The typo was minor. I wasn't making a big deal out of it, it happens.
Originally Posted by CB HI
Reckless driving is certainly a violation that involves driving, but it's more serious than running a red light and most other moving violations. It can involve jail time here -- here's the Texas law for comparison --
But now you want to parse reckless driving with other traffic citations to now claim you are right.
545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.
(b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $200;
(2) confinement in county jail for not more than 30 days; or
(3) both the fine and the confinement.
I've not been speaking in such absolutes. Every time, I've said that the more serious a violation is, the more likely it is that they'll accept video of the violation from a citizen and use that as the sole basis of a their arrest/citation.
So why don't you tell us at what level of traffic laws do cops stop writing citations when they have video evidence.
You brought up murder first -- not me. You seemed to think I was saying that the cops would not use video of a murder, which I was not.
First you went with murder vs traffic citations and now you are down to some traffic citations vs other traffic citations.
The DA might drop the charge depending on the situation, but that's true of any charge.
Real life, not letter of the law. Cops use "disorderly conduct" often to arrest someone they have nothing else on. The DA almost always drop the charge before it goes anywhere, because the DA generally knows that it is a BS charge.
Straw man. I said video *can* be considered hearsay in court without the testimony of the person who took it or is responsible for it, not that it was always hearsay, and I provided examples of such. The "great lengths" you refer to was me giving a url that showed cases where video might or might not be considered hearsay in court -- the fact that the link I found was concerned with "day in the life" videos was immaterial.
No straw man here. I responded to your claim that cyclist video of a crime in progress is nothing more than hearsay. You went to great lengths to equate that type of surveillance videos of a crime in progress to "day in the life" videos in an effort to imply the two types of videos are the same and both are hearsay.
In any event, police are not usually lawyers. The don't always know the details of the law, but they know that if the show up in court with video but don't have the person who took the video or who is responsible for it there to testify about it that they'll have a harder time, and it may make them look bad. And no matter what you say about this matter, the reality is that cops rarely give moving violations for things they did not see or were not confessed to them, and usually the most common exception is after a collision, where the cop can personally see the damage caused. Even giving video evidence of a moving violation to a cop rarely results in a ticket -- more likely is that they do nothing, or *maybe* a talking to the offender (or the owner of the car -- often the video doesn't even make it clear who the driver was, even if the plates are very clear. Which is another reason why they don't like to write citations based solely on video evidence.)
You seem confused about what a straw man is. A straw man is when you argue against a position that your opponent has not made, when you misrepresent their position and then argue against that.
That was the straw man you put forward.