Sergeant,

You are twisting my words around and applying them in ways not meant.
You are arguing apples and oranges.

"with your theory why punish criminals if the act of the crime and getting caught is punishment enough."

We are discussing traffic offenses, not theft, assault, and other such crimes.

"Police don't witness most crimes yet investigate and arrest."

Again we are discussing traffic offenses, not other categories of crimes.
And my comment about Not able to write tickets unless they witness the infraction applied to traffic stops, not accident investigations. Or did you fail the grasp English when I stated: "Now, Officers can and often do still write tickets in accident cases,"
Or are you just INTENTIONALLY being obtuse?

"A young man was just arrested and faces two criminally negligent homicide charges for two people who died in that accident according to you police didn't witness and shouldn't charge since the accident is enough punishment."

Again? do you fail to comprehend English or are you being intentionally obtuse?
Police CAN write tickets for accidents upon investigation, They do NOT do so without witnessing for traffic stops.

In the case you cited, the man was charged with CRIMINALLY negligent homicide. That's something more than simply getting into an accident from running a stop sign.

Now, can you dispense with being intentionally argumentative, and showing your backside?

How about issuing a citation to dissuade future similar behavior?

Debunker, with your theory why punish criminals if the act of the crime and getting caught is punishment enough.

Police don't witness most crimes yet investigate and arrest.

A young man was just arrested and faces two criminally negligent homicide charges for two people who died in that accident according to you police didn't witness and shouldn't charge since the accident is enough punishment.

cobraden and kmharly77,

Be sure to report back and let us know just how long and hard they laughed when they laugh you right out of Austin.

Nevermind. We'll hear the laughter all the way from here in Victoria.

You don't have a leg to stand on and there is nothing illegal about a citation not given.

Whether a citation is given or not is at the discretion of the officer(Or departmental policy).

In the case of a traffic stop (not an accident), The officer generally has THREE choices, not the customary two most think about. Ticket or Warning. The third is arrest. Yes, you CAN get arrested for an improper lane change or failure to signal. Do not pass go, Do not collect $200.

Now generally the officer on ever goes with a Ticket or warning and for the most part, which he chooses depends on:
1) How blatant your violation is.

2) Your attitude, ("Why aren't you out there catching real criminals, Officer?")

3) Your history of prior offenses.

They normally will never arrest you for a traffic offense, but refuse to sign the ticket, and you will.

And kash is right, they can only ticket what they witness. Imagine what would happen if they could write tickets simply on the say-so of someone who "claims" you ran a stop sign.

Now to ACCIDENTS.
The purpose of writing tickets and the fines attached to them are an incentive for people to OBEY the laws so as to NOT have accidents. You don't like paying speeding fines? Then stop speeding. and you reduce your odds of being in an accident.

Once you HAVE an accident, the ticket is rather pointless. because the ticket is to curtail your reckless driving to PREVENT the accident.
The accident itself, Injuries and monetary expenditures for damages and insurance premiums going up now becomes your punishment and is much more than any ticket fine would be.

Even when you hit and hurt someone else and you are shown "at fault", the fines from the ticket do not go to the other person. That other person is probably entitled to monetary compensation, but that is civil court, not criminal court and Police do not enforce civil law, only Criminal law.

Now, Officers can and often do still write tickets in accident cases, but as often as not don't as well. depends on how clear-cut the evidence is as to who was clearly at fault, Such is not always the case. and the officer did not WITNESS the accident. The Officer I spoke with had a basic guideline as to how he writes tickets for accidents. and it basically depends on just how reckless the at fault person was.

If the at fault driver was being a total bonehead idiot on the road and was willfully reckless, he'll get a ticket.
If it was just an accident. Even if you are at fault for it for a momentary inattention or whatever. you won't. The accident itself is your punishment.

So go ahead cobraden, Call Austin. Please record the conversation. I want to hear how they laugh you out of the office.

Someone in the know could correct me but I thought at one time officers could not issue citations unless they witnessed the accident?

This is the second accident this week where the at-fault driver did not receive a citation. What is really going on?

I agree with Cobraden, a citation should have been issued. The Victoria Police Dept. and Jackson County Sheriff need to be investigated.

NOT issuing a citation even though someone is clearly at fault is a slap in the face to the enforcement of traffic laws. Think I'll send this article to Austin for scrutiny.

Odds for cell phones to be involved are?