- This topic has 180 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 27, 2009 at 8:22 PM #357412February 27, 2009 at 8:40 PM #356846
scaredyclassic
Participantre; ignoring jury summons; sometimes they do send a cop around to question you about your summons. people admit receiving it to the cop.
i dont know if cops routinely mirandize people before questioning. i doubt it. people confess.
you dont have to talk to the police. indeed, you almost never should. and one of the most important lessons to teach your children is to never ever ever ever ever EVER assume a policeman is your friend or trying to help you. if there is remotely any chance the target of investigation might be you…SHUT UP. i think it’s most important to tell children this, much more improtant for life and liberty than telling them that pot will ruin their life.
February 27, 2009 at 8:40 PM #357150scaredyclassic
Participantre; ignoring jury summons; sometimes they do send a cop around to question you about your summons. people admit receiving it to the cop.
i dont know if cops routinely mirandize people before questioning. i doubt it. people confess.
you dont have to talk to the police. indeed, you almost never should. and one of the most important lessons to teach your children is to never ever ever ever ever EVER assume a policeman is your friend or trying to help you. if there is remotely any chance the target of investigation might be you…SHUT UP. i think it’s most important to tell children this, much more improtant for life and liberty than telling them that pot will ruin their life.
February 27, 2009 at 8:40 PM #357288scaredyclassic
Participantre; ignoring jury summons; sometimes they do send a cop around to question you about your summons. people admit receiving it to the cop.
i dont know if cops routinely mirandize people before questioning. i doubt it. people confess.
you dont have to talk to the police. indeed, you almost never should. and one of the most important lessons to teach your children is to never ever ever ever ever EVER assume a policeman is your friend or trying to help you. if there is remotely any chance the target of investigation might be you…SHUT UP. i think it’s most important to tell children this, much more improtant for life and liberty than telling them that pot will ruin their life.
February 27, 2009 at 8:40 PM #357316scaredyclassic
Participantre; ignoring jury summons; sometimes they do send a cop around to question you about your summons. people admit receiving it to the cop.
i dont know if cops routinely mirandize people before questioning. i doubt it. people confess.
you dont have to talk to the police. indeed, you almost never should. and one of the most important lessons to teach your children is to never ever ever ever ever EVER assume a policeman is your friend or trying to help you. if there is remotely any chance the target of investigation might be you…SHUT UP. i think it’s most important to tell children this, much more improtant for life and liberty than telling them that pot will ruin their life.
February 27, 2009 at 8:40 PM #357426scaredyclassic
Participantre; ignoring jury summons; sometimes they do send a cop around to question you about your summons. people admit receiving it to the cop.
i dont know if cops routinely mirandize people before questioning. i doubt it. people confess.
you dont have to talk to the police. indeed, you almost never should. and one of the most important lessons to teach your children is to never ever ever ever ever EVER assume a policeman is your friend or trying to help you. if there is remotely any chance the target of investigation might be you…SHUT UP. i think it’s most important to tell children this, much more improtant for life and liberty than telling them that pot will ruin their life.
February 27, 2009 at 10:25 PM #356952sd_bear
Participant[quote=NeetaT]http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html[/quote]
Doesn’t work. I saw a mythbusters episode on speed cameras and NONE of the products were able to stop it.
February 27, 2009 at 10:25 PM #357254sd_bear
Participant[quote=NeetaT]http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html[/quote]
Doesn’t work. I saw a mythbusters episode on speed cameras and NONE of the products were able to stop it.
February 27, 2009 at 10:25 PM #357393sd_bear
Participant[quote=NeetaT]http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html[/quote]
Doesn’t work. I saw a mythbusters episode on speed cameras and NONE of the products were able to stop it.
February 27, 2009 at 10:25 PM #357422sd_bear
Participant[quote=NeetaT]http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html[/quote]
Doesn’t work. I saw a mythbusters episode on speed cameras and NONE of the products were able to stop it.
February 27, 2009 at 10:25 PM #357531sd_bear
Participant[quote=NeetaT]http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html[/quote]
Doesn’t work. I saw a mythbusters episode on speed cameras and NONE of the products were able to stop it.
February 28, 2009 at 9:36 AM #357162garysears
ParticipantHere is another problem with the red light cameras :
http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/
I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.
Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.
February 28, 2009 at 9:36 AM #357464garysears
ParticipantHere is another problem with the red light cameras :
http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/
I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.
Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.
February 28, 2009 at 9:36 AM #357603garysears
ParticipantHere is another problem with the red light cameras :
http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/
I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.
Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.
February 28, 2009 at 9:36 AM #357633garysears
ParticipantHere is another problem with the red light cameras :
http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/
I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.
Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.