undeserved running red light ticket. Need advice

"Don" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> 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.
>
> 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.

Rather than plea guilty, plea not guilty and then speak your piece. A plea
of guilty doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to say anything to explain
it.

--
---
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 1 Mar 2005 11:02:56 -0800, "Motorhead Lawyer"
> > wrote:
>
>>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. =;^)
>
> Jaybird knows full well it was assault. He's just being his usual
> obtuse, obstinate, argumentative self.

Even people who disagree with me most of the time are agreeing with me on
this one. Without being obtuse, obstinate, or argumentative, I am clearly
stating that this case does not constitute any form of assault whatsoever,
as defined by law. I can't get any clearer than that.

--
---
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 Thu, 03 Mar 2005 05:08:12 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Why? You're the first person to behave as though Texas law applies to
> the entire universe; why is it suddenly invalid for me to choose my
> own convenient definitions?

I'm merely using it as an example of what constitutes assault.

>
>>The bum never made
>>or attempted to make any bodily injury to the OP.
>
> Any reasonable person would consider the bum's actions threatening.

Perhaps, but that still doesn't meet the elements of Assault. I can make
numerous kinds of threats against you without ever assaulting you.

--
---
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 Thu, 03 Mar 2005 05:12:32 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>>>Assault is acting in a manner that causes another fear or apprehension
>>>>for his physical safety. This guy was clearly assaulted.
>>>
>>> Jaybird knows full well it was assault. He's just being his usual
>>> obtuse, obstinate, argumentative self.
>>
>>Even people who disagree with me most of the time are agreeing with me on
>>this one.
>
> You mean like Motorhead Lawyer, who is directly contradicting you in
> the quote above?

You mean that he's the only person posting in this ng?

>
>>Without being obtuse, obstinate, or argumentative, I am clearly
>>stating that this case does not constitute any form of assault whatsoever,
>>as defined by law. I can't get any clearer than that.
>
> Yes, you can.
>
> Although you never mention it, you're talking about TEXAS law. As
> Motorhead Lawyer has already pointed out to you, the incident
> described qualifies as assault in other places.
>
> Failure to disclose you're talking only about Texas law: Obtuse.

Merely an example since most states are fairly similar in definition.

> Faulire to acknowledge ML's point: Obstinate.

Why do I have to acknowledge his point? I don't agree with it and there are
many other posters here.

> Refusing to concede that I was right: Argumentative.

You're not. I'm not arguing, I'm stating.

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

"jaybird" > wrote
> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
>>>The bum never made
>>>or attempted to make any bodily injury to the OP.
>>
>> Any reasonable person would consider the bum's actions threatening.
>
> Perhaps, but that still doesn't meet the elements of Assault. I can make
> numerous kinds of threats against you without ever assaulting you.

Look, Jaybird, many states have many laws regarding what constitutes
assault. Many of them are far more inclusive than your example. For
instance, in WA state, say you're a parent at a soccer game that your
son is red-carded in. After the game, you approach the *minor* referee
to complain. You have just committed a fourth degree felony assault.
(If the ref wasn't a minor, it would be a misdemeanor.)

Say you're walking down the street in Seattle and a bum/beggar sitting on
the sidewalk with a hat asks you (politely) for money and you flip him off.
If he gets up off the sidewalk he has assualted you (specific charge/title
is aggressive panhandling.)

Neither of these meet *your* definition of assault, yet are clearly
and succinctly written into WA/Seattle law. I'm not sure if the
case previously discussed qualifies as maliscious mischief or
assult in WA, but *your* definition isn't broad enough in many
jurisdictions. Personally, since CR (motorhead lawyer) says it's
an assault, I'm gonna believe him rather than you, since he's practiced
law in more than one state and has far more legal expertise (in interpreting
law and codes) than you do.

Floyd

In article >,
fbloogyudsr > wrote:
>"jaybird" > wrote
>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
>>>>The bum never made
>>>>or attempted to make any bodily injury to the OP.
>>>
>>> Any reasonable person would consider the bum's actions threatening.
>>
>> Perhaps, but that still doesn't meet the elements of Assault. I can make
>> numerous kinds of threats against you without ever assaulting you.
>
>Look, Jaybird, many states have many laws regarding what constitutes
>assault. Many of them are far more inclusive than your example. For
>instance, in WA state, say you're a parent at a soccer game that your
>son is red-carded in. After the game, you approach the *minor* referee
>to complain. You have just committed a fourth degree felony assault.
>(If the ref wasn't a minor, it would be a misdemeanor.)

Approaching someone to complain is now assault? Remind me never to
move to Washington.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote
> Approaching someone to complain is now assault? Remind me never to
> move to Washington.

This law's been on the books for 15 years at least. Mostly it's there
to protect the older boys/girls that ref the young kids' games; I attended
a couple of games my son was reffing just to be sure he was safe -
some parents are complete bozos.

Floyd

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:33:12 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>fbloogyudsr > wrote:
>>"jaybird" > wrote
>>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
>>>>>The bum never made
>>>>>or attempted to make any bodily injury to the OP.
>>>>
>>>> Any reasonable person would consider the bum's actions threatening.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but that still doesn't meet the elements of Assault. I can make
>>> numerous kinds of threats against you without ever assaulting you.
>>
>>Look, Jaybird, many states have many laws regarding what constitutes
>>assault. Many of them are far more inclusive than your example. For
>>instance, in WA state, say you're a parent at a soccer game that your
>>son is red-carded in. After the game, you approach the *minor* referee
>>to complain. You have just committed a fourth degree felony assault.
>>(If the ref wasn't a minor, it would be a misdemeanor.)
>
>Approaching someone to complain is now assault? Remind me never to
>move to Washington.

Yeah, this seems wrong.

If a coach in the NFL were to yell (complain) about a call, is it
assault?

I'm not a big fan, but I bet it happens at every Seahawks game.

"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
...
> "jaybird" > wrote
>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
>>>>The bum never made
>>>>or attempted to make any bodily injury to the OP.
>>>
>>> Any reasonable person would consider the bum's actions threatening.
>>
>> Perhaps, but that still doesn't meet the elements of Assault. I can make
>> numerous kinds of threats against you without ever assaulting you.
>
> Look, Jaybird, many states have many laws regarding what constitutes
> assault. Many of them are far more inclusive than your example. For
> instance, in WA state, say you're a parent at a soccer game that your
> son is red-carded in. After the game, you approach the *minor* referee
> to complain. You have just committed a fourth degree felony assault.
> (If the ref wasn't a minor, it would be a misdemeanor.)

I wish you'd provide a link. I've been trying to look those laws up, but
all I get is newspaper articles; no legal sites.

>
> Say you're walking down the street in Seattle and a bum/beggar sitting on
> the sidewalk with a hat asks you (politely) for money and you flip him
> off.
> If he gets up off the sidewalk he has assualted you (specific charge/title
> is aggressive panhandling.)

Now that one I did find a little info on, but not the legal statute. From
what I read the beggar hasn't comitted an assault, he just aggressively
panhandled. That looks like a separate offense. Also, (and correct me if
I'm wrong on this assumption) from what I read it is a city ordinance, not a
state law.

>
> Neither of these meet *your* definition of assault, yet are clearly
> and succinctly written into WA/Seattle law. I'm not sure if the
> case previously discussed qualifies as maliscious mischief or
> assult in WA, but *your* definition isn't broad enough in many
> jurisdictions. Personally, since CR (motorhead lawyer) says it's
> an assault, I'm gonna believe him rather than you, since he's practiced
> law in more than one state and has far more legal expertise (in
> interpreting
> law and codes) than you do.

That's fine. I stick with TX laws because those are the ones I deal with
almost daily and most states are pretty similar. If a different state has a
different definition then obviously that is more accurately applied. I wish
people would actually cite that definition rather than just trying to argue
their opinion of law though.

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

"jaybird" > wrote
> "fbloogyudsr" > wrote
>> Look, Jaybird, many states have many laws regarding what constitutes
>> assault. Many of them are far more inclusive than your example. For
>> instance, in WA state, say you're a parent at a soccer game that your
>> son is red-carded in. After the game, you approach the *minor* referee
>> to complain. You have just committed a fourth degree felony assault.
>> (If the ref wasn't a minor, it would be a misdemeanor.)
>
> I wish you'd provide a link. I've been trying to look those laws up, but
> all I get is newspaper articles; no legal sites.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...-1474/1465.pdf
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...-1599/1578.pdf

In WA state, coercion can be assault. It becomes a felony when
the referee is a child. 4th degree is a grab bag for anything
not 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

9A.32.041 is 4th degree
(a.36.120, 130 & 140 is assault of child.
9A.82.070: Influencing the outcome of sporting event.

Yeah, I know it's not specific, but gangsters were
jailed for tax violations.

Floyd