See, not all Republicans defend their further-right brethren!

See, not all Republicans defend their further-right brethren!

Actually, that is a very right position.  Done right, I can see the value. However, as you point out, there is no backup, so that is not being done right.  Nor do I think it would stand a constitutional test. It can be used as evidence, but not as a conviction.

This is a little unusual -- for a republican to be against privatization of a government task. Guess the corporation that won the contract didn't donate enough to the GOP! He's right, though, that this activity should be halted. Private companies should not be in the business of law enforcement.

He's right, though, that this activity should be halted.

Yeah, I love zooming through just-turned-red lights!

Crowell lists a variety of reasons as to why the bill is important: 1.) Overt government intrusion 2.) A funding arrangement that allows the companies servicing the cameras a share of the fines 3.) The fact that owners of the license plates caught on camera are fined for wrong-doing when it is often passengers or other drivers caught on film committing infractions ...cities across Missouri have given camera servicing companies control of enforcement at monitored intersections. Companies have been found guilty, as of late, of shortening the yellow light cycles - meaning more tickets and more revenue for these service vendors

I honestly don't know enough about the practice to verify if what you are accusing is true. But I will find out more about the topic and form an opinion appropriately. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention! Have a cookie!

I agree this is a dumb move by Sen. Crowell. In addition to terrorism, we need these cameras to help fight crime. These cameras could help defend someone that was photographed in another location by a camera.

I agree this is a dumb move by Sen. Crowell. In addition to terrorism, we need these cameras to help fight crime. These cameras could help defend someone that was photographed in another location by a camera.


*ahem*

*cough*

Sir.

I'm backing Sen. Crowell's stand against cameras at intersections.

Please re-read, and if you find that you still support cameras at intersections and corrupt companies taking over governmental roles you may as well start honing your typing skills 'cause you're going to need them.

Col, I think you've just outed yourself as a knee-jerk, anti-Republican as blatantly as could be possible.

Yes I am an anti-conservative Republican. I am from the GOP that is more moderate. I am from the GOP that does not believe in Nation Building (Iraq). I am from a GOP that believes in a BALANCED BUDGET. I am from a GOP that wants Border security not rewarding people that have broken our laws. I am from a GOP that believes the President should enforce our laws. Yes the current GOP does not support ANY of these things and I do not support them!

I am also against 'nation building', am pro-border security (to the hilt), and fiscally conservative, however, I do not commit off-hand smear comment against a Senator simply because he happens to be Republican, which is what I suspect happened in this case in regards to your comment:

I agree this is a dumb move by Sen. Crowell.

Either that, or you simply misread, which can happen to the best of us.

So, Col, are you for cameras at intersections?

How about parks?

Four-way stops in residential areas?

Private Citizens' mailboxes?

Col, I'm guessing you're probably in your late 50's to early 60's - correct?

Now stay with me, here.

I'm a sometimes-motorist, aged 26.

So, when you were a twenty-something, back in, oh, 1960, did you feel unsafe at traffic intersections? To the point of feeling you needed a camera crew present to monitor your and others motoring?

. Nor do I think it would stand a constitutional test. It can be used as evidence, but not as a conviction.

yall don't have these in va? they've been in place in ca for quite some time. i've never been victimized by one, but it's my understanding this type of ticket is rarely dismissed. not too long ago, a driver was not only fined, but wound up divorced when his wife opened his ticket (they mail a copy to the registered owner of the vehicle) and noticed the passenger in his car was his girlfriend.

Private companies should not be in the business of law enforcement.

exactly.

nor should we be forced to live in a fishbowl. good article!

good article!

Good.

Expect more.

This site needs them.

Private companies should not be in the business of law enforcement.

They are not in the business of law enforcement. They "are" however in the business of maintaining certain equipment that is part of law enforcement. There is no one's finger on the camera button. That is taken care of by a machine. And as far as this goes....

3.) The fact that owners of the license plates caught on camera are fined for wrong-doing when it is often passengers or other drivers caught on film committing infractions

If the camera set up is "anything" like the one in CA (yes, one got me) then this is BS. The last picture taken by the camera is through the windshield of the vehicle of the "DRIVER" of the vehicle. First pic is of the vehicle position on the road (IE: vehicle beyond stop line) second picture is of the lic plate (at least in CA it is, catches the front plate).

They are not in the business of law enforcement.

If a business is maintaining a piece of equipment that is being used to enforce the law one could say they are in the business of law enforcement. The problem the Sen. decried was that it seemed the companies were also in the business of maintaining the traffic lights as well and were 'fine tuning' them to get the most bang for their buck.


If the camera set up is "anything" like the one in CA (yes, one got me) then this is BS.

I'm not certain if the Senator is referring to the incorrect vehicle being victimized by the camera system. I would infer that it is rather that the owner of the license plate is getting the ticket rather then the actual driver of the car. That's the problem. Thanks for the information regarding your personal experience, though. Did they (what agency or was it the state?) send you their copies of the pictures?

They are not in the business of law enforcement. If a business is maintaining a piece of equipment that is being used to enforce the law one could say they are in the business of law enforcement. The problem the Sen. decried was that it seemed the companies were also in the business of maintaining the traffic lights as well and were 'fine tuning' them to get the most bang for their buck. If the camera set up is "anything" like the one in CA (yes, one got me) then this is BS. I'm not certain if the Senator is referring to the incorrect vehicle being victimized by the camera system. I would infer that it is rather that the owner of the license plate is getting the ticket rather then the actual driver of the car. That's the problem. Thanks for the information regarding your personal experience, though. Did they (what agency or was it the state?) send you their copies of the pictures?

Sorry but your logic is flawed. Following your logic: Smith & Wesson (firearm mfg) maintain most major police department firearms. But there is no way on this green earth that anyone would say they were in the law enforcement business.

The state sent me the ticket with attached photos. By CA law the photos "must" accompany the ticket. And yes that is the way they do it. They send it to the owner of the vehicle. But that very reason is "why" the last photo. The one actually showing the driver. If it isn't you, you show up in court with the ticket and attached photos (actually the photos are printed on the ticket). Show the judge the pictures. If it isn't you tell him who it is and you get to walk out. So really either way you look at it the senators statement shows he does "not" know what he's talking about. That is if it's "anything" like CA. I'd be more than willing to bet it is.

Thanks for the information, drmiler, I've never been privy to a ticket or know of anyone who has though we have the cameras all over the place here in Jefferson City, MO. The same goes for all other major cities in Missouri such as St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield, and Columbia.