TexasCHLforum.com

Wolverine wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Wrong. It is a Class C misdemeanor.

Ok, I made a lazy distinction. Call it what you want, but I've been ticketed for speeding in many states and I've never spent one minute in a jail cell as a result. It's a violation that results in a fine, not imprisonment.

That's true for Class C Misdemeanors in general, not just traffic offenses.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.12.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

VMI77 wrote:It also could be argued that it's a act that includes intent, as the only way to speed accidentally is ignore traffic signs or have a broken speedometer.

I disagree. In many parts of Texas, you can drive with the flow of traffic without knowing you're over the posted limit.

carlson1 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I don't think you need intent for a speeding violation, just saying.

Honey mooned there. Would not go back, even to "safe areas." The craziness is out of control.

Yeah, but a speeding violation is not a criminal act, it's a civil violation.

Wrong. It is a Class C misdemeanor.

Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈreɪɪə/; Latin for "guilty mind".[1]), in criminal law, is viewed as one of the necessary elements of some crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act", accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I don't think you need intent for a speeding violation, just saying.

Honey mooned there. Would not go back, even to "safe areas." The craziness is out of control.

birdman253 wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

birdman253 wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:After what Mexico did to Tommy Bean (from Vidor) in the late 1990's I vowed never to visit Mexico again. The corruption there is sickening and I have absolutely no use for the place.

I live on the border, and any time a U.S. citizen ends up in jail for firearms or ammunition, people seem shocked and incensed that it happened.

Mexico is a sovereign nation, and their laws are different from ours. There are huge signs at every border crossing warning of the consequences of taking any firearms or ammo across the border. Yet people ignore them, get caught, and then are shocked that they are handled as per the laws of Mexico, instead of being sent back with an admonishment to "sin no more."

While jail in Mexico is certainly terrible, and I certainly would not want to end up there, I will defend the government of Mexico's right to establish their laws and legal system, and to enforce them as per their law. If you do the crime, you gotta do the time.

End of rant.

Rant? Just why are you ranting? and just what method did you use to deduce that Tommy Bean ignored warning signs? You are confused if you think extortion equals a nation of laws.




Short story:

Tommy Bean was at a gun shot in Laredo and told an employee to clean out his suv as he was crossing over for lunch.

At the border there was some loose .22 shells that had spilled under the back seat that the employee missed.

Tommy was arrested and told to pay $10K bribe. He told them to jump in a lake. Just before his trial he was once again hit up, that time for $40K. Told em to jump in a lake.

He ended up in prison and paid close to $100K before he was traded for a real felon.

You have made my point. Perhaps he didn't ignore the signs. Whether he did or not is not material to the situation. He did cross into Mexico with live ammo. Under Mexican law, that is a crime. He was arrested, and handled in their legal system.

The solicited bribes, in my opinion, are a separate issue. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Mr. Bean for refusing to go along with that, in the face of continued imprisonment, and, as it turned out, substantially higher total cost.

But, with that said, my opinion of the original offense has not changed. He crossed with ammo. Whether he intended to or not, doesn't matter. Whether his employee failed to remove it from the vehicle doesn't matter. If a person is crossing into Mexico, it is their responsibility to insure they are complying with the law. He clearly was in violation. It was a raw deal, but he was guilty, under their law.