Woman Arrested for Warning People About Speed Trap!

Isn't what she end up charged with was standing in the street when there was a sidewalk, not obstruction.

Originally posted by dxdydz
There was a case just like this years back. I'm going to try to find it. The police were found at fault and to have no authority to arrest the person.

Actually a few months back the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a person who was cited for warning people of a speed trap. The court ruled the person was protected under the 1st amendment and could not be charged.

I will try and fine the case but to my knowledge it created case law precedent in this area that should apply to this persons situation as well.

It's been a pretty clear message with these people... You do NOT mess with their money. They need to spend it on more tasers and drones, and taser drones.

reply to post by nixie_nox


You sound like the rest of the Authority types... are you married to someone in law enforcement or something?

The thing is, the first argument is silly, and the second in which you are supposedly "explaining the law" you actually cite no laws, and only give statements that should be considered as reasons for laws, but no laws were there.

The reason your first argument is silly, is mainly because you're saying that the noise barriers (and I assume other planning procedures for roads) running along highways at $30k per residence it goes by, is reason enough to charge people with crimes to pay for these barriers; which is usually already been paid for by the federal government, seeing how highways really only exist for the efficient transportation of troops, military and federal supplies. We use it as a luxury. So, where do you think that federal money comes from? The taxpayers wallets!?!? DING DING DING. That's right.

So it's ok to create laws that, may or may not be, protecting people, which could be considered victimless crimes; and then use these laws solely for the generation of excess revenues from the taxpayers, by means of fines, lawyers, court costs, probation, imprisonment, classes, community service, etc, all of which are forms are generating funds for state or federal offices, and sometimes the private sector, which in turn is used for the creation of infrastructure and the payment of civil servants, amongst other government expenditures. The recidivism rates of this country don't lie, these systems have failed to help rehabilitate people, so in many cases of 'criminal' activity we see someone's life being negatively impacted (possibly for life) simply to create more money for the government. How does any of that sound right?

If you're still not getting it, explain to me the logic behind the maximum speed limit, which is ~85-90 Mph, I would guess the highest speed limit is ~65-70mph in most states, then why is it that cars are allowed to come off the dealership lot doing excess of these speeds. I mean if the fastest speed I could ever legally go is 90 miles per hour, then why can this car top out at 140mph? They do this, why?!?!?! Explain.

My first guess would be so that they could allow people to speed, to generate income for any number of institutions. There are so many different ways to consider these laws, and if you always live in a 'what if' universe, the simple answer to prevent any damage and keep everyone safe, eventually becomes, to just kills everyone, or at least shackle them together and feed them with IV fluids, created from decomposing humans. Rules are meant be broken. There is some serious truth to that. You can't control people they will do what ever they please, and if you don't like that, obviously you don't understand the concept of freedom.

As to the issue, this woman did nothing wrong, she aided in people slowing down, if she had done it any where, if there hadn't even been a cop, if, if if... if.. if... ya know what, It's not illegal, it doesn't matter "what if". All of the laws are to be applied with discretion, and should not be aimed to mindlessly site and punish people. The goal of law enforcement should be to protect and serve the people and the constitution, not to generate revenues, no matter the if's.

I guess finally what really boggles the (&@#(& #@(*)#@# out of me is how is it that police officers are allowed to perform these jobs and are not required to know nearly all criminal laws, statutes, mandates, and rulings? How can all of this be?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by dxdydz
There was a case just like this years back. I'm going to try to find it. The police were found at fault and to have no authority to arrest the person.

Actually a few months back the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a person who was cited for warning people of a speed trap. The court ruled the person was protected under the 1st amendment and could not be charged.

I will try and fine the case but to my knowledge it created case law precedent in this area that should apply to this persons situation as well.

I remember that...believe it was for warning oncoming traffic by flashing lights.

What part of freedom of speech do these police departments not understand?

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

 

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.

What if, what if, what if, what if?

What if the sign caused motorists to slow down preventing them form hitting a "child?"

What if the cops subdued her with mace or a taser?

What if they let her go on her merry little way home from Whole Foods?

The "what if" question is not an argument to anything. It's as if you claim to see the future; are you a precog?

All we've got here is what she did and how the cops responded. She did nothing and got charged with a misdemeanor. What if you got a misdemeanor for jaywalking? Hardly a just punishment. (jaywalking is a crime, though; what she did was not).

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!

How would a speed trap no one knows about deter people from speeding?
If people know about a speed trap they are going to slow down. If not, they are gonna continue at the same rate of speed. Ticketing people doesn't really help the problem anyway. The tickets I've received for speeding have only given me resentment towards the authorities.

Warning people about their speed has far more effect than punishment. I've been pulled over and received warnings from officers and this has a more positive affect than if I had been ticketed. If the ticket is well deserved then I will gladly take it, but if it's a speed trap, this will hardly do anything to "deter" me from doing a few miles over the SL.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Or if she was in a neighborhood, which she was, that might be full of kids.

thank you! You are finally coming around and giving us reasons that she should be slowing traffic down.

Why am I supposed to slow down?

Kids are supposed to stay off the streets.

We should stop telling kids not to do drugs because it's got to be interfering with drug enforcement...

reply to post by JohnnyNuisance

How would a speed trap no one knows about deter people from speeding?

That is the whole point of speed traps. If everyone knew where they were they would be completely ineffective.

Trap - A trick or arrangement designed to catch someone in a more general sense.

Originally posted by violet
I didn't know that was illegal to warn motorists to slow down.
Perhaps they should arrest a few traffic lights.

And radio talk show hosts...

Each day I hear reports on the radio of where speed traps and stops are located. This is on the regular olde radio.. FM i might add.

So how is it she did something illegal when the radio does this daily? People would also flash their lights at night when cops were setup, warning people comming the other way of what was ahead.

I hope HPD gets their butts suid off for this! I wish more people would get involved, but sadly, this woman will probably have to go at it alone. We might respect what she's done, but she'll never hear it from us, I'm sure.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


On the contrary, she was stopping crimes from being committed! She was possibly slowing speeders down and so increasing the level of safety. She should be applauded! She was doing a service to the community by encouraging people to pay attention to the speed limits. How could this be obstruction in any way, shape, or form?

Originally posted by Carseller4
I remember that...believe it was for warning oncoming traffic by flashing lights.

What part of freedom of speech do these police departments not understand?

That is her side of the story.. We have not heard the Police side of the story and with as large a department as they are the cars should be equipped with cameras.

I would like to see the police side of the story before we go down this road. It does not sound right that an officer would pull up, grab her and search her bag before even saying anything. I dont think we are getting the entire story.

if the citation is based off of her actions / location then its not a 1st amendment issue (the Supreme court case dealt solely with the person being charged for warning about the speed trap and nothing else).

If the cop in fact made something up then by all means, rally the lawyers and go from there.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


I would have warned them too. I would have had a sign that read

Piggies On The Prowl Y'all Slow Down

Originally posted by yourmaker
here in Vancouver our news station 1130AM takes calls for people to warn where the speedtraps are.
every 10 minutes we get a good solid warning on the whereabouts, pinpoint locales.
they tell us where like 4-5 of them are throughout the metropolitan area.

Yes you're right we do have that here

this is plain morally wrong on the police part. she could have simply said she was advertising her favorite bands song...or putting 2 words together in the dictionary she really liked and displaying poetry.
this just goes to show you how police do what they want when they want to anyone by finding loopholes in the law or straight up lying to get their way!
If they really wanted they could have simply said she smelled like drugs and it was propable cause to throw her to the ground and search her...and when she moved her arms to protect her face from hitting the pavement...they could have said she was resisting and given them the right to batan her to death.
all in the name of protecting and serving the public!

So I guess since she is still alive they were going easy on her!

its funny how radar detectors arent illegal or the fact that many gps machines tell you which traffic lights have cameras. But what this lady did made her end up in jail?
its not like she got a ladder and smudged mud on a traffic light camera!
What if she was holding up a sign that that said you will regret not slowing down? would taht be obstructing justice? or would it have been a friendly reminder not to speed?
im pretty sure she would have ended up in jail for that too!
the cop in the video was moreso in the road that she was...but I guess hes above the law...obviously.

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by JohnnyNuisance

 

How would a speed trap no one knows about deter people from speeding?

That is the whole point of speed traps. If everyone knew where they were they would be completely ineffective.

Trap - A trick or arrangement designed to catch someone in a more general sense.

If I knew a speed trap was ahead I would slow down...sooo is that considered ineffective? I slowed down didnt I?
oh wait but the cops didnt get money...so I guess your right?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Carseller4
I remember that...believe it was for warning oncoming traffic by flashing lights.

What part of freedom of speech do these police departments not understand?

That is her side of the story.. We have not heard the Police side of the story and with as large a department as they are the cars should be equipped with cameras.

I would like to see the police side of the story before we go down this road. It does not sound right that an officer would pull up, grab her and search her bag before even saying anything. I dont think we are getting the entire story.

if the citation is based off of her actions / location then its not a 1st amendment issue (the Supreme court case dealt solely with the person being charged for warning about the speed trap and nothing else).

If the cop in fact made something up then by all means, rally the lawyers and go from there.

OH sure! out of all the people on the sidewalk the one with the sign that says speed trap ahead was the girl who obviously was breaking the law by not being on the sidewalk...makes perfect sense doesnt it?

reply to post by MrJohnSmith


Mr John Smith
Re "Anyway, if you aren't speeding, what's the problem ? "

Gees that type of statement makes my skin crawl. It's people who follow THAT type of mentality that will eventually erode ALL of our freedoms. It doesn't matter if you're in the UK, USA or AU. Please, try and see past your goody two shoes attitude and realise that you are a big part of the problem