The city sent the woman photographic evidence for the speeding ticket – her defunct car, sitting on a tow truck, was still charged for an infraction when she wasn’t behind the wheel… Gibson contested the fine at the East Cleveland Police Department, but she said officials told her to refute the fine with the private company that operates the cameras. [More]
By all means.
As long as we’re making lists, I want to know who all the economic fascist collaborators profiting from gulag contracting are.
[Via Michael G]
Gibson contested the fine at the East Cleveland Police Department, but she said officials told her to refute the fine with the private company that operates the cameras.
“Fine. I invoke my right to trial by jury, and my right to face my accuser in a court of law.”
The private company won’t be able to send anyone who saw the alleged “crime”. They can only testify as to what they think they saw on a grainy video screen — and that’s assuming an actual human EVER saw it; a lot of them use electronic/OCR license plate readers and send the “tickets” out automatically with no human oversight. The “accuser” is a machine that cannot physically appear in court, offer testimony, or be subjected to cross-examination.
Pair that with the photos of the car on a tow truck at the time of the “infraction”, and any judge worth his/her salt would throw the whole case out.
And people wonder why occasionally otherwise good decent citizens snap and “go postal”.