Traffic summons for harassment???

[Tahenry88]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

I traveled to mechanicsburg, pa last week on Thursday night to meet a guy on Craigslist to buy an Xbox. Before heading back home I stopped at McDonald's for a bite to eat. I was eating my food when a car circled me with three young punks in it and they shined a laser directly into my eye. That frustrated me so followed them over to where they stopped and questioned them about there actions. Of course he denied it so I said whatever and went to leave when he started yelling nasty things out the window and flipping me the bird. So again I drove over to him this time I took the rest of my half eaten cheeseburger and tossed it at him. Apparently that's harassment when he started the whole ordeal? The summons said "the defendant harassed and alarmed the victims by throwing food at their car. This was an act that served no legitimate purpose" I had a purpose, it was his harassment towards me. If I plead not guilty what I can I ultimately request from the judge? Obviously I will go in and state my side but what can be done? Clearly the cop must have had evidence of the act for him to write the ticket. So will they check cameras or anything for my side? Any advice will be appreciated.

 

[Zigner]

Congratulations on living through this.

 

[tranquility]

You don't have a defense. You might have had a complaint against them, but your antics had no lawful purpose.

§ 2709. Harassment.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of
harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another,
the person:
(1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the
other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to
do the same;
(2) follows the other person in or about a public place
or places;
(3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits
acts which serve no legitimate purpose;
(4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd,
lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings
or caricatures;
(5) communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner;
(6) communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient
hours; or
(7) communicates repeatedly in a manner other than
specified in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).

I think you're going to lose this one.

 

[Tahenry88]

Obviously I should have been the one to call before I made the mistake of throwing food, but really a cheeseburger and I get this? And for reference the cheese burger NEVER hit there car it landed in the road. So I have nothing against them for pointing a laser pointer into my eyes while in a motor vehicle?

You don't have a defense. You might have had a complaint against them, but your antics had no lawful purpose.


I think you're going to lose this one.

 

[Proserpina]

Obviously I should have been the one to call before I made the mistake of throwing food, but really a cheeseburger and I get this? And for reference the cheese burger NEVER hit there car it landed in the road. So I have nothing against them for pointing a laser pointer into my eyes while in a motor vehicle?

If you didn't mention it at the time, nope.

Seriously - you completely over-reacted.

 

[tranquility]

You could have complained. That would have been an assault or battery, maybe harassment on them, depending on how the police would have determined the facts.

But, if someone assaults you, you don't have a right to assault them. Self defense is a defense. You were not in objectively and subjectively reasonable fear of being hurt so that would not be available to you. Just because you might have been able to accuse them of a crime does not give you the right to commit one.

Besides, you did more than just throw a cheeseburger. You questioned them and then returned. Sure, it seems a chicken charge; but, you seem guilty of the elements.

 

[Tahenry88]

I never even seen the cops. I received the summons in the mail. I had no idea they even called the cops. So they never got my side. Don't see how that's fair and how the cop even had enough evidence to write the ticket. I understand I over reacted but how can he say I did it by a simple burger laying on the ground? It was 12:30 at night that could be from anyone.

If you didn't mention it at the time, nope.

Seriously - you completely over-reacted.

 

[Zigner]

I never even seen the cops. I received the summons in the mail. I had no idea they even called the cops. So they never got my side. Don't see how that's fair and how the cop even had enough embed index to write the ticket. I understand I over reacted but how can he say I did it by a simple burger laying on the ground? It was 12:30 at night that could be from anyone.

Sure it could have been. But, it was from you.

 

[Tahenry88]

And they can prove that how?

Sure it could have been. But, it was from you.

 

[Proserpina]

And they can prove that how?

I'd say the testimony of 3 eye-witnesses would probably do it.

 

[Tahenry88]

There three young kids I'd trust them as much as I'd trust a heroine addict borrowing a million dollars. I have a witness as well who knows for a fact they started the altercation and had a laser in her face as well, either way I'm going to plead not guilty and tell my side. I at least want them charged with something. If I have to ill get surveillance video pulled bc they were right in a cameras view when they did it.

I'd say the testimony of 3 eye-witnesses would probably do it.

 

[Proserpina]

There three young kids I'd trust them as much as I'd trust a heroine addict borrowing a million dollars. I have a witness as well who knows for a fact they started the altercation and had a laser in her face as well, either way I'm going to plead not guilty and tell my side. I at least want them charged with something. If I have to ill get surveillance video pulled bc they were right in a cameras view when they did it.

Okay dokey.

 

[Zigner]

There three young kids I'd trust them as much as I'd trust a heroine addict borrowing a million dollars. I have a witness as well who knows for a fact they started the altercation and had a laser in her face as well, either way I'm going to plead not guilty and tell my side. I at least want them charged with something. If I have to ill get surveillance video pulled bc they were right in a cameras view when they did it.

So, you have 3 of them saying you threw the food AND you have your own witness saying you threw the food. That's gonna go well.

 

[Tahenry88]

So, you have 3 of them saying you threw the food AND you have your own witness saying you threw the food. That's gonna go well.

No she's going to testify they shined a laser pointer into her eyes, and she's pregnant which makes it worse, and she's going to testify they were yelling profanities at me and flipping me the bird. She didn't see me throw anything.

 

[tranquility]

No she's going to testify they shined a laser pointer into her eyes, and she's pregnant which makes it worse, and she's going to testify they were yelling profanities at me and flipping me the bird. She didn't see me throw anything.

I don't think you understand your goal. Your goal is to cause the prosecution to fail at proving the elements of the offense. You should not try to prove the others committed an offense--especially if it seems to make the elements more likely to be true. The court will not charge the others. The best you can hope for in court is to be found not guilty. Period. By trying to show how they did something first, it helps the prosecution prove you had the requisite intent to harass.

You want to cast doubt about having the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another.

You want to cast doubt about if you threw an hamburger at all, or in the alternative, doubt it was an attempt to cause physical contact.

You want to cast doubt about if you follow(ed) the other person in or about a public place or places.

You want to cast doubt you engaged in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose. There, I'd focus on the course of conduct or repeatedly issues, not on legitimate purpose. Showing your anger at another is NOT a legitimate purpose. (Although, "Course of conduct." is defined as: "A pattern of actions composed of more than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of conduct. Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct." so this may be tough.

You don't want to try to prove anything, you want to cast doubt on what the prosecution has to prove. Your theory is going to walk you into a conviction of a summary offense.