CA Bill AB-645

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

To catch criminals is why.

I like the way they are using DNA databases to track murder/rape/kidnapper suspects by figuring out who they are related to.

In the future, thieves, gangs, hit and run people, drunk drivers or all types of people will be deterred or be found quite easily. Evidence to prosecute will make trials swift.

yep, i've seen that movie.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

yep, i've seen that movie.

More like this one, except instead of disbanding the technology when it has the potential for abuse and can be flawed, we work to make it better. In a similar way, we don't disband our entire criminal justice system because it incarcerates and kills innocent people; we work to improve it.

[rice_classic]

Going back to the content of the original post..

This sort of thing will result in the honest people paying the fines. Shitty people, criminals - they won’t care. They don’t care when they flash rob the malls or steal kias to crash and grab from small businesses. This would be surveillance and punishment of people who don’t need either.

The proliferation of cameras isn’t bad as there’s more opportunity to source evidence of a crime and identify a perp and then use the appropriate channels to arrest and charge.

[soundman98]

yep, laws only work for those that need to follow the laws.

the more laws there are, the less people are able to follow the laws, the less people that follow the laws, result in a lawless society.

as i posited early on. eventually, the occasional fine for driving without a plate is cheaper than any applicable fines for following the law and maintaining the license plate identification.

i did it once with a front plate. i was never caught or fined. cheaper not pay for the bracket.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

yep, laws only work for those that need to follow the laws.

the more laws there are, the less people are able to follow the laws, the less people that follow the laws, result in a lawless society.

as i posited early on. eventually, the occasional fine for driving without a plate is cheaper than any applicable fines for following the law and maintaining the license plate identification.

i did it once with a front plate. i was never caught or fined. cheaper not pay for the bracket.

I don’t really understand when people use these absolute statements. They sound profound, but are rarely true or revealing.

“laws only work for those that need to follow the laws.” So they work for most people, so isn’t that good? Are you saying we don’t need laws because good people would do the right thing without them? If we didn’t have laws then how would we prosecute those who don’t follow laws? The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, so laws seem to result in prosecution, meaning they work against the lawless and seem to be a deterrent, so I don’t get your point.

“the more laws there are, the less people are able to follow the laws, the less people that follow the laws, result in a lawless society.“ The more? That is kind of vague. The more absolute? The more as in the larger the number of laws? They tried doing one law—prohibition—but that seemed to not be simple enough. We could try legalizing everything to keep it simple for people? How about a middle ground? Don’t go over the posted speed limit. Complicated. Care to elaborate what system you are advocating for?

Not running a front plate is a big difference between not running a back plate, and I’m sure if there was a surge in people driving without a rear plate then they would be more proactive about pulling people over without those. I don’t think this will be a viable solution for many people to avoid daily fines, so they can speed 10+ over the speed limit.

[soundman98]

i vote megatron.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I don’t really understand when people use these absolute statements. They sound profound, but are rarely true or revealing.

“laws only work for those that need to follow the laws.” So they work for most people, so isn’t that good?

yes, and no. we touched earlier on this with speed limit rules. people are proven to only follow rules when they're either convenient, easy to follow, or it's culturally mandated via peer pressure.

but there's also a limit where continually adding new rules, and not modifying the environment to suit the new rules starts to undermine all rules.

people aren't consistently slowing down on the previous example road i mentioned. they made a change to the rules without changing the environment. while hardline police enforcement would offer some way to reinforce the alteration of the rules, it would have a side effect on a lack of trust of the police force enforcing the rules, in a time where trust in police forces is already at a low point. despite the fact that the police don't make the speed limit rules. the local council does.


but at the same time, adding rules also doesn't guarantee acceptance. for instance-- gun crime in chicago was at an all-time high over the last 10 years. many politicians for the area successfully ran on platforms specifically to curb the gun violence.

those politicians created numerous laws governing firearm ownership, some of the strictest in the country-- later to be deemed unconstitutional by federal courts, and the laws were stripped from the books after over a decade of additions.

interestingly, none of those overbearing unconstitutional laws curbed the gun violence issue. they kept issuing newer and more strict laws for gun control pertaining to who was allowed to purchase one, and how long hold times would be, with the assumption that people with guns would follow the rules.

but the ignored reality for these politicians is that those that were committing the gun violence crimes were not following the legal channels to acquire the guns anyways. many came from over state borders with much more lax laws, but it being a 'chicago problem', laws were only ever passed and enforced within chicago.

those laws have now been altered to federally-acceptable laws, and the gun violence hasn't changed significantly in either direction, indicating they were neither helping or hurting the root problem.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Are you saying we don’t need laws because good people would do the right thing without them?

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

If we didn’t have laws then how would we prosecute those who don’t follow laws? The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, so laws seem to result in prosecution, meaning they work against the lawless and seem to be a deterrent, so I don’t get your point.

that worked really well for australia.

laws are beneficial, but too many laws only serve to do what england did with australia. everything must be a balance.

the question becomes "what are we trying to do with the laws." most times, it seems we want everyone to assimilate to do what a specific group wants, when there will always be a group of outliers. what do we do with those outliers? regulate and prosecute them away?

i was trying to simplify some famous quotes, clearly it didn't work.

here's a more direct quote.

Originally Posted by nelson mandela

When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

“the more laws there are, the less people are able to follow the laws, the less people that follow the laws, result in a lawless society.“ The more? That is kind of vague. The more absolute? The more as in the larger the number of laws? They tried doing one law—prohibition—but that seemed to not be simple enough. We could try legalizing everything to keep it simple for people? How about a middle ground? Don’t go over the posted speed limit. Complicated. Care to elaborate what system you are advocating for?

laws within reason. this is a time where many are questioning the level of freedom we have within this country as more and more rules and regulations are added on top of previous rules and regulations.

i believe we need to honestly look backwards before adding more and more.

if previous laws aren't effective, they should either be stripped from the record, or altered to be effective. not added on and added on.

but there also needs to be a grasp by the rule makers of how any law can be reasonably enforced as well.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

yes, and no. we touched earlier on this with speed limit rules. people are proven to only follow rules when they're either convenient, easy to follow, or it's culturally mandated via peer pressure.

but there's also a limit where continually adding new rules, and not modifying the environment to suit the new rules starts to undermine all rules.

people aren't consistently slowing down on the previous example road i mentioned. they made a change to the rules without changing the environment. while hardline police enforcement would offer some way to reinforce the alteration of the rules, it would have a side effect on a lack of trust of the police force enforcing the rules, in a time where trust in police forces is already at a low point. despite the fact that the police don't make the speed limit rules. the local council does.

but at the same time, adding rules also doesn't guarantee acceptance. for instance-- gun crime in chicago was at an all-time high over the last 10 years. many politicians for the area successfully ran on platforms specifically to curb the gun violence.

those politicians created numerous laws governing firearm ownership, some of the strictest in the country-- later to be deemed unconstitutional by federal courts, and the laws were stripped from the books after over a decade of additions.

interestingly, none of those overbearing unconstitutional laws curbed the gun violence issue. they kept issuing newer and more strict laws for gun control pertaining to who was allowed to purchase one, and how long hold times would be, with the assumption that people with guns would follow the rules.

but the ignored reality for these politicians is that those that were committing the gun violence crimes were not following the legal channels to acquire the guns anyways. many came from over state borders with much more lax laws, but it being a 'chicago problem', laws were only ever passed and enforced within chicago.

those laws have now been altered to federally-acceptable laws, and the gun violence hasn't changed significantly in either direction, indicating they were neither helping or hurting the root problem.

You mention buying guns from other states with looser laws, but I don't think you highlighted the severity of the issue and how much it made a difference. We know a large percentage of guns in cities come from out of state, which I suppose makes the laws pointless if people are just going to go to other states to get guns, but it also gives credence to the idea that gun control could work; the statement that it doesn't work because Chicago still has problems is false because those laws aren't universal. The problem is enforcement.

Seems like this program is a good approach to improve enforcement. People are going to try to get around the laws, but make it hard enough and people will just need to follow the rules. There are many examples of this happening such as Apple making Jailbreaking harder and harder, or the EPA cracking down on tuners. Hit people in the pockets and be effective enough at catching people, and people will eventually give up when there is a shift in risk vs reward.

Originally Posted by soundman98

that worked really well for australia.

laws are beneficial, but too many laws only serve to do what england did with australia. everything must be a balance.

the question becomes "what are we trying to do with the laws." most times, it seems we want everyone to assimilate to do what a specific group wants, when there will always be a group of outliers. what do we do with those outliers? regulate and prosecute them away?

i was trying to simplify some famous quotes, clearly it didn't work.

here's a more direct quote.

Said everyone in prison...so does it mean anything outside of a specific context. Yes, we can turn anyone into a criminal, and we can allow criminals to get away with anything. The problem is when someone wants to live a life in a society, but doesn't want to follow the rules of that society. People may not like everything about being apart of that society, so legally change it if they must or leave, but being lawless and bitter about it just doesn't make sense. Societies don't need to bend to criminals who don't play nice with everyone else. You know the types at every level; those Karens swerving in and out of traffic going 10+ over because they are late and are in a rush, and it is suddenly all about them for the world to get out of their way...bam, camera ticket for them. I don't feel bad. Pay to play.

Originally Posted by soundman98

laws within reason. this is a time where many are questioning the level of freedom we have within this country as more and more rules and regulations are added on top of previous rules and regulations.

i believe we need to honestly look backwards before adding more and more.

if previous laws aren't effective, they should either be stripped from the record, or altered to be effective. not added on and added on.

but there also needs to be a grasp by the rule makers of how any law can be reasonably enforced as well.

This bill is a pilot program for enforcement. While that encompasses passing new legislation/laws, the law is still the same: follow the speed limit. This changes the scope of enforcement. This bill is following your own suggestion: "altered to be effective," as it relates to enforcement. Cops on the streets isn't enough, so they altered enforcement in an effort to have a better effect on compliance. It is probably cheaper than trying to rebuild our streets and highways.

This is an issue, objectively, and subjectively too from my anecdotal perspective of people doing donuts and racing at midnight all the time. What is your solution? Less enforcement? Less laws?

https://apnews.com/article/covid-19-...ab5f2b30952725

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco...rrants-issued/

https://abc7news.com/bay-area-sidesh...ioch/13615178/

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

This is an issue, objectively, and subjectively too from my anecdotal perspective of people doing donuts and racing at midnight all the time. What is your solution? Less enforcement? Less laws?

https://apnews.com/article/covid-19-...ab5f2b30952725

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco...rrants-issued/

https://abc7news.com/bay-area-sidesh...ioch/13615178/

perfect example.

so laws haven't worked. let's make more laws, get stricter enforcement, implement a curfew, imprison more of them. now it's a game, more and more are participating in. now we've created australia. does no one read history books anymore?

i know that with the current legal property and rights structure, it would never work (the property owners would get sued into oblivion if anyone got hurt on the assumption they are responsible, and have something worth taking), but what about just opening up a large lot somewhere and letting them at it?

this isn't exactly a new problem-- younger people showing off in cars, doing stunts, getting egged on by a crowd. but it is a new problem in that there's more of them, and less and less space to do such things, and it goes onto the internet. most race tracks are closing down, those that are still open are expensive to use, pricing away the average person in a lot of ways.


many older car guys i know all have stories of doing similar 'stunting' stuff in the 50-70's. one guy i know still laughs about the time he blew through the 25mph-area city square at 110, had to cut across the courthouse lawn to make it through, the tracks were there for over a year. another 2, they broke through the barriers to the new under-construction highway, and ran all the way to 175mph 'till they got bored. they ended up stopping 10' away from the end of the concreted part of the highway. there's another part of town that's now part of a forest preserve that those same guy's maintained a marked 1/4 mile(stole some reflective highway paint to mark it)--they used to line both sides for 2 miles with cars, and take turns making passes every saturday night from 8pm to 5am.

my point is that this isn't a new problem, and there's really only 3 ways the people get out of it.

1. throw them in prison, which tends to result in a whole lot of other issues later(try getting a job with any record).
2. they grow out of it later.
3. they die.

a good majority fit into #2.

my major problem with more laws, and more prison time is that there's zero coming back from a criminal record. it's essentially a death sentence, but we keep them living so euthanasia doesn't become a political issue, despite likely being much more humane and more definitive to solving the problem.

this is specifically identified in country music star Jelly Roll's history, and current difficulties. the overarching philosophy behind prison has always been to rehabilitate and reintroduce people to become successful and productive members of society. i can't think of a better example of someone that's completely turned their life around from their criminal acts to becoming someone that successfully earns millions of dollars a year--essentially what most americans dream of doing. that by definition should be the rehabilitation and reintroduction that prison should pride itself on.

but if someone with that vast an income has difficulty overcoming such a system from buying a house, to just visiting other countries, there's pretty much no hope for even a moderately successful businessman of ever being anything after a conviction that results in prison time.

and at that point, it only encourages those individuals to become better criminals. which means more prison time, more waste of taxpayer dollars, and more future problems.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

perfect example.

so laws haven't worked. let's make more laws, get stricter enforcement, implement a curfew, imprison more of them. now it's a game, more and more are participating in. now we've created australia. does no one read history books anymore?

i know that with the current legal property and rights structure, it would never work (the property owners would get sued into oblivion if anyone got hurt on the assumption they are responsible, and have something worth taking), but what about just opening up a large lot somewhere and letting them at it?

this isn't exactly a new problem-- younger people showing off in cars, doing stunts, getting egged on by a crowd. but it is a new problem in that there's more of them, and less and less space to do such things, and it goes onto the internet. most race tracks are closing down, those that are still open are expensive to use, pricing away the average person in a lot of ways.


many older car guys i know all have stories of doing similar 'stunting' stuff in the 50-70's. one guy i know still laughs about the time he blew through the 25mph-area city square at 110, had to cut across the courthouse lawn to make it through, the tracks were there for over a year. another 2, they broke through the barriers to the new under-construction highway, and ran all the way to 175mph 'till they got bored. they ended up stopping 10' away from the end of the concreted part of the highway. there's another part of town that's now part of a forest preserve that those same guy's maintained a marked 1/4 mile(stole some reflective highway paint to mark it)--they used to line both sides for 2 miles with cars, and take turns making passes every saturday night from 8pm to 5am.

my point is that this isn't a new problem, and there's really only 3 ways the people get out of it.

1. throw them in prison, which tends to result in a whole lot of other issues later(try getting a job with any record).
2. they grow out of it later.
3. they die.

a good majority fit into #2.

my major problem with more laws, and more prison time is that there's zero coming back from a criminal record. it's essentially a death sentence, but we keep them living so euthanasia doesn't become a political issue, despite likely being much more humane and more definitive to solving the problem.

this is specifically identified in country music star Jelly Roll's history, and current difficulties. the overarching philosophy behind prison has always been to rehabilitate and reintroduce people to become successful and productive members of society. i can't think of a better example of someone that's completely turned their life around from their criminal acts to becoming someone that successfully earns millions of dollars a year--essentially what most americans dream of doing. that by definition should be the rehabilitation and reintroduction that prison should pride itself on.

but if someone with that vast an income has difficulty overcoming such a system from buying a house, to just visiting other countries, there's pretty much no hope for even a moderately successful businessman of ever being anything after a conviction that results in prison time.

and at that point, it only encourages those individuals to become better criminals. which means more prison time, more waste of taxpayer dollars, and more future problems.

San Francisco is trying to make minor crimes and non-violent crimes less severe like for theft or possession. Addicts and poor people shouldn't be sent to prison for petty theft for something they can't help, was the idea, and I agree. Less people in prison costing tax payers money. Less people getting their life further ruined and just ending worse off because of prison life and damaging their record.
Unfortunately, it isn't working out too well for San Francisco because organized crime is just getting wise, and people who steal are just getting more brazen with stealing. It isn't working out for many areas in California and around the country. My wife is a manager at Whole Foods, and they deal with theft on a daily basis, with some people walking out with hundreds to over a thousand in supplements and other expensive items. Nothing they can do these days.

The solutions to the problems created from relaxing these laws is to create new laws to punish organized crime. In the end, these acts of theft are often NOT non-violent. Like looting during natural disasters or during riots, a few bad apples can normalize bad behavior, and/or people can get fed up and take matters into their own hands, which is a different type of lawlessness--vigilantism. This goes the same with speeding, reckless driving, racing, stunting, etc. I think the camera system is a good start. It increases compliance and increases enforcement. More police would be more intrusive and more expensive, but the benefit of more price is very often people don't just commit one crime. Officers pull people over for speeding and reckless driving, and they find no insurance, no registration, suspended licenses, driving under the influence, illegal possession of drugs and guns, intent to sell, child abuse and much more. Luckily people only have to deal with a camera.