585
Flock Camera Tells Cop New Car Didn’t Have Insurance When It Did, Cop Writes Ticket Anyway (deltiasgaming.com)
submitted 6 days ago* by to c/technology@lemmy.world
84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Georgia college student reportedly received a ticket from a cop after a Flock camera flagged her newly purchased vehicle as having no insurance when it did. According to a WSB-TV report, posted by podcast host Kacee Allen, the car has a temporary license plate, but the student presented a valid insurance card. Despite this, the officer reportedly still issued a citation. The incident reportedly happened twice, and the student now has to defend herself in court

According to the news report, the database that Flock cameras rely on was yet to be updated. This caused the system to falsely flag the newly purchased vehicle.

Renee Jones, the student’s mother, said her daughter was doing everything required of her. This included maintaining insurance and carrying proof of coverage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 6 days ago (7 children)

Having worked in insurance before, I've had numerous officers stop in to our office to validate insurance cards because they've been doctored.

How that works: person A signs up for a policy, pays the minimum pymt. Gets ID cards, stops paying after first payment. Policy is canceled but ID cards show valid date for 6-12 months. Person A then edits the document with new dates to show future proof of insurance without spending money. Might trick some initially unless you get into an accident.

However, not everyone is so skillful at matching fonts or size, so often it'll look like shit and be obvious its fake. Maybe the officer thought some database was surely more accurate, but should've done a little research first before issuing a ticket.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago (4 children)

    Just what we need here, some benefit of the doubt for the disgusting pig, thanks bud!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago* (3 children)

    I'm giving an explanation of what I've seen NUMEROUS times. Feel free to reread my comment though to it's entirety.

    Maybe the officer thought some database was surely more accurate, but should've done a little research first before issuing a ticket.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

    Your own quote is literally the benefit of the doubt I'm complaining about, it's not me failing to understand something here.

    Cop was way wrong here, clearly. Why are you talking about obviously forged documents, what does that have to do with this situation? You're saying because of other situations, you can see why the cop is suspicious, and that's normal and fine - he just should've checked properly! I realize I put words in your mouth, but they sound like the ones you're saying.

    That's you extending benefit of the doubt. I'm saying that cop much more likely didn't really give the first fuck whether it was legit or not, and that's the kind of doubt that must be extended to such people.

    As in, "Think that cop mighta been doing the right thing in this case or at least with good intentions? Nah, prolly not". Unless I really am misunderstanding, you're doing the opposite.

    You're doing the opposite. [Edit - whoops - struck out line was a duplicate I left accidentally before adding the "Unless..." above, which does happen to create the exact opposite effect intended by adding the "unless" in the first place]

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    OK, I'm not saying they're (police) are doing anything right or wrong. The initial comment I replied to was about not understanding why a ticket was still issued after proof given. I explained my experiences from what I've witnessed, but also not claiming (or trying to) this is what happened in this exact situation.

    The last sentence I requoted of mine was a simple speculation or presumption out of the officer's own laziness to not verify.

    The other issue, cops (IMO) don't care if they're wrong or right in these scenarios, bc the person they ticketed goes to court and provides copies of insurance and doesn't have to pay anything in the end; ("no harm no foul"). The biggest inconvenience is taking time off work to go to court in the first place. If the cop was right, well, be more added to their quota of tickets I guess. Plus it looks like they're actually doing something productive.

    Calm the fuck down though bro, you're getting super bent out of shape reading WAY too far into something that you're wanting to be there about someone defending a cop or something and trying to call me out. OK cool? Get worked up over a comment online. I got better shit to do. You're just trying to comment for the sake of winning a pretend argument or upvotes... Go get 'em tiger

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago*

    Arguments about cops are some of the very least pretend arguments there are today, so here you go again just revealing what's important to you and not. I'll let ya get back to it.

    I did leave an unfortunate mistake in my last comment that shifted the tone from my intended somewhat neutral into pure snark, so I can't really blame you for getting mad just now, but anyway, regardless we don't have anything to discuss lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent