gun in a dangerous situation is 1%, but that was information that I read a while back. I do know from personal experience that 95% of my experiences with cops is either getting robbed or hearing how they aren’t capable of helping me with a problem that would require a cop because of some lame excuse. I even did their work for them and volunteered to work undercover and they said that although I could solve the crime with their help that I would be endangering myself. I told them that I would sign a waiver and solve the crime at my own risk. They still wouldn’t help even after I did all of the detective work for them and handed the case to them. Why should I have any respect for them or consider them heroes?

            • LoneWolf says:

              Because you need a license and training in police/investigation work. You can do your own investigations and you can even make citizen arrests, but cops discourage any type of vigilante activity because of dangers involved. Unless you’re on their payroll, they’re not obligated to work with you on any investigation, including your own. You can give them whatever you found and they can take it as a lead, but laws and their training allow them to do only so much with such a lead. There isn’t much they can do unless they have better evidence or a few actual witnesses.

              What you think is detective work, they probably believed was the equivilant of an undercover informant. You’re not a detective or investigator unless you had the proper training and are licensed to do such work.

              Just think back about those Redflex cop-wannabes who drove and parked the DPS labeled scam vans..

      • LoneWolf says:

        And another thing, Stacey has done more for this organization than you could ever imagine. She was just trying to show respect for the fallen ones by posting a valuable link here for those of us who also would like to pay our tributes to them. How dare you criticize her, whether directly or indirectly, for doing such a favor. I have a serious problem with that.

  17. photoradarscam says:

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/seeing-red-over-camera-contract/story-e6frfh4f-1225900822499

    Redflex: “We have a number of people around the United States as commission-based sales assistants,” Mr Davie said. “But it was quite a legitimate arrangement for the assistance we required.”

    The thing is, they’re getting paid commission based on fross revenue of tickets issued. Set up the right contract with the right city and you cold have an income stream for the rest of your life.

    We need to find out who everyone is on Redflex’s sales commission payrolls. This article was about the former public officials on Jefferson Parish. It’s clear that there are other possibly current and former public officials on Redflex payrolls. If we can expose this, we can do some serious harm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: