Comments

  • Doesn't matter Jason,

    Turns out, the jerk is his own boss. I'm sure his "boss" is pleased with his actions.
    He can still make good on his threat and take his "rear" back to Trinity. No one here will miss him and our streets will be safer.

    I'm also quite certain the Oil boom won't fold because of his whiny "I'm going home and spend my money elsewhere" threat.

    January 13, 2012 at 6:04 p.m.
  • Jeeez Debunker, let it go already. The guy was mad and wrote an idiotic letter. Just what he needs is someone doing something even more idiotic by pursuing a letter to the editor writer to make his life more crummy than it already is.

    I wasn't there and I'm betting none of you were either. I have my own idea as to what happened and it's pretty close to what you are saying.

    Hey, I bet the guy slows down next time he drives through that turd hole of a town.

    I drive differently in Cuero than I do in any other city. Why? because I'm still PO'ed at some trouble I got in there back in 1979. The cops were right then too and guess what, even though I hated them for it, they definately had an affect on me.

    Let it go already!!!

    January 13, 2012 at 3:28 p.m.
  • Top,
    You are right on the money there. Though I do believe his ticket likely WAS for "exceeding safe speed". As I pointed out in the original LTE, No officer is going to write a ticket for +/- 1 or 2 mph over the limit, that being within the error range of the radar.

    As I see it,
    1) The ticket was likely for unsafe speed (given conditions at the time)
    2) That speed happened to be only 2 miles above the posted limit.
    3) The man then B******s about receiving a ticket for 2 miles over the limit.When technically that was NOT the offense.

    I've seen others do the same thing.

    1) Man complains to cop buddy that some other officer gave him a ticket for talking on the cell phone and as far as he knows... that's not illegal!.

    2) Cop buddy tells his friend that he's right, it's not illegal, but he can guarantee that was not what the ticket was for.

    3) Man insists that he WAS given a ticket for talking on phone while driving.

    4) Cop buddy asks to see ticket. Man obliges.

    5) Ticket was for "Failure to maintain single lane of travel" (AKA Weaving across the lane divide)

    Now, talking on the cell phone may have been WHY he was weaving, but the ticket was for the weaving, not the talking on the cell phone.

    I think it is the same in this jerk's case. As you pointed out, you can get ticketed for an unsafe speed for the conditions even if you are within the posted limits. I think that's what this guy got and his speed just happened to be 2 miles over.

    The really bad issue with this case is not the ticket (BTW, good job Officer!), but with the sense of entitlement and the right to break the law just because of who he is. This guy is a grade A jerk. PERIOD. No if's, And's, or But's about it.

    Just because he is part of the oil industry somehow means he has a right to drive our streets however the hell he wants to and be damned with safety. That he somehow has a right to a warning vs a ticket.

    I'd personally like to track this guy down to his employment and show his asinine letter to his boss. Wonder what the boss would have to say about his "attitude". Maybe they'll decide that someone like him doesn't need to be representing the oil industry any longer. especially if the incident happened while he was driving for them and not on his own time.

    Matter of fact, I think I'll see if I can do that.
    The streets are bad enough without having to worry about people who really do think they "own the road".

    January 13, 2012 at 2:48 p.m.
  • The posted speed is the limit- not the lowest.. Law also allows for slower speeds when conditions warrant it. Main St in Yorktown is a good example.
    Tickets are routinely issued here for "exceeding a safe speed". There is no allowance for the posted speed- faster than safe speed will get a ticket.
    He got a favor from the officer- I think insurance company will look at "2mph over more" favorable than "exceeding a safe speed".

    January 13, 2012 at 9:04 a.m.