Arnold, Mo., sued over use of red-light cameras

Feb 28, 2008 Full story: Southeast Missourian 28

“In essence, it sort of compels you to finger your wife or child or someone else you loaned the car to”

The first Missouri community to install red-light cameras is now facing a federal lawsuit. via Southeast Missourian

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
WaterCruiser

Kansas City, MO

#1 Mar 9, 2008
Good for the lawsuit. Red light cameras are revenue generators; period. They are unconstitutional under Missouri's Constitution so they make the fine a civil penalty so they can even use them. If they were really concerned about law enforcement and public safety, they wouldn't install something that tickets law abiding citizens who properly license their vehicle, while letting all the scumbag felons who put fake temp tags on their cars go because you can't identify the owner of the vehicle. It's like the no car chase policy; if you're a scumbag felon, run because we wont chase you, law abiding citizen that properly pulls over for the officer, is polite, courteous, cooperative, apologetic, he gets a ticket for his cooperation. So we reward the felons and punish the good people, all the name in more revenue.
Richmond Hts Resident

AOL

#2 Mar 10, 2008
WaterCruiser, you hit the nail right on the head! I could not have said it better myself!
Oh PLEASE

Saint Louis, MO

#3 Jan 11, 2009
The person that filed this lawsuit admits to running the red light...now she's boo-hooing because it was a "camera" on a pole that caught her and not an "actual" person. Give me a break! What's the difference? She's still guilty! And she (as well as the rest of us) ought to get used to "robots" doing things for us. Does she actually think the car she was driving through the red light was "hand made"? She's guilty! Pay the damned ticket and be done with it! Geez! Grow up!!!!
ResistTyrants

Gaithersburg, MD

#4 Jan 28, 2009
Oh PLEASE wrote:
The person that filed this lawsuit admits to running the red light...now she's boo-hooing because it was a "camera" on a pole that caught her and not an "actual" person. Give me a break! What's the difference? She's still guilty! And she (as well as the rest of us) ought to get used to "robots" doing things for us. Does she actually think the car she was driving through the red light was "hand made"? She's guilty! Pay the damned ticket and be done with it! Geez! Grow up!!!!
What the hell is wrong with you? Why do you defend the police state? You say we should get used to robots doing things For US, yet you have no problem when they start doing things To US.
The only robot that I am concerned about is the robotic "group-think" that seems to be so prevalent in society today. Grow up you say? I say screw you, and your jack-booted thug kissing ass. I'll bet you are one of those mindless sheep who smile at the TSA officers, and piss your pants when a cop approaches your car. You and the boot lickers like you are going to deserve what you get when this whole Nazi Germany nightmare police state comes for you in full force.
The reason this person sued is because there was no "Officer" present to witness the event, no-one there to testify. Municipalities all over the country have been caught changing the timing of these lights that are equipped with cameras, they do this to generate Revenue, and schmucks like you willingly pay it, and roll over on your back and submit to the police state. How do you think these counties will make up for the shortfall that use to come to them in the form of taxes now that half the country is out of work, or had their hours cut? It's real simple, they re going to squeeze those who still have it just a little bit harder, and I'm sure they are thrilled that this nation is filled with cowardly little bastards like you who will continue to pay, without so much a whimper.
Arnold Resident

Lake Ozark, MO

#5 Jan 28, 2009
Really - police state and Nazi Germany? So if you don't have every freedom, you have no freedom? Take a Prozac. If anyone can show me there have been less accidents at those intersections since the installation of the cameras, then I am absolutely for them.
Yes_Really

Carthage, MO

#6 Jan 28, 2009
Arnold Resident wrote:
Really - police state and Nazi Germany? So if you don't have every freedom, you have no freedom? Take a Prozac. If anyone can show me there have been less accidents at those intersections since the installation of the cameras, then I am absolutely for them.
Yes, Really!
Once again the age old argument is pushed forth, You want me to give up my liberty for security? Like with the Patriot Act? The founding fathers had words of wisdom that should at least be considered in these situations.
Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Now it may be true that our founding fathers never envisioned red light cameras, The one thing that they did know was that eventually corrupt men end up in control, because they are the most ruthless among us who will stop at nothing to rise to a position of power. They sought to limit the size and scope of that power, as do I! Big Brother has no place in a free society.
Oh PLEASE

Saint Louis, MO

#7 Jan 29, 2009
ResistTyrants:

So...I guess, even though the woman admits to running the red light, because she wasn't caught by an "officer", she's not guilty? That's absurd!

I guess if I want to carry this to further extreme, it would seem that, based on what you've said, anything done illegally is "okay" if one is not caught in the act, by an "officer" of the law.

Hmmmmm...I still say the whiner should pay the fine and be more cautious and abide the law of a red light...which happens to not be an "officer" either.

Question? Do you stop for red lights? Or do you only stop when "officers" are present?
ResistTyrants

Saint Charles, MO

#8 Jan 29, 2009
Oh PLEASE wrote:
ResistTyrants:
So...I guess, even though the woman admits to running the red light, because she wasn't caught by an "officer", she's not guilty? That's absurd!
I guess if I want to carry this to further extreme, it would seem that, based on what you've said, anything done illegally is "okay" if one is not caught in the act, by an "officer" of the law.
Hmmmmm...I still say the whiner should pay the fine and be more cautious and abide the law of a red light...which happens to not be an "officer" either.
Question? Do you stop for red lights? Or do you only stop when "officers" are present?
No not exactly, Not everything done illegally is OK, that is absurd, However, both civil, and criminal cases are routinely thrown out on technicalities all the time. It is much better for 1000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man to wrongly be punished by the law. I know that is not a popular theme, with Guantonamo Bay, and Gitmo style justice so callously practiced by this country today,but it was the truth a thousand years ago, and it is just as true today.
You asked if I stopped at red lights, and the answer of course is yes, But please understand that my actions are not governed by big brother, they are governed by common sense. For the record, I also assume that just because a light is green doesn't mean that I can fly through an intersection without being aware of my surroundings, and the actions of other drivers. For me it is personal responsibility, not "fear of the state" that governs my actions.
Do you know that most of those cameras that you see are put in place by Lockeed Martin, did you also know that those cameras, with a simple software upgrade are capable of facial recognition? We are living in a control grid, and the grid is closing in on us, so of course I will fight it tooth and nail. I am not ashamed of it, nor do I feel that it is a radical thing to oppose the State in matters of my personal freedoms. It's "We the People", not "We the Sheeple", It's time for a free people to take responsibility for their own actions and stop relying on the "nanny state" to do it for them
Mike

Chesterfield, MO

#9 Feb 1, 2009
Resisttyrants. While I agree (at least to an extent) with a few of the points you make - while you accuse anyone whom ISN'T the person filing (or agreeing with) the lawsuit of '...rolling over for the jack-booted thugs...' you seem to espouse exactly the opposite simply for the sake of being opposite. You ridicule those who conform and support those who do not - and I wonder why. Are surveillance tapes unconstitutional? Just for the record, I agree with the felon angle in some of these posts, but what would happen if these felons were suddenly being executed (following current legal avenues, of course). Now is that unfair because 'they just ran a red light.' Maybe in a stolen car. Perhaps after executing an entire family. And it was their ninth offense. Traffic enforcement can (and most certainly DOES) get carried away oftentimes. However, traffic enforcement DOES also save lives. You do not understand the entirety of the circumstances. At least you certainly don't seem to. Too bad, because you seem fairly intelligent. Get off your soapbox and concentrate on ways to make things better instead of just more convoluted.
ResistTyrants

United States

#10 Feb 1, 2009
Mike,
Thanks for the reasoned response, I assure you that I am not taking the opposite approach, just to be a pain. I believe in the concepts that I wrote about. I believe in personal responsibility, and I believe in personal freedom. I would like to address the many issues that you raised, but for the sake of brevity, I'll limit my response to just a few main points. Surveillance tapes are not unconstitutional, if you are in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore you are fair game, I do not like it, but it is the law, and has been affirmed in numerous court cases, including the Supreme Court.
As for felons being executed, While in theory I agree with capital punishment, I no longer think that it should be carried out, "The State" as we know it today is just too corrupt, there have been too many people executed for crimes that they did not commit, and many more freed when it was later found out that there was DNA evidence clearing them of the crime. Most of these people were railroaded by corrupt judges and prosecutors, or forced into a confession by corrupt police.
For the imaginary felons that just executed that entire family, My only question is, Was that family armed? Many of these criminals would have been dealt with long before they had a chance to repeat their crimes over and over, somebody would have delivered justice the old fashioned way.
"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."
I do agree that traffic laws save lives, seat belts save lives, but that is not the reason that they are mandatory, it is not out of the sates love for you and the quality of your life that these laws are on the books. The insurance lobby fought hard to get these laws on the books, because it reduces their out of pocket expenses when an accident occurs, of course "The State" went along with it because it was a good source of revenue for them. I wear my seat belt, but it should be my decision, not the states. Did your insurance rates drop when the seat belt law was enacted? Anyone with common sense would wear a seat belt, anyone who does not would greatly reduce their chances of losing life and limb. Liberty isn't always pretty, it isn't supposed to be, but it beats the hell out of where we are headed.
Yes, I get very angry when folks "roll over" to the state, All they seem to see from the state is the velvet gloves, I am more concerned with the iron fists under those velvet gloves.
Believe me Mike, I do see the entirety of the situation, that is why I am so passionate about my beliefs.
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. George Bernard Shaw
baby grant

Saint Louis, MO

#13 Apr 19, 2009
what if someon else is driving your car
crank city

Saint Louis, MO

#14 Apr 19, 2009
just revenue generator
Tat

Arnold, MO

#15 Oct 10, 2010
I wonder how much it costs to get a lawyer to do this for you, personally I'd rather pay the lawyer than pay the city for these. If you out and right just run a red light then you should have to pay. But if your vehicle doesn't have anti-lock brakes, or your driving in snow or ice and you know you'll slide into an intersection you have to now think "well should I just slam on my brakes and hope I keep some control of my vehicle to avoid that ticket or go through" I don't like losing control of my car so I would go through.
The Answer

Arnold, MO

#16 Oct 11, 2010
To answer your question Tat, the couple speeding ticket lawyers I've talked to will dismiss the ticket for 50 bucks, half the price that the city charges you, and if you have the Hyatt legal plan like I do through my work they'll dismiss it for free.
the truth teller

Jefferson City, MO

#17 Oct 15, 2010
Now you have to consider this, since Arnold has been exposed for their wrong doing in this clearly unconstitutional act, they will now counter act by "chumping up" good ole fashion ticketing. "Do you know how fast you were going?".....the question is...Do you!? Going 70+ in a 65 will surely find its way of becoming, "Well you were going 82, but i'm going to cut you some slack and write it as 75".
tgb

AOL

#18 Feb 10, 2011
We are losing more and more freedon every day.!!!!! It is so sad.
MoBlonde

Saint Louis, MO

#19 Feb 13, 2011
Give a human a real job, God knows we need more jobs.
MoBlonde

Saint Louis, MO

#20 Feb 13, 2011
Oh PLEASE wrote:
The person that filed this lawsuit admits to running the red light...now she's boo-hooing because it was a "camera" on a pole that caught her and not an "actual" person. Give me a break! What's the difference? She's still guilty! And she (as well as the rest of us) ought to get used to "robots" doing things for us. Does she actually think the car she was driving through the red light was "hand made"? She's guilty! Pay the damned ticket and be done with it! Geez! Grow up!!!!
Let's see you slam on your brakes and slide through an yellow getting ready to turn red, with your child strapped in a car seat in the back with his head doing the car dummy roll because you can't take a chance and afford a ticket.
MoBlonde

Saint Louis, MO

#22 Feb 15, 2011
Chi Chi wrote:
<quoted text>What do you call a Mexican without a lawn mower? Unemployed.
Unfortunately, Generation X feels it is beneath them to due manual labor such as lawn care, and truthfully most Hispanics are hard workers and will work for low pay. Now am I thrilled that in several years Caucasian will be a minority. No I am not, then again maybe we will finally get some breaks on all the benefits that are given to minorities
Mike Smith

South San Francisco, CA

#23 Mar 7, 2011
There's big profits in the name of $afety these days.

I'm currently fighting a $381 fine for doing a rolling right turn on red into a mall parking lot.

That's right, not onto another road, but a mall parking lot with no traffic coming from the other side of the intersection.

I guesss to some of you big brother loving morons $381 is totally fair and reasonable.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Maryland Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Six Shootings in 12 Hours Leave One Dead, Many ... Fri zeb 3
KC Elite Blue Continues Dominance (Sep '13) Dec 17 Richard 3
John Burroughs? (Oct '11) Dec 11 No good 3
Ferguson braces for grand jury decision Dec 11 Vern5554566 4
How to administer and enema Dec 10 Peter4566532268 2
Maplewood police punch, kick suspect who rammed... (Jan '06) Dec 2 Mary Smith 121
Missouri's Rogue Judge John Torrence (Sep '09) Nov '14 pissed off sister 11
More from around the web

Maryland Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Maryland Heights News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Maryland Heights

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:54 pm PST

Bleacher Report 4:54PM
Previewing Giants vs. Rams
Bleacher Report 8:44 PM
Complete Week 16 Preview for New York
Bleacher Report 4:32 AM
Chiefs' Week 16 Preview vs. Steelers
Bleacher Report10:58 AM
Polamalu (Knee) Likely to Sit Sunday
ESPN 7:36 AM
Sources: Goodell says no L.A. team in 2015