Man arrested for shooting traffic camera

[Renew Deal]

Source: Rawstory-AP

Police have lost red-light cameras to traffic accidents but never to gun play. "This is the first one that's been shot," Capt. Gordon Catlett said of the wounded camera at the intersection of Broadway Avenue and Interstate 640 — one of 15 camera-equipped intersections in the city.

Clifford E. Clark, 47, was charged with felony vandalism and reckless endangerment for allegedly firing at least three rounds from a .30-06 hunting rifle at the camera, knocking it out of action.

He was arrested after patrol officers heard shots around 2 a.m. Sunday, spotted a minivan leaving the parking lot of a closed business and pulled it over. Inside they found Clark and the high-powered rifle.
<snip>

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Man_arrested_for_s...

---

I don't like those cameras either, though shooting at them might be over the top.

[jody]

1. Just wait until someone develops a high energy gun that fries the camera circuits from afar. n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. taze the cameras? great idea!

[DS1]

3. I real man would've snuck up and strangled it

[MindPilot]

4. Clifford E. Clark is a hero in my book.

RLCs are one of the biggest money-grubbing extortion schemes ever foisted on the motoring public under the guise of safety.

[NavyDavy]

7. why?..here they have made alot of revenue due to those

of the human race who think they can break the law just because someone isn't watching....also known as immoral people.

[MindPilot]

9. Because they are generally set up not to improve safety,

which can be done with simple engineering changes, but to actually entrap drivers into running the light. They do that by shortening yellow time, decreasing the limitline-to-light distance and placing the cameras not at the most dangerous intersections, but at the most heavily traveled; in other words the most profitable.

Here's one good place to start doing research on the subject:
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/articles /

RLCs are just the tip of the surveillance nation iceberg. Today it may be just "immoral people" as you say, tomorrow it's you.

[frylock]

10. the fines are fucking ridiculous..

I was recently popped for rolling a right-turn on a red light. Yes, it was illegal, but a $450 fine is fucking bullshit for a first offense.

[Book Lover]

14. Hey, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's automatically the moral choice

And yes, they do generate a lot of revenue. Do you know that nearly half of the funds collected don't make it into municipal coffers, but rather the private traffic camera company's bank account? http://www.notbored.org/traffic-cameras.html
In Washington, DC, ACS receives 40 percent of the revenues brought in by its cameras systems

Nor do they make the streets safer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
The District's red-light cameras have generated more than 500,000 violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years. City officials credit them with making busy roads safer.

But a Washington Post analysis of crash statistics shows that the number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras. The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the devices.

[doc03]

5. Good for him.

[RushIsRot]

6. Big Brother is watching YOU!

[kwassa]

8. give that man a medal.

[frylock]

11. big ups!

[petronius]

12. Another violent blood-thirsty hunter; I hope he gets raped in prison...

(Sorry, I thought this was another hunting thread.)

[Corgigal]

13. info for my DU'ers

Hubby said on his Tom-Tom navigational device it shows which lights have camera's. He downloads the maps and we just found out they are popping up in this state. In case anyone wants to know where these sneak lights/camera are located.

[Critters2]

15. I'd just as soon stop for red lights.

I also drive the speed limit, rather than buying a radar-detector.

[Deja Q]

16. What a way to lose one's voting rights.