PHOENIX, Arizona - A Nevada woman has been arrested after photo enforcement cameras on a Phoenix freeway captured her behind the wheel of a car speeding 22 times in a 45-day span, authorities said.
The woman, 24, was arrested by Arizona Department of Public Safety officers on suspicion of criminal speeding, reckless driving and endangerment.
During a 45-day period starting in May, DPS officials said the woman was captured by photo enforcement cameras on Loop 101 in Scottsdale 22 times, with her top speed at 92 mph.
The woman was living in Arizona temporarily when officers arrested her at her parent's north Scottsdale home last Friday, officials said.
SOTT
SIGNS
OF THE
TIMES
OF THE
TIMES
Welcome to Sott.net
The World for People who Think
I am always amazed at how people support the police state. I have long tired to convince others that breaking a law is not necessarily a crime. Today the idea of the crime of intent or “thought crime” is so pervasive that people quickly rise to the defense of those convicted for breaking any law, no matter how minor. It is astounding how often people listen to a TV report or read a newspaper article and form a snap judgment based on what the media has reported. It is no wonder America has the largest prison population in the world they allow the media to make or break criminal convictions. It is the media that has decided that abortion is not a crime while a racial slur is; we have just gone along for the ride. DUI is a crime of intent; it is a law but not a crime. What actual harm has been done to others by the act of drinking? The argument is that drunken drivers have killed so many because they were drunk, but far more have been killed on the highway by sober drivers, so why not make driving criminal? When a drunken driver kills someone, their state of intoxication should be of no consequence, it is the act of homicide, negligent or otherwise, that is a crime. It may be taken into account that inebriation was a factor in the homicide, but it is not the crime, homicide is the crime – or should be. From this type of slippery slope of criminal intent we now have “hate crimes” a crime where the attacker’s intent carries a far greater penalty than the actual crime. Hate crimes are usually judged by the racial makeup of the involved parties. If the attacker and victim are of different races, it is typically assumed racial motivation was the reason for the attack. If the attacker used words that might be interpreted as racial slurs, then it virtually a closed case. Of course the hate crime is invoked far more liberally when it involves a white attacker, but that is another topic entirely. We have so many thought crimes now, Orwell himself might be amazed at how quickly and how far society has advanced in this direction. We are now so far from actual freedom that few even understand the basic concept anymore. Freedom means you are free to make your own adult decisions on personal matters. If those decisions impact others negatively then, and only then, should criminal or civil action be considered. In western societies where the concept of private property prevails, freedom limited to a point where one’s actions impinge negatively on not only another person but their property as well. So where does intoxication fit into harming others? When one harms another then it is the harm they have done that should be the issue not their state of mind. As a friend of mine said to a judge after a DUI conviction, ‘I guess I should go home and shoot my dog now because he might bite someone’. As I have long said, in a police state everyone is a criminal. The only difference between the innocent and the guilty is the innocent have yet to be convicted of their crimes.