Comment by AngryData
1 day ago
That seems completely fucked to me. Charging people who aren't guilty of any crime with a crime because somebody else was driving their car?
1 day ago
That seems completely fucked to me. Charging people who aren't guilty of any crime with a crime because somebody else was driving their car?
What do you mean by people who aren't guilty? The infraction here is allowing your vehicle to run a red light.
How do you allow a vehicle to run a red light that you aren't driving?
Easy:
1. Allow someone else to drive your vehicle
2. That person runs a red light
Your responsibility as the vehicle owner is to either not do step 1, or only do it for people whom you trust will not do step 2.
1 reply →
What would be the alternative? Just get who was driving your car to pay you back for the fine. If they are not accountable/honorable enough to back you back, then why were you letting them drive your car in the first place?
The same "alternative" that there is to every other crime in existence, proving the person you charged with a crime actually committed the crime. The default is suppose to be innocence, not guilty. It is the state's responsibility or problem to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not a citizen's responsibility to prove their continued innocence at all times.
I mean, the state obviously has photo evidence. So you need to show that either the photo was taken in error, that it misidentified your vehicle or that you weren't the legal owner at the time.
6 replies →