Calvert to get stationary License Plate Readers

[DannyMotorcycle]

I am sure I am in the minority here but I don't have much of an issue with it - AS LONG AS IT STAYS NOT FOR PROFIT. Big caveat I know. Here's my thought: I've seen them work. A couple months back I actually got pulled out of my truck at gunpoint (talk about a butthole puckering sequence of events) because a stationary State Trooper had one of these mounted on his SUV. When I drove by him on Rt 4 south, it picked up my truck and had it flagged as a stolen vehicle. Long story short - truck was towed, reported stolen, found/called in as found, City of Baltimore never cleared it. Point being, it picked me out of a mess of traffic and had it been stolen, would've brought me my truck back.

As I see it, you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy while operating outside in public (on roads, in public buildings, etc.). If you're upset that a reader captures the fact that you're crossing the Calvert/Anne Arundel County line at 340pm on a Friday - it calls into question why that upsets you. How is that any different than neighbor Tom seeing you or someone taking your picture? You're in public and therefore, can be seen and documented. So, in that aspect, I don't mind it because ultimately I think it serves the greater good without changing the dynamic of your rights.

If they start scamming it for profit, than that is an issue, because it changes the dynamic of you being found by law enforcement when needed (because of a crime or such) vs. advertising your location for the profit and benefit of a third party.

That sounds like a reason to NOT want it... The guys who can't clear a stolen vehicle out of a data base now point lethal force at your face..and you trust them to do that to someone who lawfully stopped upon request without presenting any danger? you want more of this? are you nuts? Your life was just put in danger.. real danger... That's a bad thing.. and you accept the REAL Dangers in exchange for a monetary value of a hypothetical situation? For a vehicle that was either likely insured or not worth much? Did you present a danger? if not you should probably have filed a complaint about him pointing a deadly weapon at you.

Reasonable expectation of privacy? Hell I dont' think cars should even have tags. that should be your freedom to travel if you're not endangering anyone at any moment. If you are, whoever the witness is should just keep you in sight or apprehend you. Gov't is like a giant HOA bully convention generally. Gov't is a mess. You can trust them to mess up everything they get their hands on. You'd be off your rocker or naive to want more gov't.

If they start scanning for profit? You actually have doubts that they would? I'm fairly sure they would eventually.

$216,000 to catch occasional bank robbers? here's an idea, banks can enable their own security and probably have insurance.

Revenue or public safety? which do you think teh gov't is actually more concerned with?

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

So, let's get a run down here .... It was a lie for the reasons to install the school zone speed cameras to begin with. It was a lie to the use of any revenue generated by the school zone speed cameras. And it is a lie as to reason for these license plate readers and what they will be used for. The Sheriff and his minions, along with the complicit commissioners, are nothing but proven liars, do not have the best interests of the people at heart, and are therefore against the people. Basically traitors to their offices and traitors to the people.

 

[DannyMotorcycle]

let's also realize automated law enforcement violates our right to trial by jury, just like most driving laws do. Would also not be surprised if "court fees" cost you a pretty penny even when you're innocent, which some places do (others don't).

 

[Hannibal]

That sounds like a reason to NOT want it... The guys who can't clear a stolen vehicle out of a data base now point lethal force at your face..and you trust them to do that to someone who lawfully stopped upon request without presenting any danger? you want more of this? are you nuts? Your life was just put in danger.. real danger... That's a bad thing.. and you accept the REAL Dangers in exchange for a monetary value of a hypothetical situation? For a vehicle that was either likely insured or not worth much? Did you present a danger? if not you should probably have filed a complaint about him pointing a deadly weapon at you.

I believe you're taking my experience harder than I did. Don't get me wrong, I believe it was a serious situation and given the "toys" in play, a potentially deadly one. However, the STATE Troopers did a great job IMHO. I've had bad run ins with police before (just rude or generally inflated ego type stuff), but these guys acted as I think they should've. I was handled as if I was a potential criminal because at that time, to them, I was. I wasn't pushed around, I wasn't insulted, etc. They were firm in their directives to me and seemingly followed the book until I was in their control and they could further assess the situation. Once it was all resolved, they were very apologetic but I told them I couldn't fault them for doing their job and quite honestly, I was appreciative they did. Had my truck actually have been stolen - it was nice to know they were working to get it back. That being said, I am not sure what complaint I would've made or where it would've gone other than someone saying "sorry". They were doing their job. It was just an unfortunately series of events triggered by the incompetence of the City of Baltimore.

Reasonable expectation of privacy? Hell I dont' think cars should even have tags. that should be your freedom to travel if you're not endangering anyone at any moment. If you are, whoever the witness is should just keep you in sight or apprehend you. Gov't is like a giant HOA bully convention generally. Gov't is a mess. You can trust them to mess up everything they get their hands on. You'd be off your rocker or naive to want more gov't.

You're missing my point. My point was that I find it funny where people complain about things such as their location being known when out in public. When you are out in public, you should have no expectation of privacy. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if everyone had it, but that isn't reality or practical. There are too many cameras, cell phones, cell towers, etc. A normal person shouldn't expect privacy when venturing out in public as it just doesn't exist.

If they start scanning for profit? You actually have doubts that they would? I'm fairly sure they would eventually

See my response to public safety vs. revenue.

$216,000 to catch occasional bank robbers? here's an idea, banks can enable their own security and probably have insurance.

Revenue or public safety? which do you think teh gov't is actually more concerned with?

Here's my thought: I take people at their word but essentially don't trust anyone. If you say you're going to do X - I expect you to do X. If you don't - you get called on it and pay the consequences. That being said, all this is politics and more time is spent on the wording than the value of the initiative simply because no matter what you do - you're going to piss someone or some side off. So you temper your initiative by selling it as vanilla as possible. It's all a game. Life and politics would be better if people said what they meant and simply dealt with the repercussions. Unfortunately, too many people are pu$$ies and nothing ever seems to get done.

More so, there is a balance in revenue vs. safety. More safety requires more funding. More funding requires higher taxes. Higher taxes lead to bitching by the same people demanding more safety. People seemingly want to have it all but pay for nothing. I, for one, hate red light cameras, but feel they ultimately provide a benefit and penalize law breakers without the need for dedicated police attention. Such things don't bother me. I rather it be that way than posting a patrol car at a light to catch one vehicle while 20 more violate the light while he's in the process of writing a ticket. And to be clear, I've donated plenty of money to the gov't for my violations and while it sucks - I was the one who broke the rules.

 

[Hannibal]

let's also realize automated law enforcement violates our right to trial by jury, just like most driving laws do. Would also not be surprised if "court fees" cost you a pretty penny even when you're innocent, which some places do (others don't).

Two things:

1. It's a stretch to say things such as red light cameras violate your right to a trial by jury. First off, with such "enforcement", YOU aren't being given the penalty/fine personally as the machine cannot prove it was you operating the vehicle. It goes against your vehicle registration as the gov't has provided proof of the violation (in picture and often in video form). I'm also not quite sure you're given the option of a jury trial (at least initially) in even a more typical moving violation event (speeding ticket issued by an officer). You can request a trial to challenge the charge but that is typically (or at least initially) means only standing before a judge. No jury involved.

Above this, I've had both redlight cameras and automated speed trap violations dropped simply by writing a letter. A recent one was where I had to speed up to get out of the way of a fire truck (lights on). I wasn't getting any access from the vehicles next to me to get over so I sped up and got in front (and ultimately out of the way of the fire truck). I made contact via the information on he ticket, provided my explanation and was told the charges were vacated. I am guessing they had record of me triggering the lights and could in turn verify the fire truck essentially right behind me. No need to go to court.

2. I've been in many a court room over many different counties and states in my driving career. My wife says I'm a bad driver. I disagree. I'm a very good driver but simply drive very fast. There is a difference. Anyhow, in my travels, I've never come across a situation where I've paid court fees for being innocent. The innocent verdict results in dropped charges and therefore all costs are waived. I have had situations where a "guilty with explanation" plea was met a settlement of no penalties (fines) but I was responsible for the court fees. But never have paid court fees with an innocent verdict.

 

[glhs837]

If I may ...

So, let's get a run down here .... It was a lie for the reasons to install the school zone speed cameras to begin with. It was a lie to the use of any revenue generated by the school zone speed cameras. And it is a lie as to reason for these license plate readers and what they will be used for. The Sheriff and his minions, along with the complicit commissioners, are nothing but proven liars, do not have the best interests of the people at heart, and are therefore against the people. Basically traitors to their offices and traitors to the people.

Good points all.

1. The purported reason for the school zones cameras was to make the students safer from speeding drivers. Unless anyone can show cases where speeders in school zones harmed a student, then that reason was a lie.

2. Spending the revenues for public safety looks to be a lie also, given whats in the article. The plate scanners, if the follow the pattern, have a very good chance of not capturing the plates of any real criminals, or if they do the number should be well below 1%. Flagging folks with expired registrations most likely will not make anyone safer. Usually, the govt loves to cite examples to show a system will do whats its supposed to. Note in this case, there have been no specific examples made for either system.

3. Body cameras dont make anyone safer either. Well, maybe if your officers were thugs before, this might mean less beatings.




Now, about the "Scary clothing". There's a reason most departments dont go full tacticool all the time. Because police citizen interactions work better when the citizen is engaging with a person just doing their job. When that officer is dressed for a riot or combat, that tells the citizen that the officer is viewing that person as someone they expect to be engaged in a fight with and that changes the dynamic. This article sort of breaks it down.

http://lawofficer.com/archive/tactical-vs-traditional-uniforms/

 

[black dog]

The Warrior Cop....


Since 2006, according to an analysis by The New York Times, police departments have acquired 435 armored vehicles, 533 planes, 93,763 machine guns and 432 mine-resistant armored trucks. Overall, since Congress established its program to transfer military hardware, local and state police departments have received $4.3 billion worth of equipment. Accordingly, the value of military equipment used by these police agencies has increased from $1 million in 1990 to $324 million in 1995 (shortly after the program was established), to nearly $450 million in 2013.

A massive overreaction

At the same time as crime has fallen to its lowest levels in decades, police departments are acquiring more hardware and finding more reasons to use SWAT teams and other heavy-handed tactics, regardless of the situation. According to an American Civil Liberties Union report released this summer, 79 percent of SWAT deployments from 2011 to 2012 were for search warrants, a massive overreaction that can have disastrous consequences, including injury and death.

That was the case for Aiyana Stanley-Jones, who was killed during a SWAT raid by the Detroit police department. Serving a search warrant for an occupant of the house, Detroit police rushed in with flash bangs and ballistic shields. When one resident tried to grab an officer's gun, it fired, striking Aiyana. She was 7.



Racial disparities
If you know anything about the racial disparities
(Credit: Getty Images / Scott Olson)
If you know anything about the racial disparities in the criminal justice system, then it also shouldn't shock you to learn that SWAT deployments are used disproportionately in black and Latino neighborhoods. The ACLU finds that 50 percent of those impacted by SWAT deployments were black and Latino. Of these deployments, 68 percent were for drug searches. And a substantial number of drug searches - 60 percent - involved violent tactics to force entry, which lead predictably and avoidably to senseless injury and death.

A recipe for the repressive, violent reactions
The fact that police are eager to use.

The fact that police are eager to use their new weapons and vehicles isn't a surprise. As The New York Times notes, "The ubiquity of SWAT teams has changed not only the way officers look, but also the way departments view themselves. Recruiting videos feature clips of officers storming into homes with smoke grenades and firing automatic weapons." Put simply, when you give anyone toys, you have to expect they'll play with them.

That is how we get images like the ones in Ferguson, where police officers brandish heavy weapons and act as an occupying force. We should expect as much when we give police departments military weapons. Already - when it comes to predominantly black and brown communities - there's a long-standing culture of aggressive, punitive policing. Add assault weapons and armored vehicles, and you have a recipe for the repressive, violent reactions that we see in Ferguson, and that are likely inevitable in countless other poor American neighborhoods.

 

[Hannibal]

Good points all.

1. The purported reason for the school zones cameras was to make the students safer from speeding drivers. Unless anyone can show cases where speeders in school zones harmed a student, then that reason was a lie.

2. Spending the revenues for public safety looks to be a lie also, given whats in the article. The plate scanners, if the follow the pattern, have a very good chance of not capturing the plates of any real criminals, or if they do the number should be well below 1%. Flagging folks with expired registrations most likely will not make anyone safer. Usually, the govt loves to cite examples to show a system will do whats its supposed to. Note in this case, there have been no specific examples made for either system.

3. Body cameras dont make anyone safer either. Well, maybe if your officers were thugs before, this might mean less beatings.

1. Given my (I assume) opposing view above, let me be clear, I disagree with the argument of safety of the children as the driver behind these cameras. It's money but it's also collective safety. They do work. At least for me, I do slow down when I know those cameras are around ............ then I speed up again. But to my point in an earlier thread, if they simply said "we want to control / reduce speed specifically over this portion of roadway due to numerous complaints/noted violations and the proximity to the exposed public", I'd be OK with that statement. Just call a spade a spade as I see it.

2. This goes back to my earlier point. I don't like any operation that potentially catches me for my wrongdoings and costs me money. But how upset can I really be if I get a ticket in the mail because I failed to update my tags/registration per the law? On one hand, it's a quick cash grab for the gov't., but on the other hand, it's simply enforcing the laws we're obligated to follow or face penalty. It's also keeping officers away from mundane traffic stops for minimal violations and keeps them in a more secure situation. Not so much an issue here in Calvert but in places like DC, traffic stops are often avoided or conducted at a heightened / elevated risk awareness given many recent police/citizen interactions.

3. Body cameras are the end result of the liberal media and those who constantly want to cry victim. Too many people crying out "unfair response" by police so they want more documentation for prosecution. These are the same people who cry about taxes yet are pushing for municipalities to invest substantial monies into these things. And what has it ultimately proven in most cases where bad interactions have happened while being recorded on camera - the same thing people were saying prior to their use: "If people STFU and could follow basic instructions/commands of a cop - they'd be fine." In the brief story I mentioned earlier in a thread about my interaction with the cops, I can't tell you how polite, unthreatening my actions were when dealing with them. My movements were slow. I confirmed their directives prior to implementing them. I didn't resist them when they started to detain me. I simply let the process play out and it was quickly resolved without issue.

 

[black dog]

1. Given my (I assume) opposing view above, let me be clear, I disagree with the argument of safety of the children as the driver behind these cameras. It's money but it's also collective safety. They do work. At least for me, I do slow down when I know those cameras are around ............ then I speed up again. But to my point in an earlier thread, if they simply said "we want to control / reduce speed specifically over this portion of roadway due to numerous complaints/noted violations and the proximity to the exposed public", I'd be OK with that statement. Just call a spade a spade as I see it.

2. This goes back to my earlier point. I don't like any operation that potentially catches me for my wrongdoings and costs me money. But how upset can I really be if I get a ticket in the mail because I failed to update my tags/registration per the law? On one hand, it's a quick cash grab for the gov't., but on the other hand, it's simply enforcing the laws we're obligated to follow or face penalty. It's also keeping officers away from mundane traffic stops for minimal violations and keeps them in a more secure situation. Not so much an issue here in Calvert but in places like DC, traffic stops are often avoided or conducted at a heightened / elevated risk awareness given many recent police/citizen interactions.

3. Body cameras are the end result of the liberal media and those who constantly want to cry victim. Too many people crying out "unfair response" by police so they want more documentation for prosecution. These are the same people who cry about taxes yet are pushing for municipalities to invest substantial monies into these things. And what has it ultimately proven in most cases where bad interactions have happened while being recorded on camera - the same thing people were saying prior to their use: "If people STFU and could follow basic instructions/commands of a cop - they'd be fine." In the brief story I mentioned earlier in a thread about my interaction with the cops, I can't tell you how polite, unthreatening my actions were when dealing with them. My movements were slow. I confirmed their directives prior to implementing them. I didn't resist them when they started to detain me. I simply let the process play out and it was quickly resolved without issue.

Be careful what you wish for......

 

[Hannibal]

Be careful what you wish for......

What exactly do you think I am wishing for?

 

[black dog]

What exactly do you think I am wishing for?

Collective Safety.... That's a problem.
While collective security is an idea with a long history, its implementation in practice has proved problematic. Several prerequisites have to be met for it to have a chance of working. It is the theory or practice of states pledging to defend one another in order to deter aggression or to punish transgressor.

I'm more of a Individual Freedom person. But that's another thread.

 

[DannyMotorcycle]

i'm actually for cameras observing recording and body cameras.. nothing wrong with recording reality in public..

my problem is the cameras running people's info and keeping track of people, and the deceit and money grab.

I'm not against fair speed cameras or red light cameras.. i am against hidden trickery that is really about taxes/revenue.

Am i the only one who would like an orange light between red and yellow? yellow = keep going throught the light if you're close enough.. orange = definitely prepare to stop for the light.