Thread: Would Like Your Opinion Please

Originally Posted by IndianaJones

For someone to say they thought nothing could happen if they threw away 70 speeding tickets, I would believe them to be an illegal. How could anyone who is a legal immigrant with a valid drivers license truthfully not know the importance of speeding tickets? Because illegals pay no heed to laws would make me believe that person was an illegal.

I know a few citizens that think the same way as this women and I'd bet my paycheck she's a citizen.

legal

When the President OBVIOUSLY takes laws lightly, people are going to start taking laws lightly.

I have been saying that for years. When your allow any law to be so flagrantly and publicly flaunted, and with government sanction, as we have the immigration laws - all other laws become less absolute.

Police said Cisneros said she threw her speeding tickets away because she thought nothing could happen to her if she didn't pay them.
Clark said Cisneros faces some $11,000 in fines and could have her license suspended

Well this should tell everyone that she is ILLEGAL. She knows all too well that nothing will happen to her. If they are letting illegal child molesters, murderers, rapists go free, why would they lock up someone who has 70 tickets?

I'll bet her insurance bill is in the 5 figures per month. Its amazing she still has a liscense.

Police said Cisneros said she threw her speeding tickets away because she thought nothing could happen to her if she didn't pay them.

Originally Posted by sippy

Well this should tell everyone that she is ILLEGAL.

No, what this tells me is; that she was doing what everyone in this state was doing up until about 1 year ago. In the past, if you got a camera speeding ticket in the mail, if you didn't pay, you go off, because the ticket was not actually served on you by an officer. That law changed about 1 year ago.

So, her actions tell me she is just ignorant of the law, allot like most citizens.

Why don't they just take her car away. If she is caught again, it will be jail time. She most likely does NOT have insurance.

No, what this tells me is; that she was doing what everyone in this state was doing up until about 1 year ago. In the past, if you got a camera speeding ticket in the mail, if you didn't pay, you go off, because the ticket was not actually served on you by an officer. That law changed about 1 year ago.

Marineinspector, that's good they changed the law. Hopefully she'll continue to get tickets not knowing the law has changed.

I'm going to differ a bit on this one. I am an old believer that we have far too many laws and far too much Big Brother oversight.

While I am appalled at this woman's blatant disrespect for the existing laws, I am a believer that no person commits a crime unless harm is done to another person or there is such clear intent to do harm or recklessness of action that the person should have known would or could harm another person. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Founding fathers would have been appalled by the way that traffic laws are enforced.

In this case, it appears that the woman was "caught" by traffic cameras. Since no law enforcement officer seems to have seen the woman speeding, we cannot know if she was driving dangerously or simply above an arbitrarily posted speed. I use the word "arbitrarily" because most speed limits have not increased since the days when Americans were driving two-ton cars with primitive suspensions, drum brakes, bias ply tires, steel dashboards and no seatbealts.

Here's my take on how traffic laws should be enforced. As previously stated, there should be no crime unless a person is genuinely driving recklessly or unless the driver causes injury to another person (which would of course include damage to property). Limited liability through mandatory insurance should go out the window. As it stands, the state sets minimum coverage limits and will almost never impose penalties or assess torts in excess of the stated coverage minimums except in the case of claims against commercial carriers. That's wrong. Anglo-Saxon law requires just compensation, not statutorily limited compensation. If someone loses a leg and can no longer work because of your demonstrable negligence, you should have to support that person until such time as he can again become self-sufficient or perpetually if the injury is such that he may never again be self-sufficient. Yes, people will say that such a law is harsh and even unfair, and that prior restraint as now practiced is better and easier on everyone. I disagree on at least two counts.

First off, the current state of traffic law is emblematic of the attitude of unaccountability in this nation in general. So long as penalties are limited, conduct will be restrained not by the potential harm one may do to another, but rather by the potential consequences. If you know that the worst that can happen is that your insurance rates will go up and that you may have to pay a fine of several hundred dollars, you may well engage in behavior that may kill or maim another human being. If you may be responsible for the actual harm you cause, which may mean that you have to compensate for the death of another person, you are much more likely to be responsible. As it is, there is a disconnect between action and consequence because the consequence for the actor is not tied to the consequence for the victim, but rather to a separate and limited consequence.

Conversely, traffic laws as they exist give law enforcement FAR too much power. It is accurately said that there are so many traffic laws on the books that a determined officer following any given driver on any given day could write any of several citations. So it is that a person guity of no real crime other than disobeying safety guidelines could be deprived of hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines in the short term and of his or her independence in the long term if that person was specifically targeted by the state. That's because an endless string of ticky-tack citations can easily lead to either license suspension or the inability to obtain state-required insurance. Travelling in your own car for your own personal business without either a license or insurance may result not only in confiscation of a very expensive piece of property (your car), but also in incarceration and the perpetual payment of "tribute" in the form of outrageous surcharges required in order to ever be allowed to drive again. And all this for as little as a collection of minor rules violations that should never have been crimes in the first place because there is no victim.

Of course, the way that the state obtained such power over your personal travel which, regardless of how many times you have been told is a privilege, is in fact an unalienable RIGHT according to 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123 and to Thompson v Smith and a string of other court cases as long as your arm, is that it converted "driving" to a commercial and therefore regulable act.

According to the findings in Thompson v Smith, supra (quoting 11 am Jur 1st):

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Because a person has a right to travel by means of his own property, and because no true right may be subjected to government licensure, the state came up with a scam whereby you surrender the equitable title to your car in exchange for an inferior certificate of title. The state retains equitable title and so may require licensure for the operation of "its" property. But I digress.

Again, I m not defending the woman's blatant disregard of the law as it stands. She accepted certain terms and conditions when she subjected herself to licensure. The idea, however, that she should lose her car or her job (which is what would happen if she lost her license) for a series of "offenses" for which there is no victim is absurd. I would agree with the calls for harsh punishment if there was even one case cited in which she appeared to be genuinely reckless or to have caused injury, but it instead appears that she has simply been guilt of tripping automated speeding cameras to the harm of no one except the rigid and over-reaching authority of the state.

The idea, however, that she should lose her car or her job (which is what would happen if she lost her license) for a series of "offenses" for which there is no victim is absurd. I would agree with the calls for harsh punishment if there was even one case cited in which she appeared to be genuinely reckless or to have caused injury, but it instead appears that she has simply been guilt of tripping automated speeding cameras to the harm of no one except the rigid and over-reaching authority of the state.

That is her problem, in my opinion. She should have thought of that at the same time she was thinking about speeding to the point of getting 70 TICKETS...The sooner she's off the road, the sooner the roads will be safer.

70 tickets is not like 1 or 2... 70 IS A LOT OF TICKETS, AND IT IS A LOT MORE THAN I HAVE EVER HEARD OF ANYONE HAVING...

If she's tripping the automated speeding cameras that much, it's just a matter of time before someone gets maimed or worse yet, killed by her recklessness , and it is reckless to drive in such a manner that one gets 70 TICKETS.

An Illegal would`nt Have a legal drivers license. But Legal or not, her license should have been revoke after the 3rd time of not paying. Either the courts, the police or DMV is being way too lenient here.

She should have learned by her mistakes by now. She has`nt, so that tells me it`s no mistake.

Originally Posted by SherriCorrell

The idea, however, that she should lose her car or her job (which is what would happen if she lost her license) for a series of "offenses" for which there is no victim is absurd. I would agree with the calls for harsh punishment if there was even one case cited in which she appeared to be genuinely reckless or to have caused injury, but it instead appears that she has simply been guilt of tripping automated speeding cameras to the harm of no one except the rigid and over-reaching authority of the state.

That is her problem, in my opinion. She should have thought of that at the same time she was thinking about speeding to the point of getting 70 TICKETS...The sooner she's off the road, the sooner the roads will be safer.

70 tickets is not like 1 or 2... 70 IS A LOT OF TICKETS, AND IT IS A LOT MORE THAN I HAVE EVER HEARD OF ANYONE HAVING...

If she's tripping the automated speeding cameras that much, it's just a matter of time before someone gets maimed or worse yet, killed by her recklessness , and it is reckless to drive in such a manner that one gets 70 TICKETS.

As I said, I cannot even come close to justifying her decision to disregard the tickets that she got. However, I think that the notion that consistently exceeding the speed limit at a given traffic camera by the few mph necessary to get a ticket indicates a high probability, much less a certainty, that someone will get "maimed or worse yet, killed" is a bit much. Most areas of town, speed limits are absurdly low and are set more for the purposes of generating revenue than for safety reasons. I'll wager that I exceed the speed limit by a sufficient margin to get a ticket pretty much every day on my commute, but I do so in the flow of traffic. A police officer can make the determination that traffic is flowing at, say five or six mph over the speed limit and allow for the fact that the speed is safe for the conditions. A robotic camera cannot.