• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Man pays traffic fine with 137 dollars folded into origami pigs

In a doughnut box.

A+ for symbolism, F for impact.

Other than a few seconds of internet fame all he did was waste a shitload of his own time, if he spent that 6 hours collecting deposit bottles he could have paid the fine.
 
hes a real good sport for unfolding them all. i wouldnt have.

and before anyone judges comments before watching the video, this was a red light camera ticket. i believe they are unconstitutional.
 
wirednuts said:
hes a real good sport for unfolding them all. i wouldnt have.

and before anyone judges comments before watching the video, this was a red light camera ticket. i believe they are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I don't like 'em either, due to many well-documented cases of municipalities shortening the yellows to increase revenue at the expense of public safety, but what would make them "unconstitutional", in your opinion?
 
I like the idea, but why not just avoid being in the intersection when the light turns red? It's a pretty simple concept.
 
jagec said:
I don't like 'em either, due to many well-documented cases of municipalities shortening the yellows to increase revenue at the expense of public safety, but what would make them "unconstitutional", in your opinion?
Click to expand...

It might not be you driving, they are fining people and raising insurance etc but they don't know who is behind the wheel.
 
Northern Lawn said:
It might not be you driving, they are fining people and raising insurance etc but they don't know who is behind the wheel.
Click to expand...

Red-light tickets don't go on your record and don't raise your insurance (in sane states).

Ticketing the car, rather than the driver, is certainly a concern, but it doesn't seem to bother people when it comes to parking tickets (which, ultimately, are on the registered owner, regardless of who parked the car).
 
i thought the bigger issue was that you weren't properly served since it was entirely an automated system.
 
jagec said:
Red-light tickets don't go on your record and don't raise your insurance (in sane states).

Ticketing the car, rather than the driver, is certainly a concern, but it doesn't seem to bother people when it comes to parking tickets (which, ultimately, are on the registered owner, regardless of who parked the car).
Click to expand...

Good Point!
 
GagHalfrunt said:
In a doughnut box.

A+ for symbolism, F for impact.

Other than a few seconds of internet fame all he did was waste a shitload of his own time, if he spent that 6 hours collecting deposit bottles he could have paid the fine.
Click to expand...

wait. I can make $22+/hr collecting deposit bottles?
 
jagec said:
I don't like 'em either, due to many well-documented cases of municipalities shortening the yellows to increase revenue at the expense of public safety, but what would make them "unconstitutional", in your opinion?
Click to expand...

One of my favorite quotes from the student newspaper was regarding the draft. "Even though it's in the constitution, I think it's unconstitutional."

:hmm:
 
jagec said:
I don't like 'em either, due to many well-documented cases of municipalities shortening the yellows to increase revenue at the expense of public safety, but what would make them "unconstitutional", in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Isn't one of your rights the right to question your accuser?


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

An inanimate box with a camera attached isn't going to be answering any questions in the witness stand.
 
Chiropteran said:
Isn't one of your rights the right to question your accuser?


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

An inanimate box with a camera attached isn't going to be answering any questions in the witness stand.
Click to expand...



A photograph is not a witness, it's evidence. A perp is not entitled to cross-examine evidence, but he is allowed to challenge its accuracy. The photo does not need to answers questions any more than fingerprints on a murder weapon do. Do you really not understand the difference between physical evidence and witnesses? This guy could have requested a trial and done everything in his power to discredit the photograph, to test the light timer, to cross-examine the police about how the camera is set-up, how it's used, how it's maintained, how much income it generated, etc etc etc. He CHOSE not to. Maybe because he's guilty.

A person throwing a hissy fit over being caught does not mean that his rights were trampled, it simply means that he's too childish to accept the consequences of his action. For reference, please refer to EVERY single "WAHHH!!! I got a ticket" thread in ATOT history
 
Chiropteran said:
Isn't one of your rights the right to question your accuser?


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

An inanimate box with a camera attached isn't going to be answering any questions in the witness stand.
Click to expand...

That's like saying the radar gun that registered you speeding or the surveillance camera that recorded your breaking and entering can't answer questions on the stand. It's not the device, it's the person reading/using the device.

As others have pointed out, though, these cameras don't know who was driving the car.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
A photograph is not a witness, it's evidence. A perp is not entitled to cross-examine evidence, but he is allowed to challenge its accuracy. The photo does not need to answers questions any more than fingerprints on a murder weapon do. Do you really not understand the difference between physical evidence and witnesses? This guy could have requested a trial and done everything in his power to discredit the photograph, to test the light timer, to cross-examine the police about how the camera is set-up, how it's used, how it's maintained, how much income it generated, etc etc etc. He CHOSE not to. Maybe because he's guilty.
Click to expand...

Maybe because court costs are higher than the costs of paying the ticket. It's a broken system.

The machine isn't a witness, that means there is no witness. No witnesses, how do the police have a case? If you tried to sue somebody and had no witnesses at all, the judge would laugh you out of the courtroom, but the state can easily "win" without a witness because of the scam that the system is.
 
People are such attention whores these days. Have to record everything they do and post it online for attention. Besides, the guy had to unfold all the bills, and waste even more time, so the fail is on him.
 
Chiropteran said:
Maybe because court costs are higher than the costs of paying the ticket. It's a broken system.

The machine isn't a witness, that means there is no witness. No witnesses, how do the police have a case? If you tried to sue somebody and had no witnesses at all, the judge would laugh you out of the courtroom, but the state can easily "win" without a witness because of the scam that the system is.
Click to expand...

they don't need a witness, they have photo evidence!

so if you break into a store and are captured on the surveillance camera, they can't do anything because a real person didn't see you? WTF is the point of having a camera then?
 
Rudee said:
People are such attention whores these days. Have to record everything they do and post it online for attention. Besides, the guy had to unfold all the bills, and waste even more time, so the fail is on him.
Click to expand...

i wonder if there is a law that says they must be unfolded. i doubt it. the cops might have broken the law by saying "we wont accept it like that"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top