Blah blah abuse of power, abuse of this yadda yadda yadda mindless blather.

A) He was there for something simple, like a traffic ticket.

B) He was a total prick, douchebag, asshole and completely uncooperative.

C) Cameras ARE NOT PERMITTED inside courtrooms for PRIVACY. Dumbass award again. He thinks he can waltz in and violate everyone's privacy and harass another person because he has "rights"?

D) The officer didn't express ANY type of abuse whatsoever. If you think he did, sorry, but you might want to reconsider who's been brainwashed.

The officer had a choice: potentially violent altercation with a young man in a confined space where others could potentially be injured, or tazer him. If you think the officer is wrong for not allowing this to escalate and potentially injure others, then you really need to reassess your concept of police control and abuse of power.

The officer told the douchebag calmly, and concisely, that he was NOT permitted to pass that point with the video camera. The douchebag tried to push his way through, and surprisingly, the officer DID HIS JOB and kept the man from entering WITHOUT using excessive force.

Unless, of course, you think an officer touching a person who claims to NOT be a US Citizen is abuse. The douchebag began escalating the situation further until, well, I'm sure his biggest worry now isn't simply a speeding ticket anymore but a list of actual 1st Degree Misdemeanors and possibly a Felony.

So yes, I AM PERFECTLY FINE with the officer's use of a tazer to restrain the individual. And the reason I am, is thankfully the douchebag was recording it and we now have proof of who was in the wrong.

Miami Heat ticket: $150
Speeding ticket on way to the game: $250
Sinking a half-court hook: -$75,000
Getting molested by LeBron on National TV: Priceless

(Only applies to Americans)

Unfortunately you have very little understanding of the US legal system.

A) Under the Constitution you HAVE NO RIGHT to privacy, of any short, whatsoever. The word privacy doesn't even exist. I am perfectly 100% legally allowed to sit on a public sidewalk and take pictures of you all day long. If I can see you, from that sidewalk (or any public space) I can photograph, video, draw or whatever your likeness to my hearts content. And there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Period.

B) By US law, any previous offenses cannot be used against you. If they have footage of you kicking a cat on a sidewalk and you're being charged with a speeding ticket, they cannot use that footage for anything. If they do, you win. It's called a mistrial. Now, if you were being charged with animal abuse by your mom for kicking her cat, they still CANNOT use that footage. Unless, of course, it was her cat you kicked in the video. (This is why you hear being being charged with 7 counts of murder. The previous murders are not evidence that they committed the most recent one, but the evidence applies jointly to several cases such as DNA, weapon, motive, location etc. Same with the animal abuse. You could be charged with 2 counts of animal abuse, but someone would actually have to file that charge.)

C) They don't even store that video. You obviously believe big brother has invented some new fangled massive storage device. CCTV eats through tape/disk fairly quickly, especially higher resolution ones. An average McDonalds has around 12 CCTV's throughout the store. (It's been a while, so don't quote me.) That's a lot of footage. That's one of the big cons is that most systems only record 4 frames a second in SD. Most systems also only store the data for a few days. Essentially long enough for the store owner to realize something happened and pull the tapes.

D) Most CCTV's aren't even monitored. They're there for evidence after the fact. The City of Tampa was planning to use facial recognition software to look for known Top Wanted. Why? Because as much as you think there's a secret lair of lackies watching your every move, a person can only watch one screen full of people. When they're over 10,000 cameras in that city, that's 1% of the population watching monitors. Well, 3% if they go in shifts. And yet, I don't see a "CCTV Watchers Union" anywhere.

E) Again, you HAVE NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY. Only protection against unreasonable Search and Seizure. Which only protects you within private property, or articles on your body. As in, they cannot search you, your vehicle, house or business without a warrant. If you don't want people looking at you, stay inside, close the blinds, and use Amazon to buy everything you need.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by dingens.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/The-Funniest-Speeding-Ticket-Ever-Uncut

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by KnivesOut. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

>> ^Fletch:

You say "bullshit", and then give an example that demonstrates exactly the opposite.

That's because they are two separate issues. One is about red light cameras and speed cameras in urban areas, and the other is road traffic policing on open roads.

>> ^Fletch:

No camera at the dangerous corner, but cameras where people are likely to exceed the speed limit (albeit safely)? Gee, I wonder why they would do that? Maybe because they raise more revenue putting cameras where there is little danger, but high return via fines. If speed cameras were truly a deterrent, and they chose not to put a camera at the known dangerous corner, then they either don't believe they are a deterrent and just place the cameras for maximum revenue, or they don't give a shit about public safety and, again, place the cameras for maximum revenue.

Possible. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't believe the revenue raised is a significant sum from a government pov. More likely, it's that the cops are under pressure to be seen to be enforcing speed limits and so do so in a place that will allow them to say "look how many people we caught".

>> ^Fletch:

I average about one speeding ticket every two years or so, and it hasn't deterred me in any way. I just think of the fine, spread out over 24 months, as the price I pay to drive however the hell I want.

Again, in any sane system, you would have your licence suspended for repeated infringement.

>> ^Fletch:

Nothing the government does, such as approving red light cameras, comes without cost/benefit considerations, and there is no benefit ($) to "fewer people running red lights".

Apart from less crashes, which couldn't possibly lead to other benefits to governments like less use of emergency services? Plus a whole bunch of knock-on effects that stem from this. Not to mention all the intangibles such as voter popularity declining in the face of an increasing road toll.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^SpaceOddity:
The cameras don't serve any other purposes other than as an unethical revenue stream for municipalities, and as a way to track your whereabouts.

Yeah, I mean who wants to stop fucking idiots running red lights or speeding through urban areas? That's just crazy.

Red light cameras neither prevent nor stop either of your examples. They have only one purpose... raising revenue after the fact.

Bullshit, it acts as a deterrent, the same way any fine does. Plus, in a sane country, continued infringement will result in suspension of licence.
This is not some evil government conspiracy.
I do have a problem with speed cameras on open roads though. I've never seen a zipped trap in a place where it's actually needed. Instead, they're always on straight open stretches of road. Meanwhile there's a dangerous corner just up the road that's a known accident black spot, but there's no camera there.


You say "bullshit", and then give an example that demonstrates exactly the opposite. I didn't say there was an evil government conspiracy. I think it's pretty clear and in the open. No camera at the dangerous corner, but cameras where people are likely to exceed the speed limit (albeit safely)? Gee, I wonder why they would do that? Maybe because they raise more revenue putting cameras where there is little danger, but high return via fines. If speed cameras were truly a deterrent, and they chose not to put a camera at the known dangerous corner, then they either don't believe they are a deterrent and just place the cameras for maximum revenue, or they don't give a shit about public safety and, again, place the cameras for maximum revenue.

I average about one speeding ticket every two years or so, and it hasn't deterred me in any way. I just think of the fine, spread out over 24 months, as the price I pay to drive however the hell I want.

And I don't think I've ever gone through a red light. I still think red light cameras are bullshit. The cameras wouldn't be there if they didn't make money, and they wouldn't make money if they were truly deterrents. Nothing the government does, such as approving red light cameras, comes without cost/benefit considerations, and there is no benefit ($) to "fewer people running red lights".

Prolly got as many death threats as that highway patrol trooper that gave an off duty deputy a speeding ticket.

Your video, All She Wants to Do is Give You a Speeding Ticket, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Well, when your job is to film people getting speeding tickets for no other reason that titillation, your worth as a human being is pretty much open to question.

Even in a straight line, I think the hollow wheels are what seriously limit its speed because the inability to drive at the axle produces a critical mechanical disadvantage. There is no room for any gears that are larger than the wheels, so the engine must always run many RPMs faster than the outer edge of the tires. It's why, on a bicycle, the gears mounted to the peddles are always larger than the gears mounted on the axle of the back tire. So, yeah, it's basically a kinetic sculpture--but still a really cool one!

>> ^robbersdog49:

What's limiting it's speed is a complete inability to lean more than a few degrees. Great piece of art, but it looks completely un-useable.

I awoke around 8ish or so Pacific time. My then girlfriend was taking a shower, and I had an actor friend crashing on my floor. I turned on the TV and saw the two smoking towers. I told my girlfriend that we weren't going into work, and she thought I was overreacting until she saw the footage.

I spent the day flipping channels to watch the different news coverage and making phonecalls to family and friends in NY.

Later I found out that my aunt had been in a hotel across the street. They had footage of that day and the people jumping from the buildings. This is her discussing that day: http://www.king5.com/video?id=129557193&sec=549122

Sept. 12th I got a speeding ticket going into work.

Lying to park in a handicap space is douchebag thing to do, but I still think $1,800 is crazy excessive. If anything should have excessive fines, it should be what's also dangerous to the public - like speeding, running red lights, and parking in fire lanes. My one speeding ticket (for driving 78 in a 55) cost me $140 three years ago. I'm not complaining for what I had to pay, but it really should be the reverse.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 2 Badge!