Comments on: AZ Police Arrest Suspect in Copycat Pickaxe Speed Scamera Attack

By: Andy D

Andy D — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:06:34 +0000

opening shot of the remake of Cool Hand Luke?

By: Johnster

Johnster — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 05:42:54 +0000

seabrjim : We must be more stealthy in our efforts to destroy the dark sides monitoring devices, grasshopper…

Exactly.

Still… while the group Camerafraud.com advocates peaceful law-breaking, and points to Rosa Parks as an example, let’s not forget that the civil rights movement was a multi-pronged movement. If it weren’t for more threatening and violent groups, such as the Black Panthers for example, as well as the much larger and non-violent NAACP, the civil rights movement might not have been as successful.

By: seabrjim

seabrjim — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:39:50 +0000

We must be more stealthy in our efforts to destroy the dark sides monitoring devices, grasshopper…

By: GS650G

GS650G — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:03:15 +0000

THe captives in the UK have little recourse but here we get elections and that can sway opinions. Most people accept taxes and other intrusions but speed cameras are seen as unamerican because you don’t get face time with the cop and you are considered guilty first.

The presumption of guilt in these matters is what angers people. Some actually are innocent of wrong doing, especially on crowded roadways.

Bottom line: If you want revenue put a cop out there and collect it the old fashion way. Might not be as profitable but it’s fair.

By: golf4me

golf4me — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:38:48 +0000

Great, so now the DPS is patrolling the cameras when the whole point was to “free them up” to solve “serious crimes” which is in itself a crock because the DPS is really a “highway patrol”. They really don’t do squat otherwise. All non-incorporated parts of the state use their county sheriff for that. The whole thing is riduculous, and while I don’t condone this behavior, I’ll bet someone or some group is gonna pay this guy’s legal fees! (or should)

By: 1996MEdition

1996MEdition — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:41:19 +0000

how about “interference with a revenue generating device”