 |
 |
It is currently Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:11 pm |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page 2 of 2 |
[ 30 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2 |
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
UK man sentenced to 8 months in jail for flipping off camera
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Site Supporter   Location: Apple Country! Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 Posts: 4578 Real Name: J 
|
Arisaka wrote: 8 months for a laser jammer?? That is just stupid Destruction of evidence is a major crime. sreyemj wrote: Our constitution recognizes some natural rights that the UK does not. When the government's right to remotely monitor your speed trumps your right to not be incarcerated, I would argue those rights are probably being violated. Just because there's a law, doesn't mean it just. I mean, we have the same laws. _________________ "Guns are dangerous." -Massivedesign |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:22 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Nova Laboratories Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 Posts: 18446 Real Name: Johnny 5
|
root wrote: Arisaka wrote: 8 months for a laser jammer?? That is just stupid Destruction of evidence is a major crime. sreyemj wrote: Our constitution recognizes some natural rights that the UK does not. When the government's right to remotely monitor your speed trumps your right to not be incarcerated, I would argue those rights are probably being violated. Just because there's a law, doesn't mean it just. I mean, we have the same laws. Very few states have laws against laser jammers.. I believe 4 or 5. _________________ NO DISASSEMBLE! Thomas Paine wrote: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:44 am |
|
|
|
 Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 Posts: 1367
|
root wrote: Arisaka wrote: 8 months for a laser jammer?? That is just stupid Destruction of evidence is a major crime. sreyemj wrote: Our constitution recognizes some natural rights that the UK does not. When the government's right to remotely monitor your speed trumps your right to not be incarcerated, I would argue those rights are probably being violated. Just because there's a law, doesn't mean it just. I mean, we have the same laws. Sure, and I'm fairly against speed cameras and other autonomous monitoring devices. The argument usually goes that "you have nothing to fear if you're not committing a crime". Some people might argue the more monitoring, the better, because you are less likely to be victimized and criminals are more likely to be caught. The issue is that circumventing the monitoring device becomes a crime, and your right to not be incarcerated is contingent on the government's right to monitor your behavior (even if you are not committing a crime). |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:09 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Apple Country! Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 Posts: 4578 Real Name: J
|
TechnoWeenie wrote: root wrote: Arisaka wrote: 8 months for a laser jammer?? That is just stupid Destruction of evidence is a major crime. sreyemj wrote: Our constitution recognizes some natural rights that the UK does not. When the government's right to remotely monitor your speed trumps your right to not be incarcerated, I would argue those rights are probably being violated. Just because there's a law, doesn't mean it just. I mean, we have the same laws. Very few states have laws against laser jammers.. I believe 4 or 5. Destruction of evidence is illegal in all 50 states. sreyemj wrote: root wrote: Arisaka wrote: 8 months for a laser jammer?? That is just stupid Destruction of evidence is a major crime. sreyemj wrote: Our constitution recognizes some natural rights that the UK does not. When the government's right to remotely monitor your speed trumps your right to not be incarcerated, I would argue those rights are probably being violated. Just because there's a law, doesn't mean it just. I mean, we have the same laws. Sure, and I'm fairly against speed cameras and other autonomous monitoring devices. The argument usually goes that "you have nothing to fear if you're not committing a crime". Some people might argue the more monitoring, the better, because you are less likely to be victimized and criminals are more likely to be caught. The issue is that circumventing the monitoring device becomes a crime, and your right to not be incarcerated is contingent on the government's right to monitor your behavior (even if you are not committing a crime). Correct, but destroying evidence is still a crime in itself. And a very stiff one at that. Had he just left it, and not tried to play that game it would have been a much lower penalty. _________________ "Guns are dangerous." -Massivedesign |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:21 pm |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 Posts: 1367
|
root wrote: Correct, but destroying evidence is still a crime in itself. And a very stiff one at that. Had he just left it, and not tried to play that game it would have been a much lower penalty. Unless they have evidence that he was speeding, I'm very unsympathetic to this type of prosecution. Jail for destroying a device you may have been using to evade detection of a crime you may have been committing is just sad. Elected officials in towns with speed cameras should have GPS speed monitors on their vehicles. Tickets can be emailed to save postage. |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:40 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Nova Laboratories Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 Posts: 18446 Real Name: Johnny 5
|
root wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: root wrote: Arisaka wrote: 8 months for a laser jammer?? That is just stupid Destruction of evidence is a major crime. sreyemj wrote: Our constitution recognizes some natural rights that the UK does not. When the government's right to remotely monitor your speed trumps your right to not be incarcerated, I would argue those rights are probably being violated. Just because there's a law, doesn't mean it just. I mean, we have the same laws. Very few states have laws against laser jammers.. I believe 4 or 5. Destruction of evidence is illegal in all 50 states. sreyemj wrote: root wrote: Arisaka wrote: 8 months for a laser jammer?? That is just stupid Destruction of evidence is a major crime. sreyemj wrote: Our constitution recognizes some natural rights that the UK does not. When the government's right to remotely monitor your speed trumps your right to not be incarcerated, I would argue those rights are probably being violated. Just because there's a law, doesn't mean it just. I mean, we have the same laws. Sure, and I'm fairly against speed cameras and other autonomous monitoring devices. The argument usually goes that "you have nothing to fear if you're not committing a crime". Some people might argue the more monitoring, the better, because you are less likely to be victimized and criminals are more likely to be caught. The issue is that circumventing the monitoring device becomes a crime, and your right to not be incarcerated is contingent on the government's right to monitor your behavior (even if you are not committing a crime). Correct, but destroying evidence is still a crime in itself. And a very stiff one at that. Had he just left it, and not tried to play that game it would have been a much lower penalty. It's not evidence unless it exists... Otherwise you'd get an evidence tampering charge for wearing gloves during your robbery..lolol _________________ NO DISASSEMBLE! Thomas Paine wrote: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:04 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Apple Country! Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 Posts: 4578 Real Name: J
|
TechnoWeenie wrote: root wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: root wrote: Arisaka wrote: 8 months for a laser jammer?? That is just stupid Destruction of evidence is a major crime. sreyemj wrote: Our constitution recognizes some natural rights that the UK does not. When the government's right to remotely monitor your speed trumps your right to not be incarcerated, I would argue those rights are probably being violated. Just because there's a law, doesn't mean it just. I mean, we have the same laws. Very few states have laws against laser jammers.. I believe 4 or 5. Destruction of evidence is illegal in all 50 states. sreyemj wrote: root wrote: Arisaka wrote: 8 months for a laser jammer?? That is just stupid Destruction of evidence is a major crime. sreyemj wrote: Our constitution recognizes some natural rights that the UK does not. When the government's right to remotely monitor your speed trumps your right to not be incarcerated, I would argue those rights are probably being violated. Just because there's a law, doesn't mean it just. I mean, we have the same laws. Sure, and I'm fairly against speed cameras and other autonomous monitoring devices. The argument usually goes that "you have nothing to fear if you're not committing a crime". Some people might argue the more monitoring, the better, because you are less likely to be victimized and criminals are more likely to be caught. The issue is that circumventing the monitoring device becomes a crime, and your right to not be incarcerated is contingent on the government's right to monitor your behavior (even if you are not committing a crime). Correct, but destroying evidence is still a crime in itself. And a very stiff one at that. Had he just left it, and not tried to play that game it would have been a much lower penalty. It's not evidence unless it exists... Otherwise you'd get an evidence tampering charge for wearing gloves during your robbery..lolol Ah yes, the ole ITS NOT EVIDENCE IF ITS ALREADY DESTROYED argument. Bulletproof logic there my friend. sreyemj wrote: root wrote: Correct, but destroying evidence is still a crime in itself. And a very stiff one at that. Had he just left it, and not tried to play that game it would have been a much lower penalty. Unless they have evidence that he was speeding, I'm very unsympathetic to this type of prosecution. Jail for destroying a device you may have been using to evade detection of a crime you may have been committing is just sad. Elected officials in towns with speed cameras should have GPS speed monitors on their vehicles. Tickets can be emailed to save postage. So... the multiple videos/stills of him using the jammer... With his face clearly visible is not evidence. Got it. I get hating on speed cams, but ffs yall being obtuse for the sake of it. He committed a crime, was caught, THEN committed a worse crime of tampering with evidence. FFS, Come off it. _________________ "Guns are dangerous." -Massivedesign |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Nova Laboratories Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 Posts: 18446 Real Name: Johnny 5
|
root wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: root wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: root wrote: Arisaka wrote: 8 months for a laser jammer?? That is just stupid Destruction of evidence is a major crime. sreyemj wrote: Our constitution recognizes some natural rights that the UK does not. When the government's right to remotely monitor your speed trumps your right to not be incarcerated, I would argue those rights are probably being violated. Just because there's a law, doesn't mean it just. I mean, we have the same laws. Very few states have laws against laser jammers.. I believe 4 or 5. Destruction of evidence is illegal in all 50 states. sreyemj wrote: root wrote: Arisaka wrote: 8 months for a laser jammer?? That is just stupid Destruction of evidence is a major crime. sreyemj wrote: Our constitution recognizes some natural rights that the UK does not. When the government's right to remotely monitor your speed trumps your right to not be incarcerated, I would argue those rights are probably being violated. Just because there's a law, doesn't mean it just. I mean, we have the same laws. Sure, and I'm fairly against speed cameras and other autonomous monitoring devices. The argument usually goes that "you have nothing to fear if you're not committing a crime". Some people might argue the more monitoring, the better, because you are less likely to be victimized and criminals are more likely to be caught. The issue is that circumventing the monitoring device becomes a crime, and your right to not be incarcerated is contingent on the government's right to monitor your behavior (even if you are not committing a crime). Correct, but destroying evidence is still a crime in itself. And a very stiff one at that. Had he just left it, and not tried to play that game it would have been a much lower penalty. It's not evidence unless it exists... Otherwise you'd get an evidence tampering charge for wearing gloves during your robbery..lolol Ah yes, the ole ITS NOT EVIDENCE IF ITS ALREADY DESTROYED argument. Bulletproof logic there my friend. sreyemj wrote: root wrote: Correct, but destroying evidence is still a crime in itself. And a very stiff one at that. Had he just left it, and not tried to play that game it would have been a much lower penalty. Unless they have evidence that he was speeding, I'm very unsympathetic to this type of prosecution. Jail for destroying a device you may have been using to evade detection of a crime you may have been committing is just sad. Elected officials in towns with speed cameras should have GPS speed monitors on their vehicles. Tickets can be emailed to save postage. So... the multiple videos/stills of him using the jammer... With his face clearly visible is not evidence. Got it. I get hating on speed cams, but ffs yall being obtuse for the sake of it. He committed a crime, was caught, THEN committed a worse crime of tampering with evidence. FFS, Come off it. No. If he made fingerprints then wiped everything down afterwards, that's tampering. If he wore gloves, it's not.there was no evidence to destroy because it didn't exist yet Ditto with laser jammer, which is a glorified flashlight with an invisible beam. They need to be able to prove he's speeding, and they can't. He didn't wipe the memory of the LASER system after his speed was registered, he prevented his speed from being registered at all.... Is a flashlight in a camera lens 'tampering with evidence'? No. Is erasing the footage? Yes. Pretty clear distinction in my book. _________________ NO DISASSEMBLE! Thomas Paine wrote: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:24 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Index Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 Posts: 12963 Real Name: Jeff
|
TechnoWeenie wrote: No. If he made fingerprints then wiped everything down afterwards, that's tampering. If he wore gloves, it's not.there was no evidence to destroy because it didn't exist yet Ditto with laser jammer, which is a glorified flashlight with an invisible beam. They need to be able to prove he's speeding, and they can't. He didn't wipe the memory of the LASER system after his speed was registered, he prevented his speed from being registered at all.... Is a flashlight in a camera lens 'tampering with evidence'? No. Is erasing the footage? Yes. Pretty clear distinction in my book. Man, sometimes you are so obtuse. He had been using a jammer. They had video footage that showed his car, and his face. (And his bird.) They detected a jammer. They started an investigation, and when asked, he lied about it. But then tried to destroy the jammer. Then threw it in the river. They came back and questioned him again. Notice: He admitted that he had used a jammer. And then: He admitted guilt, in court, to exactly the charges he was jailed for. The law said he was guilty. The officers said he was guilty. The courts said he was guilty. HE said he was guilty. The only person in the world that is still screaming that he is not guilty, and was arrested/jailed simply because he flipped off the camera... Is you. _________________ -Jeff How can I help you, and/or make you smile, today? You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to tell me what mine must be. Do justice. Love mercy. “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” ~ Richard P. Feynman |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:05 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Nova Laboratories Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 Posts: 18446 Real Name: Johnny 5
|
Selador wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: No. If he made fingerprints then wiped everything down afterwards, that's tampering. If he wore gloves, it's not.there was no evidence to destroy because it didn't exist yet Ditto with laser jammer, which is a glorified flashlight with an invisible beam. They need to be able to prove he's speeding, and they can't. He didn't wipe the memory of the LASER system after his speed was registered, he prevented his speed from being registered at all.... Is a flashlight in a camera lens 'tampering with evidence'? No. Is erasing the footage? Yes. Pretty clear distinction in my book. Man, sometimes you are so obtuse. He had been using a jammer. They had video footage that showed his car, and his face. (And his bird.) They detected a jammer. They started an investigation, and when asked, he lied about it. But then tried to destroy the jammer. Then threw it in the river. They came back and questioned him again. Notice: He admitted that he had used a jammer. And then: He admitted guilt, in court, to exactly the charges he was jailed for. The law said he was guilty. The officers said he was guilty. The courts said he was guilty. HE said he was guilty. The only person in the world that is still screaming that he is not guilty, and was arrested/jailed simply because he flipped off the camera... Is you. ....and we go back to jammers shouldn't be illegal... _________________ NO DISASSEMBLE! Thomas Paine wrote: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:12 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Index Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 Posts: 12963 Real Name: Jeff
|
TechnoWeenie wrote: Selador wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: No. If he made fingerprints then wiped everything down afterwards, that's tampering. If he wore gloves, it's not.there was no evidence to destroy because it didn't exist yet Ditto with laser jammer, which is a glorified flashlight with an invisible beam. They need to be able to prove he's speeding, and they can't. He didn't wipe the memory of the LASER system after his speed was registered, he prevented his speed from being registered at all.... Is a flashlight in a camera lens 'tampering with evidence'? No. Is erasing the footage? Yes. Pretty clear distinction in my book. Man, sometimes you are so obtuse. He had been using a jammer. They had video footage that showed his car, and his face. (And his bird.) They detected a jammer. They started an investigation, and when asked, he lied about it. But then tried to destroy the jammer. Then threw it in the river. They came back and questioned him again. Notice: He admitted that he had used a jammer. And then: He admitted guilt, in court, to exactly the charges he was jailed for. The law said he was guilty. The officers said he was guilty. The courts said he was guilty. HE said he was guilty. The only person in the world that is still screaming that he is not guilty, and was arrested/jailed simply because he flipped off the camera... Is you. ....and we go back to jammers shouldn't be illegal... Gotta admit. You are consistent. Obtusely so. But consistent.  The way you change the target every time you get pinned down, would make any snowflake liberal proud... _________________ -Jeff How can I help you, and/or make you smile, today? You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to tell me what mine must be. Do justice. Love mercy. “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” ~ Richard P. Feynman |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:15 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: South Seattle Joined: Thu May 2, 2013 Posts: 12474 Real Name: Steve
|
Any time the word Jammer is typed on this forum, threads don't end well....
(though last time it was part of a moniker...) Perhaps the word should be banned  |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:26 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Nova Laboratories Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 Posts: 18446 Real Name: Johnny 5
|
Selador wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: Selador wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: No. If he made fingerprints then wiped everything down afterwards, that's tampering. If he wore gloves, it's not.there was no evidence to destroy because it didn't exist yet Ditto with laser jammer, which is a glorified flashlight with an invisible beam. They need to be able to prove he's speeding, and they can't. He didn't wipe the memory of the LASER system after his speed was registered, he prevented his speed from being registered at all.... Is a flashlight in a camera lens 'tampering with evidence'? No. Is erasing the footage? Yes. Pretty clear distinction in my book. Man, sometimes you are so obtuse. He had been using a jammer. They had video footage that showed his car, and his face. (And his bird.) They detected a jammer. They started an investigation, and when asked, he lied about it. But then tried to destroy the jammer. Then threw it in the river. They came back and questioned him again. Notice: He admitted that he had used a jammer. And then: He admitted guilt, in court, to exactly the charges he was jailed for. The law said he was guilty. The officers said he was guilty. The courts said he was guilty. HE said he was guilty. The only person in the world that is still screaming that he is not guilty, and was arrested/jailed simply because he flipped off the camera... Is you. ....and we go back to jammers shouldn't be illegal... Gotta admit. You are consistent. Obtusely so. But consistent. The way you change the target every time you get pinned down, would make any snowflake liberal proud... LOL. The way the police worded it made it sound like they went after him because they got flipped off, as in they would've said 'whatever' if he wasn't so flippant... Kinda like how you get pulled over for 'failure to dim' for flashing your highbeams to warn other motorists, despite such activity being clearly defined as protected speech. _________________ NO DISASSEMBLE! Thomas Paine wrote: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." |
| Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:54 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: East of Japan, not by much. Joined: Fri Jun 3, 2011 Posts: 12990
|
Well, fuck me running with an open donut.
One thing is for sure. Technoweenie - you got an astonishing career ahead of you working for CNN. Anyone who can twist the English language into a pretzel and shit it out the eye of a needle as well as you can gets a starting salary in multiples of seven figures, their own show, and a bunch of plastic back up bitches as talking heads and scenery. Why are you wasting your talent here, when you could be verbally trashing the entire English speaking world on tee vee ? _________________ Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Give a man a fishing pole, and he will drink too much beer, get tangled in fish line, hook himself in the nose casting, fall overboard, and either drown, or, go home hungry and wet. Give a man a case of dynamite, and he will feed the whole town for a year! BE ON NOTICE: PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning - any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other "picture" art posted on my profile. You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee, agent, student or any personnel under your direction or control. The contents of this profile are PRIVATE and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law. UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE |
| Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:53 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Rochester, WA Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 Posts: 3761 Real Name: Mr. Idgaf
|
TechnoWeenie wrote: Selador wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: No. If he made fingerprints then wiped everything down afterwards, that's tampering. If he wore gloves, it's not.there was no evidence to destroy because it didn't exist yet Ditto with laser jammer, which is a glorified flashlight with an invisible beam. They need to be able to prove he's speeding, and they can't. He didn't wipe the memory of the LASER system after his speed was registered, he prevented his speed from being registered at all.... Is a flashlight in a camera lens 'tampering with evidence'? No. Is erasing the footage? Yes. Pretty clear distinction in my book. Man, sometimes you are so obtuse. He had been using a jammer. They had video footage that showed his car, and his face. (And his bird.) They detected a jammer. They started an investigation, and when asked, he lied about it. But then tried to destroy the jammer. Then threw it in the river. They came back and questioned him again. Notice: He admitted that he had used a jammer. And then: He admitted guilt, in court, to exactly the charges he was jailed for. The law said he was guilty. The officers said he was guilty. The courts said he was guilty. HE said he was guilty. The only person in the world that is still screaming that he is not guilty, and was arrested/jailed simply because he flipped off the camera... Is you. ....and we go back to jammers shouldn't be illegal... And yet they are in the jurisdiction in question. _________________ MadPick wrote: Without penetration data, the pics aren't of much use.
“You can’t cut the throat of every cocksucker whose character it would improve.”
|
| Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Page 2 of 2 |
[ 30 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2 |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: chuckisduck, James06, RocketScott, stompah and 48 guests |
| You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|