Law Trivia and Discussions

[LumRaiderFan]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I have told a story some time in the past but it seems kind of appropriate for this.

After I got off work on the evening shift, my best friend was working the night shift. He was on a traffic stop at a 3 way flashing red light. It was a T intersection and usually at midnight it changes from cycling red and green to all flashing red.

 While my friend was conducting the traffic at that intersection, he witnessed a fatal accident. The innocent victim was stopped at the light and a drunk driver hit him from behind. It did not kill him but not wearing his seatbelt, he came out of the vehicle. As he was trying to get to his feet to walk out of the roadway, a second drunk driver coming from another direction, ran the red light and killed him.

A couple of points. Neither driver alone killed him. The second drunk driver would have never killed him had the first one knock knock him out of the car. Basically the victim flew in front of his vehicle. The first drunk driver knocked the guy out of the car but that did not kill him. Also, the victim was not wearing his seatbelt. So now what?

Is either driver responsible because neither one actually alone caused the death. Then, had the guy been in his seatbelt as required by law, none of this would’ve likely happened other than one DWI from the first impact. The second truck driver probably would have driven past the same and nothing would’ve happened to him. 

For anyone? Does anyone get charged with the death when neither person’s actions killed the victim? What about the fact that had the victim been wearing a seatbelt, this likely would not have occurred?

Charges? No charges?

If so, on who and why (sticking with this thread)?

I would think both drunk drivers would be charged, not sure why one would be less guilty than the other, but I can see the point SM made where drunk #1 set it in motion and may be guilty for actually causing the death.

I will have to add that that is the worst bad luck I have ever heard of.

[WOSdrummer99]

7 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Old & Lost Rivers bridge (I-10).

I-10, I'mma win if I make it back (uh!)
Gotta take it slow, through that Anahuac (Anahuac!)
The laws colder than an icicle (icicle)
Uh! And mine sour as a diced pickle

-Chad Butler

[tvc184]

The officer told me that the DA accepted manslaughter charges against both DWI drivers.   I have no idea about the outcomes.

 Nothing in the law (obviously) goes by, it just seems reasonable or emotionally we feel that more people should be responsible. Anybody that looks at Facebook could look at any new stories and you could almost count the seconds sticking by before somebody will say, well a parent should be charged also or neighbor who knew about it should be charged or blah, blah blah.

To do so there has to be a specific law allowing it. The state cannot do it, just because.

I gave my cheat sheet law on Causation a couple of comments back. That is the law in the situation that allows such prosecutions.

Sec. 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS.

(a) A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient. (b) A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that: (1) a different offense was committed;

or (2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected.

We can see in (a) that a person can be charged, even with a concurrent cause that he didn’t create. It would not have occurred without his conduct. so in the case of the second car that ran over the guy, would the victim have died had that second driver not run the red light while intoxicated? Seemingly the obvious answer is no. Had the second guy not run the red light, the victim, most likely would not be dead.

Then let’s take the first driver. He almost certainly did not kill the victim but had it not been for his drunk driving actions but n knocking the victim into the road, would the victim have died? Again, the answer is almost certainly no.

Of course a lawyer can try to argue the point and that’s what lawyers do. The point is though that there is a law in place that says if your conduct causes a result, even if it’s with another cause, you might be criminally liable.
 

 

 

[SmashMouth]

14 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

I-10, I'mma win if I make it back (uh!)
Gotta take it slow, through that Anahuac (Anahuac!)
The laws colder than an icicle (icicle)
Uh! And mine sour as a diced pickle

-Chad Butler

UGK Ridin Dirty?

[WOSdrummer99]

6 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

UGK Ridin Dirty?

Rock 4 Rock
Pimp C

Yea that cop was definitely expecting someone or something else. Sometimes it's just the plain white f250 with a tool box that can get you profiled.

[tvc184]

35 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Rock 4 Rock
Pimp C

Yea that cop was definitely expecting someone or something else. Sometimes it's just the plain white f250 with a tool box that can get you profiled.

The F250 profile? 

[WOSdrummer99]

2 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

The F250 profile? 

Oh yeah. I've heard it before.

"We were looking for someone driving a truck like this."

Then they write a ticket for expired tags after finding the wrong person. Tell me how that's not a violation of some kind.

[tvc184]

10 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Oh yeah. I've heard it before.

"We were looking for someone driving a truck like this."

Then they write a ticket for expired tags after finding the wrong person. Tell me how that's not a violation of some kind.

You are absolutely correct. It is a crime of driving with wrong tags.

A point about such stops, a targeted stop is not profiling.

Policies and laws typically state that profiling is not looking for a specific description. That is almost the exact opposite of profiling.

If you want to say that the officer is lying, then say he is lying. Is that wrong? Maybe yes and maybe no. It depends on what the lie was and why. 

If I wanted a lawful reason to pull someone over, I would not need to make up some silly story that can be easily checked about looking for a vehicle.  All that I would have to do is follow you until you make your first turn, and almost certainly if you make a right turn. 

While typing this about traffic stops, it comes to mind where I pointed guns at people and put them face down in the pavement in a felony traffic stop….  and it was the wrong vehicles. 

[WOSdrummer99]

4 hours ago, tvc184 said:

All that I would have to do is follow you until you make your first turn, and almost certainly if you make a right turn. 

Is that because of right on red laws?

My goto was pull into a driveway or business ASAP 

Mental note... 3 lefts are better than 1 right. Wait... maybe not? 3 chances to getcha, instead of 1. I'll just stay straight. 😎

[tvc184]

45 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Is that because of right on red laws?

My goto was pull into a driveway or business ASAP 

Mental note... 3 lefts are better than 1 right. Wait... maybe not? 3 chances to getcha, instead of 1. I'll just stay straight. 😎

Nope. It’s because almost no one makes a legal right turn.

 This is a legal right turn. 

Sec. 545.101. TURNING AT INTERSECTION. (a) To make a right turn at an intersection, an operator shall make both the approach and the turn as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

 There are two requirements:   
1. Approach “as closely as practicable” to the curb.
2. Make the turn “as closely as practicable” to the curb.

People practically always swing wide to the left to turn right. Then they almost always either turn partly into the next leave or nearly so. Especially small vehicles can turn from about 2 feet from the curb to about 1.5-2 feet from the curb.

An 18 wheeler might have to swing several feet out in order to complete the right turn. That is lawful whereas if it was a Honda Accord it would be a crime. There is no set distance in the law because each vehicle is of a different size and type and turns differently.

The second reason that the police can usually find to stop a person if they’re really looking is using the turn signal. Not only ignoring the signals altogether but not using it within 100 feet of the turn. On approach to the turn, they will then put on the turn indicator or maybe more commonly, after they are stopped. At that point it is too late.

I find humor when a new vehicle law is being debated in the Texas legislature, which is currently in session, and people on social media make a comment like, they are just making a new law to give the police more legal reasons to the stop someone.

Really?

For one that is almost too ludicrous for a comment however, secondly, if a police officer can’t usually find a reason to make a random traffic stop, he/she needs to turn in the badge.  

[tvc184]

A vehicle pulls up to a stop sign. It is on a typical two-way road like in a residential neighborhood.

The driver is going to time left though and is turning onto a 6 lane road (3 in each direction, common in this area). Examples might be coming off of a residential street onto certain sections of College Street in Beaumont or Gulfway Drive in Port Arthur.

With three lanes going into each direction, which left-hand lane(s) are lawful to turn into? Basically, what is a legal left turn at an intersection?

[WOSdrummer99]

6 hours ago, tvc184 said:

There are two requirements:   
1. Approach “as closely as practicable” to the curb.
2. Make the turn “as closely as practicable” to the curb.

🤬 That's a trap. If I'm judged to be too far away it's illegal. If I scrape the curb, I'm impaired. 

3 lefts has more of a chance. 

And to answer the previous post. Always make those 3 left turns into the closest lane.

[SmashMouth]

13 hours ago, tvc184 said:

A vehicle pulls up to a stop sign. It is on a typical two-way road like in a residential neighborhood.

The driver is going to time left though and is turning onto a 6 lane road (3 in each direction, common in this area). Examples might be coming off of a residential street onto certain sections of College Street in Beaumont or Gulfway Drive in Port Arthur.

With three lanes going into each direction, which left-hand lane(s) are lawful to turn into? Basically, what is a legal left turn at an intersection?

From Driver's Ed nearly 40 years ago, I think you should turn into the furthermost left-hand lane (what I would consider the "fast-lane")

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

From Driver's Ed nearly 40 years ago, I think you should turn into the furthermost left-hand lane (what I would consider the "fast-lane")

 

8 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

🤬 That's a trap. If I'm judged to be too far away it's illegal. If I scrape the curb, I'm impaired. 

3 lefts has more of a chance. 

And to answer the previous post. Always make those 3 left turns into the closest lane.

Can’t get anything past y’all!!

Y’all are all over it.

Except the law…. 🙃

Sec. 545.101. TURNING AT INTERSECTION.
(b) To make a left turn at an intersection, an operator shall:

(1) approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to a vehicle moving in the direction of the vehicle; and

(2) after entering the intersection, turn left, leaving the intersection so as to arrive in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of the vehicle on the roadway being entered.

A right turn must be made into the right most lane and as close to the curb as practicable as noted earlier.

 The left turn however, can be into any lane in that direction. As it states, a lane lawfully available in that direction. So if 2,3 or 4 lanes, any are legal.

Usually ….

Remember earlier, I mention that sometimes they’re a very specific laws. There is the one law that says if there’s a sign saying left lane for passing only, that is correct. There is another law however that says if you’re driving slower than the traffic at that location and time, you need to move to the right hand lane and get out of the way. So even with no sign, you still can’t legally block traffic. 

So the general rule is, if there’s more than one left-hand lane available, you can turn into any of them. That is the answer I was looking for in the situation I gave.

There are two other circumstances where that is not valid. Usually they are at the same location but may not be. There are some intersections that have a traffic sign with an arrow showing that the left-hand lane must turn into the near lane. If that is true, typically it is because more than one lane has the option to turn left. At many intersections there are two left turn lanes. At other intersections there are actually stripes on the road that indicate turning lanes. Usually there are stripes on the road and the left turn sign at the same time.

So the general left turn law says that you could move into any lane in that direction but if there’s a sign or road markings that indicate you are restricted to a particular lane, you must do so. An example I can think of is in Beaumont if a person is going east on College St. and turning left or north onto 11th St. at the traffic light. There are two left turn lanes and there’s both a sign and stripes on the road that indicate the left most turning lane must turn into the near lane on 11th St.

About 10 years ago, I was a supervisor on the evening shift, and a guy called and complained on a police officer. He had gotten a citation for the exact situation where he turned into the second/center left hand lane and the officer wrote him a citation for not turning into the near left headlight. There were no sign or lane markings. Oops…

This happened about 30 minutes earlier so I called the officer to the station and accused him of nothing but ask him the situation. He gave me the exact same story as the man complaining. He said I saw a guy turning left, he had on his blinker but he turned wide into the second lane, not the near lane.  So I threw the ball back in his court and asked him if he knew what the law was and he said sure, you have to turn into the near left-hand lane. I pulled out the book and showed him the same law that I posted above. Oops.

Then there was his question, now what? I said the first thing you’re going to do is dismiss that citation. You can’t even change it to a warning because there is no crime.

Secondly, I am going to call the guy and tell him the citation is dismissed and we apologize. After that, you better hope he does not get a lawyer. Then I hit him with the big one. What if the guy had refused to sign the citation? You would’ve handcuffed him and brought him to the county jail and towed his vehicle. Now he has been booked into the County Jail and his vehicle impounded on the crime that does not exist. Oops.

The guy was not happy, but he did not pursue it further including no complaint to internal affairs.  I documented it per our policy in case it came up later.

 

 

[tvc184]

This short video on YouTube came out a few days ago. These two defense attorneys discuss a case of a man who has an Apple Airtag in his truck which was later stolen. He was able to track down the stolen truck and tried to recover it himself, and ended up killing the thief. He is claiming self defense, not the recovery of property.

In the video though, one of the defense attorneys mentions the Texas “shoot a man in the back for your wallet law”. Then they go on to mention it has to be fresh like an in progress crime and not track the person down later (which isn’t the claim of the guy recovering his truck).

 I just thought it was interesting that we discussed it and now this video from two Texas defense attorneys who I believe specialize in self defense claims, mention the deadly force to protect property law including fleeing with the property.

 But like before, I don’t feel like having to defend my actions in court even if lawful. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

Well, I feel I better about my traffic incident with the Beaumont police officer. I am in Houston, where anything else in life looks much better by comparison. 

[tvc184]

Are U-turns legal in Texas?
Y
N

 

If so, where?

[LumRaiderFan]

45 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Are U-turns legal in Texas?
Y
N

 

If so, where?

I'll guess they are legal unless signs indicate otherwise.

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I'll guess they are legal unless signs indicate otherwise.

That is half correct. There is another restriction other than a sign.

As a supervisor, on a couple of occasions I got a citizen complaining  because an officer did a U-turn. Uhhhh….. they aren’t illegal. 

[tvc184]

By state law (a city might have an ordinance for example, prohibiting a U-turn in a business district) unless prohibited by a sign, a U-turn is legal in Texas except……

Where you can’t see oncoming traffic for at least 500 feet on a curve or grade.  So if a person does a U-turn on an overpass or a fairly sharp curve in the road, it might be a violation. 
 

Sec. 545.102. TURNING ON CURVE OR CREST OF GRADE. An operator may not turn the vehicle to move in the opposite direction when approaching a curve or the crest of a grade if the vehicle is not visible to the operator of another vehicle approaching from either direction within 500 feet

[tvc184]

By definition, is a knife a deadly weapon in Texas?

[LumRaiderFan]

8 hours ago, tvc184 said:

By definition, is a knife a deadly weapon in Texas?

I would say yes, but you could probably say the same thing about a golf club or rolling pin.

[rupert3]

Doesn't it go by size an length of blade?

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, rupert3 said:

Doesn't it go by size an length of blade?

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I would say yes, but you could probably say the same thing about a golf club or rolling pin.

The only item in the Texas Penal Code that is listed as a deadly weapon is a firearm.

Under that law, “anything” else can be a deadly weapon if it was “manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury or anything that in the was manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury“.

So an item has to be specifically designed to inflict serious bodily injury or at the moment it was used, including in a threat, was intended to be used to inflict serious bodily injury.

 In the police academy we ask questions of the cadets like, if you go into Walmart and buy a Kershaw knife, was that knife manufactured with intent to kill people? The obvious answer should be no. CAN it be a dw? Sure it can. What about a machete with a 24” blade? Again the answer is no. It was designed to cut brush while in the woods, etc. 

How about a rag stuffed down a person’s throat while trying to kill the person? Was the rag’s intended use to cause death or serious bodily injury? Yes so a machete sitting on a table is not a dw but the rag is because the moment it was used or intended to be used, it became a dw.

If a person pulls a knife and threatens to kill someone but never actually cuts the person, is the knife a dw at that point? Yes. In the manner of its intended use, the threat, it was capable of inflicting serious injury. Threatening a person is a class C assault or the equivalent of a traffic citation with no jail time possible and a $500 maximum fine. Threatening a person while holding/displaying the knife and it went from no jail time to a maximum of 20 years. 

 There is no blade length under the definition of a deadly weapon. In fact, a couple of years ago, Texas changed the law that had restricted a knife carried in public to 5.5”….. if the person is at least 18 years old. A place such as a bar or school still has the restriction of the 5.5” blade but a person can now legally carry a sword in public.

 

[tvc184]

After reading an article from yesterday on KBMT…

Let’s say a person displays a handgun in self-defense. The person however does not use the handgun. The article says that to display a weapon only is “considered deadly force”. 

In Texas law, displaying a deadly weapon and making a threat is Aggravated Assault and carries up to 20 years in prison.

Can a person lawfully present/display a deadly weapon but not use it? As the saying goes, if you pull a gun, you had better use it.