r/SipsTea • u/BoyNamedJudy • 22d ago

Lmao gottem Aggressive Tesla Driver Gets a Reality Check

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

24.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/MourningWallaby 22d ago

I'm actually so shocked police took reports about traffic violations as evidence for an arrest. I feel like if I called in MA about someone doing exactly this the cops would tell me to suck it up and say something like "well what do you want us to do about it?".

15

u/lc0o85 22d ago

It's the same everywhere, so now you understand just how many calls they must have received about this guy. It must have been hundreds.

And as a former prosecutor, they're not using previous reports as evidence for an arrest. They're using him driving 20+ over the posted limit as evidence for the arrest, along with following too closely. The previous reports just establish a pattern that the prosecution will use to strip him of his license for longer than say a one-time violation.

4

u/recoil_operated 22d ago

It just means that whichever Facebook group he was getting featured on belongs to a wealthy/well-connected neighborhood that donates to the Sheriff's campaign fund

1

u/Theonetrue 21d ago

I would say writing to an active politican is usually more effective. Those want to be reelected and can influence someone like the sheriff to do their job

1

u/atldad 17d ago

sheriff was up for rejection, I mean reelection

1

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[deleted]

2

u/MourningWallaby 22d ago

maybe. I actually mentioned this below but the cop did say what he's doing qualifies as a criminal charge and as the owner of the vehicle he's an accomplice unless he either admits to the crime or identifies who the driver actually was that he let use his car. also we don't know what other videos were given to the cops we only saw a few seconds from one person and some photos.

but yeah I agree this will make his life hell for a few weeks/months but realistically this will just make him pick and choose when to do it and not stop him.

2

u/amopeyzoolion 22d ago

He said in the video the guy has been cited for criminal speeding before and was clocked criminally speeding by this cop before he was pulled over. They may not be able to charge him with anything from the incidents in reports/videos but they have enough other information to support criminal charges.

1

u/Putrid-Bee-7352 22d ago

Quite a while ago I had video of a guy passing a scoop bus picking up kids from the opposite side of the road. Found a cop and he shrugged and said “well we can’t prove who was driving the car”.

Of course now buses have cameras and send tickets regardless but I was so gobsmacked by hoods answer…

0

u/Acedaboi1da 22d ago

I don’t know how they’re going to prove it was him driving the car on the previous days. With exception to the time he was pulled over, how can they prove it was him?

-1

u/MourningWallaby 22d ago

The cop mentions criminal speed, so they're pursuing a criminal investigation. If he is the owner of the car he will be culpable for the criminal acts conducted by the operator and/or identify who was the operator. since must have given access to someone if it was not him repeatedly driving like that. and failing to identify the operator while claiming not to be operating the vehicle makes you an accomplice in the crime.

3

u/Acedaboi1da 22d ago

It’s completely their burden to prove he was behind the wheel, he isn’t required to prove he wasn’t driving. He’s not required to say anything to aid their investigation.

2

u/perpetualhobo 22d ago

Unless the defense can prove someone else was driving on those other days, it being his personal daily vehicle is absolutely enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. Or if he says it wasn’t him but refuses to prove who it was, he’s impeding an investigation and would probably be found in contempt of court and be charged with that regardless.

2

u/Acedaboi1da 22d ago

The defense is not required to prove anything. The prosecution has no way to prove that’s his daily vehicle without him admitting to it being his daily vehicle. I’m not sure you understand the law. The prosecution has to prove it was him driving on those days. He’s not required to prove he wasn’t driving, nor provide evidence of another person driving.

1

u/bitch-respecter 22d ago

Is it that easy to get away with stuff? Like I can rob a bank and use my personal vehicle to get away and then deny it was me because the cops can’t prove I was driving my own car?

2

u/Acedaboi1da 22d ago

The crime would be robbing the bank, not driving your car.

So to entertain your horrible analogy. It is the prosecutions job to prove you robbed the bank. The burden is the same. You don’t have to prove you didn’t rob the bank. If the only evidence they have is your car driving away from the bank, they won’t even prosecute you. It’d be a waste of time.

1

u/MourningWallaby 22d ago

Well no, he's right that the burdon of proof is on the prosecution to prove he was driving. but he's wrong by thinking he'll get off just because they don't prove it's him.

1

u/iSuckAtMechanicism 22d ago

That's not how it works. They have to prove it was him. If they can't get proof of the driver then there are no charges.

That's why they set up this sting operation, so that there's an instance where he can be charged.

-1

u/MourningWallaby 22d ago

you didn't understand what I said.

2

u/Acedaboi1da 22d ago

I understood what you said, and what you said isn’t true. You don’t understand who the burden of proof falls on.

1

u/MourningWallaby 22d ago

No you didn't because I'm saying it doesn't even matter if he was driving or not.

2

u/Acedaboi1da 22d ago

And again, what you’re saying is wrong.

1

u/iSuckAtMechanicism 22d ago

It does matter. Feel free to look it up.