undeserved running red light ticket. Need advice

In article .com>,
Don > wrote:
>
>We looked for the guy for about 10 minutes and the cop left. I have a
>license to carry a gun and had it with me. I got a lecture from the
>cop about it and was told if I confronted the thrower I could have been
>arrested. I don't now if its true.

Of course. The government isn't there to protect you; it's there to
keep you from protecting yourself.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On 1 Mar 2005 20:48:03 -0800, "RobW" > wrote:

>Hell, for the price of a new motorcycle, I'll go TP his house for ya.

Would "new to you" qualify? :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 22:34:10 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>He ****ed up, resulting in loss and inconvenience for me. He did not
>deserve any breaks.

News flash: it ain't all about you.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On 2 Mar 2005 04:39:45 -0800, "Don" > wrote:

>That's what I plan to do. I don't even mind the fine, i'm more
>concerned about my insurance going up.
>
>I would like to say I'm guilty, explain my case, and ask for the case
>to be dismissed. But it may be better to plead not guilty and then
>explain the situation.

Saying you're guilty can not result in a finding of not guilty.
What you want to do if you want the case dismissed (be found not
guilty) is plead not guilty. During the trial/hearing you will get the
chance to say *why* you're not guilty.
>
>The last time I was in traffic court (10+ years ago) the police
>officers were not there. If you plead Not Guilty another apperance is
>scheduled and the officer will be there. I'm not sure if it still
>works this way.

If the comlaining officer isn't there, you can move to have the
complaint dismissed (not a 'not guilty' end; if the complaint is
dismissed, you're not tried).
The judge doesn't have to grant your motion, but it's free to try.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On 1 Mar 2005 13:14:38 -0800, "Don" > wrote:

>We looked for the guy for about 10 minutes and the cop left. I have a
>license to carry a gun and had it with me. I got a lecture from the
>cop about it and was told if I confronted the thrower I could have been
>arrested. I don't now if its true.

It's true; you *could've* been arrested. Of course, there must be a
*reason* for that arrest; merely confronting your attacker isn't such
a reason.
Police officers really don't mind armed citizens. But they can't just
tell you it's OK to go around waving that gun at people, either.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

> According to http://www.dictionary.com "assault" means
>
> 1. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
> 2. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting
> to injure another.
>
> The bum's attack on the OP clearly meets this definition. No doubt
> you're going to tell me that Texas law defines "assault" differently.
>

When I read jaybird's definition of assault, I have to wonder how they
define battery? In Texas, what they call an assault would likely be called
a battery in most states. -Dave

Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> jaybird wrote:
> > "Scott en Aztl=E1n" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 25 Feb 2005 11:31:56 -0800, "Don" >
> wrote:
> > >
> > > You should have filed an assault report against the bum, and
> insisted
> > > that the cop accompany you back to the McDonald's to interview
your
> > > two eye-witnesses.
> >
> > Assault would not be the correct offense title since no one was
> assaulted.
> > Inanimate objects cannot be victims of assault.
>
> Assault is acting in a manner that causes another fear or
apprehension
> for his physical safety. This guy was clearly assaulted. His car
was
> vandalized. If you don't think you could get a couple of citations
out
> of that situation, let me do it to *you* in *your car* sometime.
=3D;^)
> --
> C.R. Krieger

This guy was not assaulted. He was never in fear or apprehension for
his personal safety. The OP was not even aware of the "attack" until
much later.

Was the bum connected with the vandalism. Maybe, maybe not. If the OP
did not hear the milk shake hit, then maybe someone else threw it.

The OP was not even aware of the "attack" until after he ran the red
light. It does not seem like a good excuse.

>From the OP:
"As I stated to pull out this bum came up on my driver's side and
started yelling at me. He quickly moved in front of my car and just
stood there screaming at me for about 20 seconds shouting something.
As he moved around to the passenger side I took off turning right.
..=2E.
When I got home I noticed something smeared over the passenger side of
my car. I think this guy threw something at my car but I didn't hear
it hit. It looked like it was a milk shake."

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:36:29 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 06:58:20 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>You guys have some issues. I think you just like to complain for the
>>>>hell
>>>>of it.
>>>
>>> Kinda like the guys who pretend not to understand and give obtuse
>>> answers just for the hell of it.
>>
>>I'm just shocked and awed by the lack of common sense and legal knowledge
>>sometimes.
>
> You mean like people who pretend that assault is not assault simply
> because the victim is sitting inside a car?

In this situation it is not an assault. It's not my belief, it's what the
law says.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:51:02 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>> The fact that you are sitting inside a car when someone attempts to
>>> assault you does not change the fact that it is an attempted assault.
>>
>>I think were the problem lies is that you don't quite understand how
>>criminal law works.
>
> Yeah - I keep making the mistake of expecting the law to follow the
> tenets of common sense.
>
> According to http://www.dictionary.com "assault" means
>
> 1. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
> 2. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting
> to injure another.
>
> The bum's attack on the OP clearly meets this definition. No doubt
> you're going to tell me that Texas law defines "assault" differently.

I see this mistake in your long list of them for this case... Rather than
getting your definition from www.dictionary.com you need to get it from the
legal definition as it applies to the law in question. The bum never made
or attempted to make any bodily injury to the OP. He never made any actions
toward the car whatsoever other than standing in front of, or near it. The
milkshake stain wasn't even seen until the OP got home and he assumed that
it came from the bum.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"Dave C." > wrote in message
ink.net...
>> According to http://www.dictionary.com "assault" means
>>
>> 1. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
>> 2. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting
>> to injure another.
>>
>> The bum's attack on the OP clearly meets this definition. No doubt
>> you're going to tell me that Texas law defines "assault" differently.
>>
>
> When I read jaybird's definition of assault, I have to wonder how they
> define battery? In Texas, what they call an assault would likely be
> called
> a battery in most states. -Dave

I think they're pretty much the same, just different titles.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.