Virginia legislature passes bill preventing cops from stopping cars with no headlights, brake lights, etc

[holdover]

Driving on the wrong side of the street is a victimless crime, so is speeding through school zones and stop signs.

Im all for freedom , but there has to be some rules to the game when it comes to the public .

Im trying to wrap my head around the logic of the governor. Here's a guy who shits on freedom and the constitution and the people of his state,
now jeopardizing public safety for the purpose of social justice? That dog dont hunt. Not exactly sure what his motive is here but its not public safety .

 

[Truebeliever]

They do it for running red lights, so it's a solved problem. Ask those guys.

Again, that’s a civil fine against the owner and doesn’t reflect on the driver. The driver is responsible for the car’s operation. And I know of many cases where those red light cameras are sending the bill to the wrong people. Steal the front plate off a similar car. The plate only gets reported as missing , not stolen. People drive with someone’s plate or just covers the plate with something. It’s happening more and more. The only way to be sure is to pull the car over and check . And if people know the police won’t pull the car over for the small things, more and more people will do what I said to avoid the plate getting recorded. I personally know people who are covering their plates against red light cameras.

And the person doesn’t get the notice of violation until days later and is still driving with the violation during that time .

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

I won't comment on the drunk driving thing but... I'd like some give some food for thought on this one. Should using a 30 round, hell a 100 round magazine be illegal? Not owning one but actually using it. Is it a victimless crime? Why or why not?

 

[spat]

Again, that’s a civil fine against the owner and doesn’t reflect on the driver. The driver is responsible for the car’s operation. And I know of many cases where those red light cameras are sending the bill to the wrong people. Steal the front plate off a similar car. The plate only gets reported as missing , not stolen. People drive with someone’s plate or just covers the plate with something. It’s happening more and more. The only way to be sure is to pull the car over and check . And if people know the police won’t pull the car over for the small things, more and more people will do what I said to avoid the plate getting recorded. I personally know people who are covering their plates against red light cameras.

Running a red light and defective headlights are the same class of violation.

You are arguing that red light and speed cameras don't work.

Then we should get rid of them all.

 

[holdover]

Lets wargame this out , Can you imagine The traffic in the citys without those victimless traffic laws?

 

[Darth]

My personal experience with State police is that it's invitation for papers, who are, where have you been, where are going, looking around in the car with a flash light, etc.

My experience with local police is non- exsiststant because in the 5-7 times I've ever been pulled over in my entire life it was by a state trooper. Usually for said headlight, liscence plate light, etc.

I've never ever been pulled over by a broome county sheriff. Keep in mind I pass one almost everyday for the past 10 years.

In the hierarchy of them it's always been Sheriff>City PD>Troopers.

I've never had a single bad intetaction with any cops even when I was pulled over.

And I still feel this way. Because your feelings about them or any issue should have no bearing on decision making.

 

[pjzwtl]

What the hell we can just do away with publicly maintained roads all together, problem solved.... civilization tanked

 

[Darth]

Lets wargame this out , Can you imagine The traffic in the citys without those victimless traffic laws?

Sure.

And you don't even need to imagine. You can compare states with less restrictive laws and more.

 

[Darth]

What the hell we can just do away with publicly maintained roads all together, problem solved.... civilization tanked

Muh roads.

What about muh ROADS!?

 

[Darth]

Driving on the wrong side of the street is a victimless crime, so is speeding through school zones and stop signs.

Correct.

 

[holdover]

Sure.

And you don't even need to imagine. You can compare states with less restrictive laws and more.

How about no laws? total freedom. Or only some laws? Or do you think safety might come into play

 

[holdover]

Correct.

See thats where your wrong.

 

[Darth]

I won't comment on the drunk driving thing but... I'd like some give some food for thought on this one. Should using a 30 round, hell a 100 round magazine be illegal? Not owning one but actually using it. Is it a victimless crime? Why or why not?

WOAH WOAH WOAH BUDDY!

You'll conflate 2 unrelated issues and you'll like it!

Sure 30 round magazines are cool, but are you saying COLUMBINE WAS VICTIMLESS!?

 

[Airborneguy]

Spat, I cannot follow your logic regarding intrusive searches when your answer is to use technology to circumvent the constitution completely. We know as much about how camera programs are being used surreptitiously as we do that enforcement of laws reduces crime.

If there's one thing millions definitely don't want, it's more cameras.

 

[Darth]

See thats where your wrong.

Ok. Name a victim.

And please, so we can skip a step, do not say anything along the lines of "But if you do that AND THEN HURT SOMEONE..."

 

[holdover]

WOAH WOAH WOAH BUDDY!

You'll conflate 2 unrelated issues and you'll like it!

Sure 30 round magazines are cool, but are you saying COLUMBINE WAS VICTIMLESS!?

Your twisting your facts to suit your argument. The use of that tool was definitely criminal. the possession was not.

(Columbine shooters used shot guns and tech 9 )

 

[holdover]

Ok. Name a victim.

And please, so we can skip a step, do not say anything along the lines of "But if you do that AND THEN HURT SOMEONE..."

Easy anyone ever hurt by a drunken driver or speeder

 

[alistair]

Other vehicles driving with no lights on in the middle of the night aren't a safety hazard. What could possibly go wrong?

Can't wait to see the law suit first time there is an accident caused by someone driving without lights on.

 

[alistair]

Easy anyone ever hurt by a drunken driver or speeder

So if I am falling over drunk or stoned and want to drive home without getting stopped, all I have to do is turn off my headlights?

 

[holdover]

nope just drive. You can still get a dui in the daytime , I think, Ill have to check the new laws to see if thats not racist

 

[holdover]

Lets have drunk people drive around with out lights on and see how long it takes before there is a victim.

Then when your looking into the casket of your dead daughter, at least you can be comforted by the thought that no one will be held responsible and you still still live in a free country.

 

[pjzwtl]

Lets have drunk people drive around with out lights on and see how long it takes before there is a victim.

Then when your looking into the casket of your dead daughter, at least you can be comforted by the thought that no one will be held responsible and you still still live in a free country.

But but I have a constitutional right to drive drunk or just willfully endanger everyone around me.

 

[holdover]

Eveyone knows that headlight and speeding laws were Jim crow laws intended to keep the black man down

 

[spat]

Spat, I cannot follow your logic regarding intrusive searches when your answer is to use technology to circumvent the constitution completely. We know as much about how camera programs are being used surreptitiously as we do that enforcement of laws reduces crime.

If there's one thing millions definitely don't want, it's more cameras.

Cameras in public do not offend the constitution.

Plus, they are already there.

What I'd actually like to see for this is to bypass officers in the field for traffic enforcement altogether.

Just let Karen email in the video from her dash cam and let some desk jockey handle the whole thing.

People would be a lot more careful, because your odds of getting caught would be much much higher.

Plus it would free up officers for real crime.

 

[Airborneguy]

How could an insurmountable technology be better than human interface where you have legitimate recourse in court?

The chances of defeating a camera-issued ticket are close to nil. There are numerous ways to fight and win tickets, AND any further crimes observed by the officer of record during the stop.

This forum has decried revenue generation since it's inception. Cameras are government's greatest investment along those lines.

I'm flabbergasted that you of all people would suggest this.

 

[spat]

How could an insurmountable technology be better than human interface where you have legitimate recourse in court?

The chances of defeating a camera-issued ticket are close to nil. There are numerous ways to fight and win tickets, AND any further crimes observed by the officer of record during the stop.

This forum has decried revenue generation since it's inception. Cameras are government's greatest investment along those lines.

I'm flabbergasted that you of all people would suggest this.

Then you misunderstand our concerns.

It's not about "beating tickets".

It's about fairness and constitutional protections.

I would much rather trust that a camera relays a true account of an event than an officer.

I want justice to be decided based on the most true and accurate account of an incident, not based on how someone interprets it based on what they think the guy "had coming.

There is absolutely 0 constitutional prohibition of recording an event thay occurs in public.

I would be in favor of laws limiting what government can do with those recordings as far as tracking goes and correlation of multiple data streams, etc. But there is nothing in the constitution about it at all.

Right now Google, Apple, Verizon, et al have a far more pervasive surveillance state than anything any LE agency has ever dreamed of. I trust them only slightly more than the government.

If you think eliminating red light cameras and the like will bring you one iota more privacy you are sadly mistaken. That ship has sailed.

 

[Pale Rider]

Anyone who thinks it should be legal to drive around at night without your headlights on can't possibly be very bright.

 

[Darth]

Easy anyone ever hurt by a drunken driver or speeder

Why do they have to have been hurt?

Isn't hurting or killing others, and I know this may blow the mind of some, already a crime?

 

[Darth]

Your twisting your facts to suit your argument. The use of that tool was definitely criminal. the possession was not.

(Columbine shooters used shot guns and tech 9 )

Don't forget the hi point.

 

[Airborneguy]

Then you misunderstand our concerns.

It's not about "beating tickets".

It's about fairness and constitutional protections.

I would much rather trust that a camera relays a true account of an event than an officer.

I want justice to be decided based on the most true and accurate account of an incident, not based on how someone interprets it based on what they think the guy "had coming.

There is absolutely 0 constitutional prohibition of recording an event thay occurs in public.

I would be in favor of laws limiting what government can do with those recordings as far as tracking goes and correlation of multiple data streams, etc. But there is nothing in the constitution about it at all.

Right now Google, Apple, Verizon, et al have a far more pervasive surveillance state than anything any LE agency has ever dreamed of. I trust them only slightly more than the government.

If you think eliminating red light cameras and the like will bring you one iota more privacy you are sadly mistaken. That ship has sailed.

So because we lost a battle we should concede the war? If the founders could've conceptualized the concept of constant passive surveillance, they most certainly would've created an amendment about it. We don't have "privacy" in public because the Constitution couldn't have possibly addressed such a thing. The closest example would've been agents of the government posted on every corner, and they most certainly were against such intrusions.

Cops driving around or posted in random spots cannot possibly observe every infraction. This is a fact. No matter how good I think I was, an array of modern cameras will beat me every time, on every corner, building, intersection, pole, tree, whatever. You're seriously advocating for that over human interaction which can be and has been contested effectively in court for generations?

I find this position to be highly antithetical to everything I've seen you post for years.