Again...Still don't think he was racing by what he posted, and you NOT believing his story doesn't Prove he was racing.
Last edited:
"Racing on a highway" Arrest
- Thread starter Chicostang
- Start date
Again...Still don't think he was racing by what he posted, and you NOT believing his story doesn't Prove he was racing.
Don't see a 1(c) by what is posted for the statute? 1(B) definition of a "drag race"?
2(a)? do you mean 2(A)? Outdistance each other part?
I think you can argue the OP had no intent to race... just simply driving normal speeds and Camaro was accelerating quickly next to him showing off and Vice versa.
By you interpretation....every time I try to Outgain another car at a highway merge I am now racing the other car? Weak argument IMHO.... is not a "race".
Google.."Sea lawyer" very informative.
I know you are a prosecutor so you "naturally" doubt what the OP stated happened? You already posted you think there is more to the story.
Regardless of what you believe really happened..OP is looking for advice as presented....OP has stuck to his guns about his story...
I am not saying I believe the story the OP posted as gospel, but if he wants advice, as presented, and leaves out details or lies.... that is on him.
Again...assuming this goes before a judge....we will see what happens...he needs a lawyer as previously stated.
The OP can lie however he wants but his statement is clear ""neither of us really wrapped out our cars just a little stop and go" "
Just a little stop and go no matter the speed is a contest and therefore a race. Your layperson interpretation may be different but that is not the elements the judge will rely upon.
That is not my interpretation nor my argument. I simply applied the OPs own statement to the elements of the crime.
I do not even see how that is applicable here. A "Sea Lawyer" is a naval term which refers to someone trying to escape blame on a technicality.
There is always more to the story. Read all the threads here where people claim one thing then when challenged finally include "all" the details.
As a prosecutor my job is to be fair and get justice, therefore, I weigh the evidence, facts, and law and make an unbiased decision because I have no dog in the fight win or lose.
I tend to nolle pros/no action probably 20% of the cases that brought before me because they either do not meet the elements or that prosecution would be unjust.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Again...no where in the statute does it state accelerating your car next to another car that is watching is "racing". There has to be intent to out accelerate, beat a time, or outdistance someone else...OP stated he was not doing this....you not believing him does not make now guilty of the violation for street racing.
If the Camaro was not present and the OP "wrapped" out his car would that be racing? I say no.....the Camaro pulls next to him and says nice ride..OP accelerates and now we have racing? I again say No.
Could the OP simply like the sound of the Camaro's exhaust and asked him to speed up so he could hear it?
Maybe the Camaro like the sound of the OP's S/C whine and wanted to hear it?
Opportunity for racing does not immediately mean they were racing.
Too many people inject their own personal feelings and agendas here. I say give advice as stated and let the judge sort out the details.
OP asked for advice...SVT Cop gave him the best advice to lawyer up...
Sea Lawyer, in the common vernacular means an individual with no law training who thinks they know the law and gives advice(usually poor advice).....essentially me(and 99% of Donut posters)..I was making fun of myself..........................Wow that one confused you for a while!!!
Again...no where in the statute does it state accelerating your car next to another car that is watching is "racing". There has to be intent to out accelerate, beat a time, or outdistance someone else...OP stated he was not doing this....you not believing him does not make now guilty of the violation for street racing.[/QUOTE]
Once again, "neither of use really wrapped out our cars, just a little stop and go." The stop and go meets the elements of the crime as stated in the statute, whether you agree with it or not. They both did a "little stop and go" and that is a exactly what the statute speaks about.
I will stick with my actual experience prosecuting these cases rather than relaying on your layperson perspective. But thanks just the same.
The first link in a google search for "sea lawyer" reveals the following link.
What is a sea lawyer?
That link refers to the definition I quoted. Regardless, what you call a Sea Lawyer, I call No Lawyer and their understanding or interpretation of the law should be avoided at all costs.
I still don't get how someone (correct me if I'm wrong) can just get arrested on the spot purely because of a random witness account? I can see you getting a ticket and be ordered to show up in court for an alleged crime, but to be arrested?
I mean I can just go up to a cop and say that 'Bob over there beat up some guy the other week' and you're telling me that the cop will go straight to Bob's house and arrest him on the spot for assault & battery?
What about if I say that I witnessed a car with license plate xxxx was doing 100mph on the highway, are the cops going to show up at the guy's house and hand him a speeding ticket all because I said so?
I mean I can just go up to a cop and say that 'Bob over there beat up some guy the other week' and you're telling me that the cop will go straight to Bob's house and arrest him on the spot for assault & battery?
What about if I say that I witnessed a car with license plate xxxx was doing 100mph on the highway, are the cops going to show up at the guy's house and hand him a speeding ticket all because I said so?
Correct me if I'm wrong but for moving violations, a person cannot be given a ticket or anything like that if the LEO doesn't see it personally. I was pulled over for doing dumb shit once but the officer said for me to knock it off and basically just scared me but told me since he didnt catch me there wasnt anything he could do but he was watching me.
OP get a lawyer and fight it and file a counter-suit and sue them for time spent in jail, humiliation etc. I'm 99% positive you will win both. They cannot arrest you for a traffic violation when they didnt even see it and only have a "witness". They made a huge mistake!
OP get a lawyer and fight it and file a counter-suit and sue them for time spent in jail, humiliation etc. I'm 99% positive you will win both. They cannot arrest you for a traffic violation when they didnt even see it and only have a "witness". They made a huge mistake!
Wouldn't the bolded section apply to the OP?
Your experience prosecuting Texas "racing on the Highway" tickets??
Stop and go implies a race? So they both pull to a side street...Camaro takes off to "show-off his new exhaust while OP sits there? Op then drives at normal speed to Camaro and states.."listen to my S/C whine while Camaro sits there" Does that meet a stop and go criteria?
Bottom line is there is not enough here, as presented, to say they were racing...and for either the 3rd or 4th time... I will let the judge in Texas have the last say. Hopefully then we will get the whole story...
If you think stating "not really wrapping my car out" or "we did a stop and go" is enough to convince you OP was racing then so be it.
Driving fast next to or near someone is not necessarily racing..You are convinced the OP is not telling you everything and thus use those 2 statements above as "evidence" of guilt...
I will wait for OP to post and update everyone......
Last edited:
Sounds to me if the op story is entirely accurate, these Leos were pretty damn bored and decided to go crazy.... 4 Tahoes? Kinda getting carried away don't you think? I've been to jail twice and put in hand cuffs several times for street racing back in the day....only one cop took it too far and that's why I got released and chargers dropped because of the scars and bruises that were visible on my face and thighs, which had another Leo questioning the one that arrested me....I could of tried to sue but I was street racing so getting the charges dropped was fine by me.... Any way op...fight it talk to the da go to court chances r the city won't go to far and offer u a bargain don't settle for shit, trial by jury if u have to, if u truly weren't racing fight till the end
This disagreement revolves on the interpretation of what the OP said.
This is why I said early on that he should have shut then and not say or write anything further.
For instance: What I say and mean may not be what you hear and understand.
So...
"neither of use really wrapped out our cars, just a little stop and go"
We know that means to some he admitted to racing, but what we don't know is what he really meant. He could be piss poor at describing what happened, that's why we have lawyers to speak for us.
When I was young, you "rapped the throttle", not "wrapped". I don't know what he means, I'd have to ask him what "wrapped" means. OP, do not post an answer to that here.
How many of you are married for years and years and still look at your spouse and say "what the heck does that mean?" because you have no idea what they're talking about. We can't expect to understand the exact meaning of what a stranger says unless we get to interactively ask them more questions.
I often marvel at the capacity for one person to totally misunderstand another, cultural differences, speech patterns, slang, impediments such physical and environmental all play into this.
Ask a professional what is one of the least reliable forms of evidence and they will tell you that it is eye witness accounts. Stress a person out and their perception of reality changes, their mind will invent memories to fill in gaps in their true memory, they will forget key information and say things that make no sense. Even so, with all of this proven and common knowledge "it can and will be used against you"...
As the comedian said "I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability".
This is why I said early on that he should have shut then and not say or write anything further.
For instance: What I say and mean may not be what you hear and understand.
So...
"neither of use really wrapped out our cars, just a little stop and go"
We know that means to some he admitted to racing, but what we don't know is what he really meant. He could be piss poor at describing what happened, that's why we have lawyers to speak for us.
When I was young, you "rapped the throttle", not "wrapped". I don't know what he means, I'd have to ask him what "wrapped" means. OP, do not post an answer to that here.
How many of you are married for years and years and still look at your spouse and say "what the heck does that mean?" because you have no idea what they're talking about. We can't expect to understand the exact meaning of what a stranger says unless we get to interactively ask them more questions.
I often marvel at the capacity for one person to totally misunderstand another, cultural differences, speech patterns, slang, impediments such physical and environmental all play into this.
Ask a professional what is one of the least reliable forms of evidence and they will tell you that it is eye witness accounts. Stress a person out and their perception of reality changes, their mind will invent memories to fill in gaps in their true memory, they will forget key information and say things that make no sense. Even so, with all of this proven and common knowledge "it can and will be used against you"...
As the comedian said "I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability".
Prosecuting racing criminal charges, yes. As opposed to you just making it up as you go along.
You keep making up new scenarios that do not apply since the OP stated what he did. Stop trying to redefine to sound like you know what you are talking about when clearly you do not.
Is that really the bottom line? What is that based on? Your practice of criminal law, your work in L.E., or as a judge?
While that may not be your layperson definition of racing it meets the elements of the statute sorry to confuse you with actual fact and experience.
They do it all the time. Rather prudent too IMHO. If someone is holding you at gunpoint, and a passer-by calls the police, it's kind of nice that they believe what a third party says without question.
Last edited:
Not confusing me at all....just disagree with you. ...and using quasi insults toward me does not make your case any stronger.
Until the OP presents more evidence I will believe he has a decent chance to get out of this with a lesser charge.
if that upsets you then so be it...
my made up scenarios? You mean where I take the OP's words and demonstrate to you how they can be intepretted differently?
Everything is not cut and dry despite your attempts to tell me otherwise.
I am NOT a judge but neither are you......
When the facts are against you, argue the facts.
When the law is against you, argue the law.
When both are against you, accuse the other person of not being a judge. :shrug:
You dont upset me because you make no difference in my life. I just want people to understand what the law actually says and not what your "inexperienced and uneducated" opinion is.
Yes, you made up scenarios such as that the two cars were not side by side, but one went and stopped and then the other went and stopped.
I agree nothing is cut and dry, however, my actual experience in over 100 criminal trials and prosecuting more than 2500 cases leads me to draw certain conclusions based on the OPs initial statement and the section of Texas code he violated. While, you simply dont believe it was a race.
BTW, I have been appointed as a "Special Master" numerous times. Now, run off and google "Special Master."
Now that is some funny shit right there.
This is what I'm still wondering because wih the op's story it isn't possible. I've been pulled over before with a similar situation, someone called me in for "racing." If it was indeed a random citizen there is no way he could have gotten arrested. Unless he incriminated himself further once pulled over...... If that wasn't the case, there are indeed other key details left out for sure.
As far as the fellows arguing back and forth, one of you are right according to law. The other, you are making good solid points to base a case/debate off of but, that's it, its really only an opinion. Just let it go...... Time will tell if the OP wants to give post some more info or a ending to this ordeal. Either way plenty of us are guilty of this and plenty more...... Just don't get caught, if you do.....time to pay your dues
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
