The difference between shields and cameras:
The shields have been proven to diminish crimes agaisnt drivers in EVERY community where they are used.
There is NO evidence that cameras help prevent crimes. Most of the video "evidence" has been found to be useless in court, except for traffic enforcement cases, of course!
The City wants to go green and leave drivers with nothing but solid waste to protect them.
This is another example of how the City is too ignorant and reckless to manage the cab business.
They may be the greatest civic leaders in history, but they totally suck at managing the taxi industry, taxi business and driver safety and security.
Is that insulting our civic leaders when you point out evidence of their mismanagement and incompetence at the expense of and vastly increased danger to drivers?
Too bad. Down with the bums that would sacrifice our safety, security, well-being and our blood for their political good looks!
In analogy, how would they like it if the State or Federal Government tried to impose a law on them requiring anyone who goes to City Council meetings be armed?
Absurd you say! So are cameras in cabs.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
As usual, the only thin Mr. Xong Xars is behind, is the times.
There is more and more "evidence" surfacing that most video surveillance is useless in court.
The recent case sited here is bound to become a benchmark in criminal defense and a hallmark in creating reasonable doubt.
Like the guy said, if you know how to use the camera as a weapon to beat your ass-ailant down, then it has some real potential use.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
This is why video images are more powerful than eyewitnesses; R. Kelly won his case because the tape wasn't an image of him and the alleged victim.
Should I post the e-mails?
Where is Jone Doe now?
Watch this for the exact day and time.
http://tinyurl.com/5o62wd
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The difference between shields and cameras:
The shields have been proven to diminish crimes agaisnt drivers in EVERY community where they are used.
There is NO evidence that cameras help prevent crimes. Most of the video "evidence" has been found to be useless in court, except for traffic enforcement cases, of course!
The City wants to go green and leave drivers with nothing but solid waste to protect them.
This is another example of how the City is too ignorant and reckless to manage the cab business.
They may be the greatest civic leaders in history, but they totally suck at managing the taxi industry, taxi business and driver safety and security.
Is that insulting our civic leaders when you point out evidence of their mismanagement and incompetence at the expense of and vastly increased danger to drivers?
Too bad. Down with the bums that would sacrifice our safety, security, well-being and our blood for their political good looks!
In analogy, how would they like it if the State or Federal Government tried to impose a law on them requiring anyone who goes to City Council meetings be armed?
Absurd you say! So are cameras in cabs.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
As usual, the only thin Mr. Xong Xars is behind, is the times.
There is more and more "evidence" surfacing that most video surveillance is useless in court.
The recent case sited here is bound to become a benchmark in criminal defense and a hallmark in creating reasonable doubt.
Like the guy said, if you know how to use the camera as a weapon to beat your ass-ailant down, then it has some real potential use.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
This is why video images are more powerful than eyewitnesses; R. Kelly won his case because the tape wasn't an image of him and the alleged victim.
Should I post the e-mails?
The tapes showed a fuzzy image and were even worse when they were transferred to DVD for viewing. Why don't you Mike F. look at the video link I provided last week. Go ahead and tell me that you can identify this guy positively from this footage. You can't do it. And you also refuse to admit you can't identify your assailant once you're murdered on tape. What if the tape actually gets the guy. What does it matter to Mike once he's dead? Get the idea? I should charge you for this therapy!
The victim in the R Kelly case was a pro at a young age. She and her family were paid off. All that have some sort of common sense know this. The jurors knew this too, but the image quality was so bad they couldn't convict without good testimony. Half that testified were paid off and lied , the other half probably told the truth and that made the case die. The funny thing here is that the family of the young girl probably could have won millions in a civil suit with the tape. The rules of evidence are different there. Ask Orenthal James.
Mike, I'm sorry to say it, but I will. You're the one that isn't dealing with a full deck. I have known W. Weiss as a driver for the last 15 years or so. I once consulted with him about renters rights, his main business. The Wolfgang Weiss I know is a very together guy. Nice and pleasant. I do not see you to be this way here on this forum or in your public appearance. There is a reason I haven't been banned from this forum, I have told the truth. It might hurt, but it is what it is. George knows this and just stays away. He avoids my postings. Here's a question: What's almost an army of none? The CCO army of one. Mike Foulks presiding.
Proof of an army of one is the current brave toast site Mike has started. Not yet one that has posted there mentions he's a member. In fact all but two or three of the posts look to have made by Mike himself. George is the other verifiable person to post there. Gee what a surprise.
