Swoosh is the one saying they do. Not T.

RebelKev Wrote:

T-Monay820 Wrote:The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our right to privacy from unreasonable intrusion by law-enforcement agents.

T, I love you man, but if you are in public, you have already given up your rights to be private.

I think they're perfectly legal and do not invade civil rights.

Why do you disagree then?

I posted a whole explaination of the 4th and a former ruling.

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Swoosh is the one saying they do. Not T.

My bad T. I jumped the gun. ...and all this time I thought we had our FIRST disagreement. :D

RebelKev Wrote:

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Swoosh is the one saying they do. Not T.

My bad T. I jumped the gun. ...and all this time I thought we had our FIRST disagreement. :D

We did. But in a very complex way. :D

RebelKev Wrote:

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Swoosh is the one saying they do. Not T.

My bad T. I jumped the gun. ...and all this time I thought we had our FIRST disagreement. :D

I'm reading about 3 boards at once and half lit. Sorry man. I bow to you ..... My bad Bro.

T-Monay820 Wrote:We did. But in a very complex way. :D

I just don't want you to get mad at me for picking on your best friend, Nate. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

RebelKev Wrote:

T-Monay820 Wrote:We did. But in a very complex way. :D

I just don't want you to get mad at me for picking on your best friend, Nate. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Nate's a friend from school and basketball and I have a lot of respect for him.

I just think he needs to catch up with the rest of the world a little bit. He sounds very devouted to Christ (except for the judging others bit) and I wouldn't be surprised if most of his beliefs were very true and from the heart. In a perfect world, thats how we should all live, but with the nutjobs in the Middle East, we can't all be peaceable goody-goodys and expected to survive as the greatest and strongest nation in the world.

As for me, right now its Semper Fi, my United States.

You're very smart T.

RebelKev Wrote:You're very smart T.

Someone tell that to KD. :laugh:

T-Monay820 Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:it's odd how , reading between the lines, you just told me that charge and accuse are different, though you've been saying they're the same.  Interpreting the data IS charging.  Not accusing.  I like how you contradicted yourself again, by showing the difference between accuse and charge and then you wrote "accuse/charge."  The camera, through it's pictures, accuse a person.  The DA takes the pictures and interprets them.  The DA then charges you formally.

You still have yet to show where I contradicted myself. Accuse and charge are the same. But in legal terms, one is just a more formal version. Otherwise, the definitions are the same, and they are synonyms.

Second, the camera cannot accuse/charge because accusing/charging requires the ability to think and interpret. Cameras cannot think or interpret. You really need to learn how to read a dictionary/thesauraus.

The photo is the physical evidence. The camera is a tool that records the evidence. It is not the judge, prosecution or the data analysis man. It just records. It does not take a side. It does not interpret. It does not argue for or against. It cannot and does not accuse/charge a person.

You're such a moron.

of course i can read a dictionary. But a dictionary doesn't notice the subtleties, between accuse and charge.

The camera doesn't have to interpret the pics, as i've said before. The prosecution iterprets them.

As for the "moron" part, i won't hit below the belt, for everyone to read.

[quote="cant_think_of_a_witty_name"] [quote="flyingswoosh"] [quote="cant_think_of_a_witty_name"] For those keeping score at home:

That means cameras incriminate, not accuse.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:i'm not saying there aren't any court cases where red light cams have been ruled as constitutional, but can anyone actually show me one?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our right to privacy from unreasonable intrusion by law-enforcement agents. In 1967, in a landmark case, Katz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Fourth Amendment protects our right to privacy in those things that we actually keep private and those which society generally regards as private. "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection" Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967).

<a href='http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/myths.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/myths.htm</a>

i never said the camera violated my right to privacy.

flyingswoosh Wrote:the camera "poits a finger" through use of the pictures. just because something isn't human doesn't mean it can't accuse.

This is just coming down to a "you're wrong and I'm right" argument.


By the way, you are wrong.

i'm fed up with this thread and i assume you're too. I'm going to post this last time. let's say that cameras can't accuse because they are inanimate. I'll go with that. If they can't accuse, yet they are the ones catching you in the act, then it stands to reason that you can't face your accuser. Also, what about the fact that you shold go in innocent until proven guilty, instead of being presumed guilty and having to prove innocence?

I just thought i'd bring it to the attention that T-monay's dad is a huge supporter of this and has created a petition to turn the cameras back on.
Disclaimer: T's dad is cool and i'm not making fun of him, i am stating a fact.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

T-Monay820 Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:i'm not saying there aren't any court cases where red light cams have been ruled as constitutional, but can anyone actually show me one?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our right to privacy from unreasonable intrusion by law-enforcement agents. In 1967, in a landmark case, Katz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Fourth Amendment protects our right to privacy in those things that we actually keep private and those which society generally regards as private. "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection" Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967).

<a href='http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/myths.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/myths.htm</a>

i never said the camera violated my right to privacy.

You asked for a case where it was ruled constitutional. If it violates your civil rights, then its illegal. If its not illegal, then it doesn't violate your rights. Simple as that.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:

T-Monay820 Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:i'm not saying there aren't any court cases where red light cams have been ruled as constitutional, but can anyone actually show me one?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our right to privacy from unreasonable intrusion by law-enforcement agents. In 1967, in a landmark case, Katz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Fourth Amendment protects our right to privacy in those things that we actually keep private and those which society generally regards as private. "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection" Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967).

<a href='http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/myths.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/myths.htm</a>

i never said the camera violated my right to privacy.

You asked for a case where it was ruled constitutional. If it violates your civil rights, then its illegal. If its not illegal, then it doesn't violate your rights. Simple as that.

this is my last post. The case you posted has nothing to do with red light cameras. I don't know how you got the impression that it did, but you're wrong. it was about eavesdropping on a pay phone.