Originally Posted By: ryck
Really? You accuse the “folks around here” of having trouble reading and then continue your rant that Texas is wasting money by having a jury automatically present for traffic offences. Really?....after joemike has explained twice that it is not so.

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
Normally there would not be a jury trial for a misdemeanor traffic offense, however under the 5th, 6th, & 7th amendments to the Constitution of the United States anyone accused of a crime has an absolute right to trial by jury no matter what the offense and I have to assume that was the case here.

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
Jury trial for a traffic misdemeanor in Texas is an OPTION chosen by the defendant. The prosecutor and the court would prefer NOT to have a jury trial as it takes too much time for too many people and costs too much money, but it is the defendants constitutional right.

My ‘read’ on all of this is that you simply want to force your opinion that Texas is a police state, as indicated in your early statement “….he did a great service in exposing the police state in Texas, and that is what lots of people see it as.”


I am not "forcing" anything. I am just stating obvious things,and making a valid comparison to the way things are here in Washington state.

For contesting a ticket, I have previously pointed out the differences between Texas and Washington. But, given that some folks still can't read, I'll explain it VERY, VERY clearly here.

So, the individual makes the choice of contesting the violation. In Texas, the defendant foes before a judge, and that INCLUDES a jury to hear the case. In Washington, the defendant goes before a judge, but there is NO JURY present.

I hope that is clear now. And, I'll repeat: regarding the bogus ticket my wife received a couple of years ago, Washington (at least the jurisdiction which has "control" of the violation) is definitely WAY MORE progressive than Texas. We were able to write in our defense, without going to court. That documentation was read by a judge in his chambers, and he made the ruling then (correct one, by the way, given the circumstances). No need to go before the judge in person (although we had that option), and certainly no jury present!

Originally Posted By: ryck
Then, when people aren’t buying in you suggest they can’t follow logic. Perhaps it would be easier if you didn't change your logic to suit your own mistakes. You start out absolutely accusing the Texas officer of using a gun:

“Would like to know about "the barrel of a gun". In almost all cases, and especially if one acts respectful to the officer, I have never heard of the need for a gun regarding a traffic violation.”

Soon thereafter you reinforce your opinion:

“Finally, what about the "at the barrel of a gun" statement? Is it that bad in Texas (again, evidence of a police state)?”

Then, when it’s pointed out quite politely that you didn't understand what you had read in the man’s link, you can’t admit you may have been wrong. Instead you ask everyone to believe that what you really meant in the above statements was that “…..the "barrel of a gun" comment was made in jest by him.”


I DID NOT SAY that I did not understand what he stated, regarding this "barrel of a gun" business. In fact, here is what I said (twice, by the way):

"I suspect, though, that the "barrel of a gun" comment was made in jest by him. However, given the ridiculous amount for going only 9 mph over the limit, I can understand how he felt."

"I suspected he just said it in jest. But, given the ridiculous amount he had to pay for just going 9 mph over the limit, I can certainly understand him feeling that way."

Once again, it seems folks cannot read around here!

Originally Posted By: ryck
Allow me to make a couple of suggestions:

1. If you really think Texas is a police state, don’t go there.
2. If the inability of the "folks around here” to grasp your concepts causes you so much grief, don’t come here.

And, I am sure a man of your perspicacity will appreciate that these suggestions are offered with the kindest intentions.


First of all, I really have no desire to re-visit Texas again (was there about 45 years ago, and it was "OK"). Secondly, I'll say what I want, and when I want (within the "rules", of course. I hope others will do the same).

Now, may I kindly make a couple of suggestions for you:

1. Do not misquote anyone, nor misstate what one previously says. Just keep things honest, especially when you are quoting someone.
2. If you can't agree with someone's statements, well and good. But, state your objections in an accurate manner.

Last edited by honestone; 06/01/16 06:39 PM.