undeserved running red light ticket. Need advice

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

You guys have some issues. I think you just like to complain for the hell
of it.

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

"RobW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 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?
>

Yes, it's true. However, the judge won't normally do this unless you ASK
for the charge to be dismissed for lack of prosecution. If you don't ask,
then the judge MIGHT dismiss charges for lack of prosecution anyway. Note
the MIGHT. -Dave

On 28 Feb 2005 21:59:12 -0800, "RobW" > wrote:

>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?

Sort of.
The case *can* be held over or recheduled until the cop is able to
attend. Or the judge can simply dismiss the charges (you kust be able
to question your accuser). But, IIRC, you need to ask for this.

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

"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.

--
---
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 06:55:50 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Pointing a gun (even a toy gun) at someone is assault. In fact, it's
> "assault with a deadly/dangerous weapon." If I point a gun at you
> while you are sitting inside your patrol car, are you going to charge
> me with "Criminal Mischief?"

No, I'm going to charge you with Deadly Conduct.

>
> If you're sitting inside your patrol car, and I start swinging a
> baseball bat at your windows, with the clear intent that, once I break
> through the window, the next target for my bat is your head, is that
> "Cfriminal Mischief?"

It depends on whether or not your actions meet the elements of the offense.
Read below...

>
> 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. You can't just make up your own laws, the actions
against you have to fit actual state laws. Let me see if I can clarify it
for you... Again, I'm not making this crap up, I'm telling you what the
book says and how actions have to meet the elements of an offense. Under
Texas law pointing a gun at someone falls under Deadly Conduct (PC 22.05)
and there is no such title as "assault with a deadly/dangerous weapon". The
title you're probably looking for is Aggravated Assault (PC 22.02) and to
meet that offense you have to first commit Assault (PC 22.01) while causing
serious bodily injury or using or exhibiting a deadly weapon.

--
---
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>,
says...

> 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?

No witness, no crime. You are free to go. If the judge wants to be a
PITA, he will re-schedule a second date. But you should strongly object
to that.

>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.

That's it. It lets you recite your sad sob story and the judge might
lessen the fine a bit, but they will still find you guilty and take
your money.

>I wouldn't buy it.

You are smarter than many.

>Is there some mandatory lighter sentence for those
>found as such? Is it an automatic lower fine?

No and no. But if the story is good and you are nice to the judge, he
probably will go easy on you.

--------------
Alex

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>I realize that some people are always trying to "beat the system" and
>get away with murder, but there are still some people out there who
>are honest and responsible enough to accept appropriate punishment for
>their mistakes. Running a red light is dangerous, even if you do it
>while fleeing some other danger. But the circumstances would certainly
>lessen the severity of the infraction in the mind of any reasonable
>person.

A reasonable person would agree that there was _no_ infraction in the
case of running a red light while fleeing some other danger. A red
light camera supporter would disagree, but they are ipso facto
unreasonable people.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> You guys have some issues. I think you just like to complain for the hell
> of it.

Watch some 'cop' reality television some time

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=2ER. Krieger

In article >, jaybird wrote:

>> 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.

Someone steals a car and accidently clips a cop trying to get away is a
much different charge than that same person clipping a civilian in the
same get away. Don't pretend it isn't. If you were at least consistant
with your traffic violation arguement you'd admit it because 'cops are
special'.