undeserved running red light ticket. Need advice

jaybird wrote:
> "Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > First, assault as I know it is not a *specific intent* crime as
you're
> > attempting to define it here. It is enough that one intend to act
in
> > the way one did, not that one intended to frighten or harm anyone.
I
> > doubt TX law is any different or you'd *never* manage to make any
> > simple 'bad conduct' charges stick.
>
> Ok, rather than sum it up with the word "intent", I'll specify a
little more
> by saying the offense has to occur "intentionally, knowingly, or
> recklessly".

Right. That's a *general* intent, not a *specific* one.

> I've never heard of a specific charge called "bad conduct"
> though. Could you be a little more specific?

I was purposely being general. There are a number of different names
for charges related to pure conduct without any physical harm. Both
here and in Ohio, it's called 'Disorderly Conduct". It's what you use
to haul off a nasty drunk who hasn't been tested for b.a.c. yet. I'm
sure you have an equivalent that works to deal with, for example, some
guy who just doesn't know when to shut up at a public park.

> > Second, the apprehension of fear is sometimes defined by the
> > *recipient* of the threat (as in defining some kinds of sexual
> > harassment), not the 'reasonable person' standard. That *may*
depend
> > on the state's statute. IOW, if the person being yelled at is
> > *actually* in fear as a result, it may not matter what else happens
nor
> > whether you or anyone else *might* be placed in fear. It matters
> > *whether* actual fear was induced.
>
> You would have to specifically apply the situation to the state law
of
> jurisdiction. While not enough for Assault here, it could possibly
be
> something more along the lines of Disorderly Conduct or similar.

There's a very fine, and fuzzy, line between those two charges when
used for someone acting an a threatening manner. Disorderly, of
course, is easier to prove and doesn't require any proof at all
regarding fear by the victim.

> Just out of curiosity, do you practice criminal law, or civil?

These days, after about a dozen years of doing a mix of 'whatever comes
in the door' civil & criminal law, I've settled into a comfortable
niche: doing federal bankruptcy practice (~11 yr. now). That way, I
get to screw with bankers' and collection agents' heads, but very
rarely with cops'. In fact, I've had a couple LEOs as clients. I know
you're not in it for the money. ;^)

> That's not exactly how *my job* would be done.

More officers overlook that than should. Unfortunately, I suspect your
supervisors, and maybe your prosecutors as well, also overlook it.

I don't have a big problem with you issuing some citations that *might*
not stick as long as you recognize them for that and just let it go.
However, your attitude is usually that you have *already* determined
that the recipient of any citation you issue *is* guilty and should not
be 'let off' because *you* already decided the case. There *are* many
cases where guilt is *supposed to be* determined based on a decision by
the trier of fact and law. That the determination does not go in your
favor should not be viewed as a statement that you didn't do your job
properly, but I'd be willing to bet that's how you feel whenever it
happens. I even take special pains to insure that, if I'm stipulating
an officer's set of facts and arguing that my client's conduct was
reasonable, I'm *not* questioning his judgment or decision to issue the
citation. I'm simply arguing that my client's conduct was reasonable
under the law. I win some; I lose some. That doesn't mean *I* didn't
do my job right, either. It only means I lost the argument.
--
Ol' C.R.

"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> jaybird wrote:
>> "Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > First, assault as I know it is not a *specific intent* crime as
> you're
>> > attempting to define it here. It is enough that one intend to act
> in
>> > the way one did, not that one intended to frighten or harm anyone.
> I
>> > doubt TX law is any different or you'd *never* manage to make any
>> > simple 'bad conduct' charges stick.
>>
>> Ok, rather than sum it up with the word "intent", I'll specify a
> little more
>> by saying the offense has to occur "intentionally, knowingly, or
>> recklessly".
>
> Right. That's a *general* intent, not a *specific* one.
>
>> I've never heard of a specific charge called "bad conduct"
>> though. Could you be a little more specific?
>
> I was purposely being general. There are a number of different names
> for charges related to pure conduct without any physical harm. Both
> here and in Ohio, it's called 'Disorderly Conduct". It's what you use
> to haul off a nasty drunk who hasn't been tested for b.a.c. yet. I'm
> sure you have an equivalent that works to deal with, for example, some
> guy who just doesn't know when to shut up at a public park.

Yeah, we have those too... completely unrelated to Assault though.

>
>> > Second, the apprehension of fear is sometimes defined by the
>> > *recipient* of the threat (as in defining some kinds of sexual
>> > harassment), not the 'reasonable person' standard. That *may*
> depend
>> > on the state's statute. IOW, if the person being yelled at is
>> > *actually* in fear as a result, it may not matter what else happens
> nor
>> > whether you or anyone else *might* be placed in fear. It matters
>> > *whether* actual fear was induced.
>>
>> You would have to specifically apply the situation to the state law
> of
>> jurisdiction. While not enough for Assault here, it could possibly
> be
>> something more along the lines of Disorderly Conduct or similar.
>
> There's a very fine, and fuzzy, line between those two charges when
> used for someone acting an a threatening manner. Disorderly, of
> course, is easier to prove and doesn't require any proof at all
> regarding fear by the victim.

It's pretty much just disturbing the peace, more or less. I just didn't see
where the bum made any threats toward the OP, he was just behaving in a
manner that is not socially acceptable.

>
>> Just out of curiosity, do you practice criminal law, or civil?
>
> These days, after about a dozen years of doing a mix of 'whatever comes
> in the door' civil & criminal law, I've settled into a comfortable
> niche: doing federal bankruptcy practice (~11 yr. now). That way, I
> get to screw with bankers' and collection agents' heads, but very
> rarely with cops'. In fact, I've had a couple LEOs as clients. I know
> you're not in it for the money. ;^)

You know that's right... unless it's a countersuit. )

>
>> That's not exactly how *my job* would be done.
>
> More officers overlook that than should. Unfortunately, I suspect your
> supervisors, and maybe your prosecutors as well, also overlook it.
>
> I don't have a big problem with you issuing some citations that *might*
> not stick as long as you recognize them for that and just let it go.
> However, your attitude is usually that you have *already* determined
> that the recipient of any citation you issue *is* guilty and should not
> be 'let off' because *you* already decided the case. There *are* many
> cases where guilt is *supposed to be* determined based on a decision by
> the trier of fact and law. That the determination does not go in your
> favor should not be viewed as a statement that you didn't do your job
> properly, but I'd be willing to bet that's how you feel whenever it
> happens. I even take special pains to insure that, if I'm stipulating
> an officer's set of facts and arguing that my client's conduct was
> reasonable, I'm *not* questioning his judgment or decision to issue the
> citation. I'm simply arguing that my client's conduct was reasonable
> under the law. I win some; I lose some. That doesn't mean *I* didn't
> do my job right, either. It only means I lost the argument.

We just have different takes I guess. Scott keeps ranting on about some
assault, and others think a ticket for D.O.C. is appropriate. If it was me,
I'd save everyone the trouble and just take him on in to jail, if we can
find him. He didn't beat anyone up, but he's more than likely not going to
pay or show in court for a ticket either.

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