New System for Traffic Tickets

The equation has to be based on a proportion of the total population. For instance: Numerical Caucasian males commit more statistically tracked crimes than other groups in the U.S., but Blacks complain that a "higher percentage" of Blacks are incarcerated in the "prison" population. In other words as a % of the Black population the percentage is higher than the White's who are incarcerated from the the "White male" population.

Putting the "camera" idea aside as already having failed in most metro areas, before you begin your quest for a more perfect world you might want to explore the REALITY of what causes people to commit traffic offenses and what traffic offenses are committed with a statistical chart. What you will probably discover .... mathematically .... is that there is not really any bias in the system worthy of revamping the existing system of traffic enforcement. For instance ....

If you don't know what the below means, then one should not be allowed to drive until they've learned the English language .....



... the wheels on the ground have to STOP rolling.



Comprende, hombre? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I advocate going by the percentage of crimes committed by actual verifiable offenses in a local population group because I believe absent provable discrimination no redress by the government should be attempted based purely upon conviction statistics by the US population as a whole.

In one well known statistic, black males are convicted of approximately half of all murders, but only represent 6-7% of the population. Various groups use this to either prove racial moral failures and violent propensities or government sponsored discrimination and racism.

Ironically, black males might actually commit an even greater percentage of the murders but who knows? I think that in absence of provable discrimination "disparate impact" should not be allowed to override individual jury decisions conducted fairly.

This method of counting crime via documented evidence might very well address whether minorities are targeted by law enforcement as many leftists believe, or it may prove the point of people like Levi and me who believe the police are honestly enforcing the law.(except those who prosecute commercial sex transactions which should be ignored, which it mostly is)

This method of counting crime via documented evidence might very well address whether minorities are targeted by law enforcement as many leftists believe, or it may prove the point of people like Levi and me who believe the police are honestly enforcing the law.(except those who prosecute commercial sex transactions which should be ignored, which it mostly is) Originally Posted by friendly fred

There is a "method of counting crime" ... but a flaw in it is having to have LE interference to report it, which means LE is not "counting crime," but is actually counting arrests and stops for which an offense is actually charged. FYI: Not every LE contact results in an arrest and/or charge being formalized.

You were talking "traffic" offenses I thought.

FF:Traffic tickets should be apportioned not by race alone but by violations by each race and gender.

Here is my solution.

If you recall, Eric Holder's crew did an "investigation" into the allegations of "racial bias" in Ferguson after Brown got killed for trying to grab an officer's service weapon shortly after he had robbed a store of a "cigar"(?) using the intimidation of his size to aggravate the situation.

You can look it up ... but it showed, if I recall correctly, that most of the traffic stops by Ferguson police were folks from out of town and not residents of Ferguson. It's rather simple ... IMO ... if one doesn't want to get hassled and jacked up by small town cops then one might want to find another location to conduct their mischief.



"Free stuff"~!

One other point of fact that is a factor in criticism of traffic stops!

Ted Bundy was caught FINALLY by an officer stopping him for a busted taillight. Ted Bundy was White.

There is a "method of counting crime" ... but a flaw in it is having to have LE interference to report it, which means LE is not "counting crime," but is actually counting arrests and stops for which an offense is actually charged. FYI: Not every LE contact results in an arrest and/or charge being formalized.

You were talking "traffic" offenses I thought.



If you recall, Eric Holder's crew did an "investigation" into the allegations of "racial bias" in Ferguson after Brown got killed for trying to grab an officer's service weapon shortly after he had robbed a store of a "cigar"(?) using the intimidation of his size to aggravate the situation.

You can look it up ... but it showed, if I recall correctly, that most of the traffic stops by Ferguson police were folks from out of town and not residents of Ferguson. It's rather simple ... IMO ... if one doesn't want to get hassled and jacked up by small town cops then one might want to find another location to conduct their mischief.



"Free stuff"~!

One other point of fact that is a factor in criticism of traffic stops!

Ted Bundy was caught FINALLY by an officer stopping him for a busted taillight. Ted Bundy was White. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I was using traffic offensives because I felt they were easier to monitor in this manner.

In your response, the issue of out of towners also came up which skews the statistics away from population of a town and toward offenders caught in this case on camera. My method is self correcting towards those committing crimes rather than just residing in a town.

One could see a scenario were out of towners commit many crimes, skewing the arrest statistics toward their race, but since the town is another race it might be incorrectly seized upon by professional grievance hustlers as evidence of bias and discrimination. My method would provide incontrovertible proof of who is committing the crimes and vindicate honest officers.

I was using traffic offensives because I felt they were easier to monitor in this manner.

My method would provide incontrovertible proof of who is committing the crimes and vindicate honest officers. Originally Posted by friendly fred

No, you are incorrect. "Criminal" activity statistics are based solely on reports by LE officers, who determine that in their opinion and offense was committed and what the offense was. That includes traffic citations and reportable offenses to the FBI (UCR) and any State LE agency collecting stats. Any other info is merely speculation, including gender, age, and race stats.

Traffic offenses are a perfect example. An officer has a number of options in his or her discretion:
1. Ignore it .... "look the other way"
2. Stop the vehicle and give a verbal warning ... "don't do it again"!
3. Stop the vehicle and give a written warning ... "don't do it again"!
4. Stop the vehicle and issue a citation.
5. Stop the vehicle and arrest the driver by taking him or her into custody and to jail.

At any point of 1-5 no one KNOWS a crime HAS BEEN COMMITTED, AND ...

.. an arrest is NOT

.. incontrovertible proof of who is committing the crimes

.. SO NEITHER IS A STOP, ISSUANCE OF A WARNING, AND/OR ISSUANCE OF A CITATION.

Those are all based on a "reasonable suspicion" and/or "probable cause" .... which, AGAIN, IS NOT

incontrovertible proof of who is committing the crimes

The amount of a traffic ticket fine should be appropriate to the income of the offender. That way rich pricks will feel it when they do something stupid behind the wheel.

No, you are incorrect. "Criminal" activity statistics are based solely on reports by LE officers, who determine that in their opinion and offense was committed and what the offense was. That includes traffic citations and reportable offenses to the FBI (UCR) and any State LE agency collecting stats. Any other info is merely speculation, including gender, age, and race stats.

Traffic offenses are a perfect example. An officer has a number of options in his or her discretion:
1. Ignore it .... "look the other way"
2. Stop the vehicle and give a verbal warning ... "don't do it again"!
3. Stop the vehicle and give a written warning ... "don't do it again"!
4. Stop the vehicle and issue a citation.
5. Stop the vehicle and arrest the driver by taking him or her into custody and to jail.

At any point of 1-5 no one KNOWS a crime HAS BEEN COMMITTED, AND ...

.. an arrest is NOT

.. incontrovertible proof of who is committing the crimes

.. SO NEITHER IS A STOP, ISSUANCE OF A WARNING, AND/OR ISSUANCE OF A CITATION.

Those are all based on a "reasonable suspicion" and/or "probable cause" .... which, AGAIN, IS NOT

incontrovertible proof of who is committing the crimes Originally Posted by LexusLover

The camera images are the incontrovertible evidence I was referring to - if the camera records the person speeding and it is not tampered with then the offenders race and sex will be noted for the location and once enough data is accumulated tickets when the be set up in quota amounts for the relevant people groups.

The amount of a traffic ticket fine should be appropriate to the income of the offender. That way rich pricks will feel it when they do something stupid behind the wheel. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

By what method will you determine income?

Does passive income count?

What about capital gains?

What would be the percentage?