Going forward I'll mostly reply with excerpts from comments I already wrote, because, like I said, enough time's been wasted on your replies:

> I keep asking how you that happens, and you keep not answering. How does camera based enforcement stop bullshit pullovers? It doesn't, it just changes the bullshit "reason" people get pulled over. And the examples you present - by your own admission - don't address the actual problems, and where the cameras are limited in scope (time and zone), the original problem remains.

>So when they're barred from pulling people over for "speeding", then... this prevents them from pulling over people for other bullshit reasons?

>> Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions* (man you couldn't even read the fucking quote in the comment you replied to) would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation)

>> If an officer stops you they can give you a warning because they like your tone (you speak like them, or you're kind of pretty, or you don't look the type who'll do this again). Or they can give you a reduced speed.

>> Or they can give you an additional ticket because you they don't like your tone, or rather... you didn't full stop at that stop sign. The other cars going through it didn't either, but they weren't the marks.

>> Or they can say they smell weed and start pushing the boundaries of your rights and take advantage of the fact they target the populations with the least experience with their legal rights due to systemic failings in education

>> How many innocent people do you think took plea deals sending them to jail for what started as a traffic stop? That would still be free today if a camera had sent a ticket by mail?

-

> I'm continually asking questions about the core premise that 'using camera based enforcement to replace large classes of traffic stops' prevents abuse by authorities. You haven't provided any evidence that it does. You've just provided some ad hominem and say I don't understand.

Ah, so you understood it referred to large classes of traffic stops when you reached this part of your comment, so you read the reply? But yeah:

>> Cameras are not able to kill people in self-defense.

>> Cameras are not able to trump up or discard charges and offenses based on mood or inclination, or prejudice.

>> (And before you miss the point and retort, but they can do that in court!!! Yeah... just like they can with the police officer's ticket. The point isn't "cameras fix the biased legal system!" it's cameras ferret out one facet of the legal systems biases)

>> Cameras are not able to try and push an illegal search or exploit ignorance to convince someone to give up their rights

>> Cameras are not able to seize assets on suspicion someone has too much cash on them.

>> Cameras can't falsely detain people.

>> Seriously, again, there are real people in jail, rotting, for everything from having a ounce or two of weed on them, to literally nothing at all (see: plea deals) off what started as a routine traffic stop. How would a ticket in the mail do these things?

Let me know if I can repeat any of this for you any slower...