Woman Arrested for Warning People About Speed Trap!

Has she not had the sign she would not have been picked up for being in the street. People do it all day long. The police were pissed.

And here, flashing lights to warn of a trap is not obstruction but it would fit into the arg that the pro police people are trying to make.

Originally posted by roadgravel
Has she not had the sign she would not have been picked up for being in the street. People do it all day long. The police were pissed.

And here, flashing lights to warn of a trap is not obstruction but it would fit into the arg that the pro police people are trying to make.

speeding is stupid either way. It saves only a few minutes, if that, and puts people in danger in the process. Bad enough people drive using cell phones and to speed on top of that??? NG.

No dude, no wtf. How many people are killed because of speeding a reckless driving? Like it or not but warning people of speed traps is like warning somebody of a drug bust. Effectively blocking the coarse of justice.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I don't think that there is anything remotely illegal about warning people of a speed trap etc. I mean for example even the local radio stations in my town will announce where there are DUI check points or seat belt check points. I always thought that was humorous as the drunk or person with no seatbeltts knows exactly what streets not to travel down etc. Granted the drunks more then likely have a good chance of forgetting.

The problem I see here is if it truly was a case of harrassment by the cops because of what she was doing. Which I would assume it more then likely was. The cops were smart enough to call it obstruction of traffic etc. I mean there weren't any cameras there when the arrest went down. So it all comes down to one of those lovely he said she said scenarios. The only difference is she got the media involved. Just because the news is reporting her story doesn't mean that is necessarily the true story, and being a city employee myself I can attest that it is against policy to speak to the media. Outside of the Public Information Officers or the PR people.

Doing something that isn't breaking the should not bring police action.

Let's have the police arrest or detain people for reason that the public simply doesn't like.

OR

If you put money in a parking meter so someone doesn't get a ticket, go to jail.

The police can just drive the highway and give tickets. I see about 75% of the drivers speeding.

isn't that what speed limit signs are for? If you're not speeding, you should have nothing to worry about. The problem is, most people that speed do it all the time, just because this lady warns them of the cops, doesn't mean they won't be doing 40 near a park and cream some kid. The lady should be arrested and charged as much as they can charge her with. Another example of people trying to get around the law.

So the sign get hundreds of cars to slow down for a while. A ticket get one person to slow in a similar time span. Which is really improving safety for that time period.

Originally posted by Bubaroo
isn't that what speed limit signs are for? If you're not speeding, you should have nothing to worry about. The problem is, most people that speed do it all the time, just because this lady warns them of the cops, doesn't mean they won't be doing 40 near a park and cream some kid. The lady should be arrested and charged as much as they can charge her with. Another example of people trying to get around the law.

Did she force anyone to slow down? She held a sign up.
If she made them drive fast, that would be a crime.

She may have caused someone to slow down and prevented an accident.

The problem that the cops had was that she prevented them from collecting revenue for the government.

I guess the cops would be fine with her holding up a sign that said 'Drive fast and take lots of chances.'

reply to post by butcherguy


No offense, but you seem way too paranoid about the cops. Don't get me wrong, this is ATS, where paranoia is a club requirement, but it would be the same thing as telling a thief when the cops are watching him. Is he going to stop stealing? For the moment, but as soon as it is clear, he'll be right back doing it. Now take the same thief, arrest him, fine him, and jail him and the chances of him doing it again diminish. You might be better to look at the mass population like children. Would you stop your child from doing something bad to start with, or let them do it and learn the lesson on their own?

For the moment, but as soon as it is clear, he'll be right back doing it. Now take the same thief, arrest him, fine him, and jail him and the chances of him doing it again diminish

Would be nice if that worked more then a quarter or half the time. Prison are full of repeat offenders.

Originally posted by Bubaroo
reply to post by butcherguy

 

No offense, but you seem way too paranoid about the cops. Don't get me wrong, this is ATS, where paranoia is a club requirement, but it would be the same thing as telling a thief when the cops are watching him. Is he going to stop stealing? For the moment, but as soon as it is clear, he'll be right back doing it. Now take the same thief, arrest him, fine him, and jail him and the chances of him doing it again diminish. You might be better to look at the mass population like children. Would you stop your child from doing something bad to start with, or let them do it and learn the lesson on their own?

A better analogy would be if I concerned myself with lecturing my child about not completing his homework while my other child was burning the garage down.

Cops doing traffic duty are just collecting money. Doing that while you can buy heroin down on the corner, or a stolen handgun from the same guy in the same corner bar night after night.
They have more important things to do than collect revenue.
I'm not paranoid about cops, I've never been arrested. I just know their mindset, and I also know that they are often just as criminal as the people that they are supposed to be arresting.

ETA: No offense taken, of course.

reply to post by butcherguy


I simply feel, if you are constantly obeying the speed limit, these speed traps won't work. I live in montana, and we really don't have alot of speed traps, here and there, but for the majority not. As for the cops wasting time on traffic violations and not stopping heroin deals, its far easier and far more common to bust traffic violators then anything else. Also, my uncle is a cop, just ran for sheriff, and I have never met a cop that was more criminal. It's the whole Rodney King mindset everyone seems to have in regards to law enforcement.

Lol that is screwed up.

I mean, they obviously do it for money and not that much for the safety for people.
What she did was much better, as the cars would slow down, and already there it works better than a freakin speed trap.

We got a car dealer on our road here, and when there is a speed trap further up the road, the dealer puts out a sign on some of his cars, so people can see it.

He also got some attention from it, and the police was annoyed, but they could't do anything against it.

I love my country.

anyone that speeds is pissed. thats funny. i glad, she was arrested for obstructing the police from doing what they can to enforce the speed laws. they are not traps, the signs are posted everywhere. people chose to ignore them. slow down and it shouldnt matter where the police are.

I wonder if she would have faced the same situation were she holding a sign that read, "Slow Down!" or "Don't Speed!". Anyway, I don't see what she did as wrong, she essentially performed a public service by making motorists aware of their speed.

There have been some interesting insights in to the morality of police arresting this woman and her "speed trap ahead" sign.

However as was pointed out on the first page, the wording on the sign is what allowed the police to arrest her.

Had she used the words "slow down" there would not have been a thing the police could do about it and if they had, she could have easily sued them. A "slow down" sign would have been seen as a public service by the judiciary system.

A "speed trap ahead" sign is in fact "aiding & abetting" as she is helping drivers that are breaking the law to avoid being caught.

Freedom of speech does not even get a look-in as the charge is a felony.

She does however.....have every right to express her dissatisfaction with the judicial system.

After all, that's what a democracy is about ....the people have the right to judge the system that governs them.

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

A "speed trap ahead" sign is in fact "aiding & abetting" as she is helping drivers that are breaking the law to avoid being caught.

Freedom of speech does not even get a look-in as the charge is a felony.

This is completely ass-backwards reasoning.

The sign she was holding was intended to STOP motorists from breaking the law by getting them to slow down. She wasn't telling them to speed up.

Aiding and abetting, and obstruction of justice.... let me see if I can think of a better example.... that would be like giving criminals 2,000 guns that they then used to commit murders, and then refusing to comply with subpoenas regarding the investigation.

Now that would be illegal.

Holding a sign stating "speed trap" isn't aiding a crime. It's preventing a crime by warning people police are ahead, and thus getting them to slow down.

Do you also think stopping somebody from murdering another person would be obstructing justice because then the police couldn't arrest them for murder?

There is everything wrong with this of course, and there can be no real argument to validate the acts of the Policy Enforcement Officer. See the fine work here of Jean Paul Zedeaux as to why traffic fines is NOT law, but theft via extortion.

The real issue as I see it is this. The woman is a person who is supposed to be "protected" by the Policy Enforcement Officer. The official story is, the police are there to protect and to serve.

The woman, according to the Policy Enforcement Officer, was "a danger to herself and others;" ergo, she needed help. EXCELLENT! A woman in distress. So, said Policy Enforcement Officer decided the best, more honorable way to "help" her was to ARREST HER!

Now, by arresting her he obtained MONEY from her. So, the woman who was a danger to herself and others and needed help, was helped by the Policy Enforcement Officer in the best we he knew how - by taking money from her through the process of arrest. Clearly he isn't bright at all, he cannot seem to distinguish between helping and arresting with the intent to take money through the arrest.

At what point does the Policy Enforcement Officer go from helping the people, to seeing the people as the enemy?

There was a time where the people where never the enemy of the Peace Officer - never. Then there was a time when the people could be an enemy of the Peace Officer, and now the people are always the enemy of the Policy Enforcement Officer and his job is to figure out how to arrest them to get them the "help" they need via giving the court money.

Sadly, the people accept it like desert after a prison meal.

BTW, her case for a lawsuit is his own words - she needed help so I arrested her. He should have said nothing.

There was just a court case but I can't remember where not too long back.
The court ruled it was freedom of speech.

It probably was a state level ruling so it will vary state to state.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

This is completely ass-backwards reasoning. The sign she was holding was intended to STOP motorists from breaking the law by getting them to slow down. She wasn't telling them to speed up. Aiding and abetting, and obstruction of justice....

If she wasn't there, would people guilty of committing an offense be charged for their driving transgressions?

Would her actions deter the same people - who would normally speed - to change their ways?

To be fair you would have to ask the same of the 'speed trap' itself. Would the speed trap deter people from speeding? Yes, but only when the general public driving on the roads DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE!

Speed traps are as much about controlling psychologically as they are about generating revenue. As an engineer I know full well that these systems have to be designed to break even in an economic sense as well as perform a function for society.

let me see if I can think of a better example.... that would be like giving criminals 2,000 guns that they then used to commit murders, and then refusing to comply with subpoenas regarding the investigation. Now that would be illegal. Holding a sign stating "speed trap" isn't aiding a crime. It's preventing a crime by warning people police are ahead, and thus getting them to slow down. Do you also think stopping somebody from murdering another person would be obstructing justice because then the police couldn't arrest them for murder?

Excellent point. But I think the circumstances are like comparing apples and oranges.

Attempted murder is still a felony.

I ask this.... What if a driver who would have been caught speeding in the trap - but didn't due to the sign - later that day, sped through a residential district and hit a child?

What about if she directly distracted a driver - squinting to read her sign - and the driver lost control and killed someone.

At the end of the day, the legislation that rules the roads.....is there to protect us all.