|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Speed Camera Operator Killer to go to Trial
Article by: robert
Date: 24 Feb 2010
 The Washington Post has reported that a judge has found Thomas Patrick Destories, 69, competent to stand trial for the killing of an on-duty mobile speed camera operator in Phoenix, Arizona last April.
Destories' defence claims that their client has a long history of mental illness. He is charged with "first-degree murder, drive-by shooting and firing a gun at a structure" in connection with the death of the operator Doug Georgianni, 51. Destories' motives are not yet known, but many suspect the killing was the most extreme manifestation of speed camera protest.
The state's speed cameras have been in place since September 2008 and have proved to be very unpopular with Arizona citizens. Many are simply throwing their tickets away - tickets are mailed without proof of delivery.
Due to a sustained public revolt, the privately funded scheme may eventually be scrapped. It's believed that the financial troubles brought about by non-payment, roll-out delays and the sustained strong opposition pose severe problems for the programme.
| Comments
|
 Posted by Snudge on Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:59 am |
 |
It's good to hear of decent honest people making a stand against the unnecessary imposition of speed cameras.
|
|
| Posted by BigPerk on Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:05 am |
|
A bit of a harsh stand on a poor camera operator though (now, traffic wardens on the other hand ...)!
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360) |
|
| Posted by DennisN on Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:46 am |
|
| BigPerk Wrote: | | now, traffic wardens on the other hand ...! |
Yeah. My parking appeal comes up on 15th March. If I lose, the fine is two weeks profit down the tubes!
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Posted by Darren on Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:53 pm |
|
| Snudge Wrote: | | It's good to hear of decent honest people making a stand against the unnecessary imposition of speed cameras. |
I hope that's just a poor attempt at humour 
This was a guy simply doing his job, the operators aren't to blame for speed cameras and he didn't deserve to die doing his job.
We can all laugh and joke but about speed cameras but let's spare a thought for the family of Mr Georgianni. Neither he nor his family were in any way to blame here.
Darren Griffin |
|
| Posted by Darren on Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:11 pm |
|
If it is a case of the written word coming across poorly then fair enough but I don't see how the subject warrants jokes?
I'm just trying to remind everyone that this is a murder we are discussing. Regardless of our personal opinions of speed cameras, it isn't a funny matter and no-one can seriously condone the act?
Darren Griffin |
|
| Posted by ShoxDr on Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:23 am |
|
| Darren Wrote: | If it is a case of the written word coming across poorly then fair enough but I don't see how the subject warrants jokes?
I'm just trying to remind everyone that this is a murder we are discussing. Regardless of our personal opinions of speed cameras, it isn't a funny matter and no-one can seriously condone the act? |
To be fair, I believe he was referring to the fact people were throwing the ticket away
|
|
| Posted by Darren on Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:53 am |
|
| ShoxDr Wrote: | | To be fair, I believe he was referring to the fact people were throwing the ticket away |
Ah now that would make sense, still better to make it clear but if so then my apologies for suggesting otherwise.
Darren Griffin |
|
| Posted by Snudge on Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:36 am |
|
Thanks to BigPerk and ShoxDr who correctly interpreted my comment and of course I do not condone actually shooting the camera operators. I also don’t see how my comment could be viewed as if I was making a joke of the subject.
Looking at the subject of journalism, the whole point of a headline is to get the reader to move on to the rest of the story and this article was correctly composed of both a sensational, attention-grabbing headline about the shooting and also the story behind the headline.
The wording in my comment referred to ‘people’ which is the plural of ‘person’ so clearly (at least to me, BigPerk and ShoxDr), I was not referring to the lone gunman but the Arizona citizens who are revolting about the State’s speed camera policy.
Thanks Darren – sorted. 
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
?
