undeserved running red light ticket. Need advice

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:40:30 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:48:31 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>>>> How about "Guilty with Extenuating Circumstances?"
>>>>
>>>>There is no such plea.
>>>
>
>[...]
>
>>>
>>> When this guy was asked how he plead, he replied "guilty with
>>> extenuating circumstances." The judge did not say "there's no such
>>> plea;" instead, he asked "what were the circumstances?"
>>>
>>> I'm sure you'll have an explanation for that, so lay it on me.
>>
>>Nope...
>
>Ah, so you admit there is such a plea after all...

No, there isn't.
This is traffic court, which is much less technical than, say,
Superior court, where lawyers are the norm (in fact, required in many
jurisdictions).
The judge understands what the defendant means when he says, "Guilty
with extenuating circumstances."
When he asks to hear the circumstances, he's giving the defendant a
chance to tell his side, which may have an effect on the judge's
decision about the punishment meted out, but the defendant has pleaded
guilty, so he's not going to be found not guilty.
>
>>The victim of the "milkshake assault" can collect evidence and witnesses all
>>day long.
>
>Ah, so you admit that it is assault after all...
>
>

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

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:48:31 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>>>> How about "Guilty with Extenuating Circumstances?"
>>>>
>>>>There is no such plea.
>>>
>
> [...]
>
>>>
>>> When this guy was asked how he plead, he replied "guilty with
>>> extenuating circumstances." The judge did not say "there's no such
>>> plea;" instead, he asked "what were the circumstances?"
>>>
>>> I'm sure you'll have an explanation for that, so lay it on me.
>>
>>Nope...
>
> Ah, so you admit there is such a plea after all...

No, I'm not aware of one but I'm not familiar with the law in that area so I
can't say that there is or isn't. I had just never heard of it, and there
isn't a plea like that around here.

>
>>The victim of the "milkshake assault" can collect evidence and witnesses
>>all
>>day long.
>
> Ah, so you admit that it is assault after all...

Nope, hence the """"""""".

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

In article .com>,
Don > wrote:

>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.
>
>I don't have a history of traffic tickets. In the last 10 years (or
>more) I've had one ticket which was for speeding about 9 months ago
>which I pled NOLO too.
>
>How should I handle this?
>
>Do I plead Not Guilty? I did run the light.
>Do I plead Guilty and explain it? But if I do this a Guilty Plea may
>put it on my MVR and cause my insurance to shoot up.
>Does it even matter if I had a good reason to run the light?
>
>What is the best strategy?
>What should I have done in this situation?

You'd have to contact a lawyer for _advice_, but I'd plead "not
guilty" and claim necessity, that I felt the bum was a danger to me if
I remained where I was and the safest exit was through the red light.
Since it was dark I'd point out that the cop wouldn't necessarily have
been able to see the guy from far away. Then I'd take my "guilty"
verdict and add it to my long list of complaints against the injustice system.

Though I wouldn't put it past the cop to have been in cahoots with the
bum.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
jaybird > wrote:
>
>Assault would not be the correct offense title since no one was assaulted.
>Inanimate objects cannot be victims of assault.

He was in the car at the time. Don't tell me that you wouldn't
consider an object thrown at the police car you were driving to be an
assault on you.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:06:06 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>>>>>> How about "Guilty with Extenuating Circumstances?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no such plea.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When this guy was asked how he plead, he replied "guilty with
>>>>> extenuating circumstances." The judge did not say "there's no such
>>>>> plea;" instead, he asked "what were the circumstances?"
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure you'll have an explanation for that, so lay it on me.
>>>>
>>>>Nope...
>>>
>>> Ah, so you admit there is such a plea after all...
>>
>>No, I'm not aware of one but I'm not familiar with the law in that area so
>>I
>>can't say that there is or isn't.
>
> Nice backpedal. There's a big difference between "there is no such
> plea" and "I'm not familiar with the law in that area so I don't
> know."
>
> Props to you, however, for being honorable enough not to trim out your
> original quote.

I still know of no such plea and I was willing to give you the benefit of
the doubt but since you insist on being such an ass about it, why don't you
post us a link?

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

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> jaybird > wrote:
>>
>>Assault would not be the correct offense title since no one was assaulted.
>>Inanimate objects cannot be victims of assault.
>
> He was in the car at the time. Don't tell me that you wouldn't
> consider an object thrown at the police car you were driving to be an
> assault on you.

Hey, don't get mad at me. I'm just telling you what the law says. At the
most it would be Criminal Mischief.

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

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:26:01 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>>>Assault would not be the correct offense title since no one was assaulted.
>>>>Inanimate objects cannot be victims of assault.
>>>
>>> He was in the car at the time. Don't tell me that you wouldn't
>>> consider an object thrown at the police car you were driving to be an
>>> assault on you.
>>
>>Hey, don't get mad at me. I'm just telling you what the law says. At the
>>most it would be Criminal Mischief.
>
> So by your cockamamie logic, if you are wearing clothing and I punch
> you in the stomach, that is not assault because I actually hit your
> SHIRT, not YOU.

Neglecting the double standard for when the victim is a cop. For
instance, a motorist runs a bicyclist off the road. It's just a mistake,
an error, the driver didn't see the bicyclist. A driver runs a cop on
bicycle patrol off the road and it would be attempted murder, assault, or
something else far more serious by default.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
> You'd have to contact a lawyer for _advice_, but I'd plead "not
> guilty" and claim necessity, that I felt the bum was a danger to me
if
> I remained where I was and the safest exit was through the red light.
> Since it was dark I'd point out that the cop wouldn't necessarily
have
> been able to see the guy from far away. Then I'd take my "guilty"
> verdict and add it to my long list of complaints against the
injustice system.
>
> Though I wouldn't put it past the cop to have been in cahoots with
the
> bum.
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting
practices can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.

Hee, hee, best answer yet. Alway's plead Not Guilty, amen brother.
Don't you people watch "Cops"? People confess all the time, either
intimidated, or they honestly think it'll go easier on them, or both,
as in, "Good cop, Bad cop". Judges play their part in the game too,
esp. in rural areas where ticketing passersby is major income for the
local gov't. I got a ticket a few years ago in Rural Nevada for
speeding on my bike (75 in a 65 on a long straight downhill, not a car
in sight, except the teensy spot in my mirror, dammit its a cop!
grrrr!), pled NOLO, got a fine+traffic school. Later, I heard that if
the ticketing cop is not present in court to refute your plea (in my
case he wasn't), the judge HAS to find you not guilty or dismiss. Doh!
Any truth to this, anyone?

As to the "guilty with extenuating circumstances" plea, it sounds to me
like just a clever way for the state to get people to admit guilt. I
wouldn't buy it. Is there some mandatory lighter sentence for those
found as such? Is it an automatic lower fine? I'd be surprised. As
for the judge in TX, it sounds like he'd just heard the guy admit
guilt, and was cleverly allowing the poor sap to dig his own grave a
little deeper. So how'd that plea work out for him, Scott? Did he get
off? i'd be surprised.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> >>>> When this guy was asked how he plead, he replied "guilty with
> >>>> extenuating circumstances." The judge did not say "there's no
such
> >>>> plea;" instead, he asked "what were the circumstances?"
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure you'll have an explanation for that, so lay it on me.



Here's one:
As to the "guilty with extenuating circumstances" plea, it sounds to me

like just a clever way for the state to get people to admit guilt. I
wouldn't buy it. Is there some mandatory lighter sentence for those
found as such? Is it an automatic lower fine? I'd be surprised. As
for the judge in TX, it sounds like he'd just heard the guy admit
guilt, and was cleverly allowing the poor sap to dig his own grave a
little deeper. So how'd that plea work out for him, Scott? Did he get

off? i'd be surprised.=20


Reply

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:26:01 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>>>Assault would not be the correct offense title since no one was
>>>>assaulted.
>>>>Inanimate objects cannot be victims of assault.
>>>
>>> He was in the car at the time. Don't tell me that you wouldn't
>>> consider an object thrown at the police car you were driving to be an
>>> assault on you.
>>
>>Hey, don't get mad at me. I'm just telling you what the law says. At the
>>most it would be Criminal Mischief.
>
> So by your cockamamie logic, if you are wearing clothing and I punch
> you in the stomach, that is not assault because I actually hit your
> SHIRT, not YOU.

Holy crap.... just read the law and it'll clear it up for ya. Again, it's
not my opinion, 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.