wreckless endangerment charge

2 weeks ago i was pulled over by the police, she claimed that i slamed on my brakes in front of a truck to try and cause him to wreck. As she did not see the whole event she asked me several questions and i told her repeatedly that i was avoiding another car who was cutting me off and the truck behind me was way to close and had to stop fast as well. there was no accident and we were traveling at 30mph. After 15 min she came back to my car and called me a lier and said that i was lucky this time and let me go. Now i find out that there is a warrent for my arrest based on this incident for reckless endangerment - apparently the guy in the truck claims i was harrassing him and tried to cause him to wreck. NOW i am going to be arressted and have to pay a great deal of money 3 - 5000$ to get this cleared up. This is absolutely crazy and I want to know what i can do? the officer admitted to not seeing the whole thing the person in the truck is making up a lie and I am the one having to pay lots of money to clear this all up. I am confidnet that it will be cleared up but i want to know what i can do against this officer and this person for putting me though this.


Also do i really need to hire a lawyer as this is so blatantly wrong. they did not issue a citation at the time and now it is the truck drivers word that i tried to casue an accident? Also note the truck driver is the man who had an affair with my wife before our divorce. I did not know this until after I was pulled over.

If your logic is sound ( that the police officer cannot cite you since she "didn't see it all")---your attorney cannot assist you since he saw NONE of it.

Faulty.

However, you admit she saw at least PART of it----and saw enough to give her probable cause to cite you--before it came to light that the two of you knew one another. Couple that with the truck drivers charge you were harassing him and you have an uphill battle. Think about this for a moment--truck drivers deal with discourteous drivers DAILY. It wouldn't be worth his time and effort to take off work and testify against you in court unless the charge against you was legit. They have people cut them off HOURLY some days---I hardly think a reckless endangerment charge would even enter his mind unless you actually did that of which you are accused. Note--I didn't say you DID---I am simply pointing out how an impartial party may weigh the facts as you have presented them here.

Also, this crime has a perfect motive---the guy you allegedly recklessly endanger just * happens* to be a guy your wife preferred over you. What ARE the odds of the two of you happening to meet at the exact moment yet ANOTHER car cuts YOU off, "forcing" you into his path? The truck driver might be able to lie ( about what, I do not know ) but he cannot force a third party who is, per your own admission, unknown to the both of you, to swerve and cause you to cut him off, forcing him to slam on his brakes. He would have no control over that whatsoever. So, even if he did "lie", how in the world would he have made you be there at that moment, how would he have made the "other" car do what they did, so it all came together to endanger his life?

Also, "what can I do to them"? For what? pressing charges against you? LOL nothing. They didn't do anything wrong. They allege YOU did. You even state the officer let you go. You wanna sue her for letting you go?? Also, read your warrant. Who signed it? The truck driver very well may have signed a warrant for your arrest on his own, something he is within his right to do. Be advised, though, that before he did so, he would have to substantiate his allegations against you enough to bring probable cause---and the police officers report/testimony very well may have been enough to do that.

They are doing their job and they did nothing wrong or untoward to you. For whatever reason, you slammed on your brakes that day, whether intentional or not. That makes you "allegedly" culpable. You fail to mention any prior tickets or citations you have---that is extremely relevant.

Yeah. I'd hire an attorney---and ask him to calculate your chances of walking away from this. My calculations aren't nearly as glib as are yours.

ok, lets start over and clarify somethings. I had an affair with this guys wife and now I am divorced and so is he. I was behind him on the highway. he drives a ford pickup for his work. I did not know it was im as there are many trucks ( white ) just like his. We both went into the turn lane to exit to a side street. The cop was behind me in the trun lane. he turned into the outside ( right lane ) and I turned into the inside (left ) lane. I passed him and came uponm a small blues car in the left lane. I moved into the right lane, at which time he began to follow me VERY closely and at that time i realized who it was. About 100 yards down the road I saw the blue car ( now just ahead of me ) start to move into my lane with no warning. With no room to the right ( ditch ) i hit brakes and swerved to the left both to avoid the blue car and prevent the truck from hitting me. The police officer ( being behind the truck since the turn ) pulled into the left lane and stopped next to the truck. I proceeded to the light to turn left after the light changed I was pulled over by the police.


ps THIS IS SMALL TOWN LESS THEN 10,000 PEOPLE

As relevant as those details may be to your personal life, they are irrelevant to the case against you. Also, an aside note--it was clear from your posting that there were a lot of details that reflect not only on your character, but your actions ( and probably the plaintiffs as well). Let me point out some things that can completely destroy your credibility.

Your first posting you say HE had an affair with YOUR wife---instead of saying I had an affair with HIS wife as well ( I presume ). So, it appears to an impartial party that once you realized your recounting of events seemed to give you motive to act consistent with the charge against you, you then amended your "details" to presumably include those that had are intended to make HIM look as though HE had motive, instead of you or instead of JUST you having motive. Amendments are only good when they are part of the Constitution---and not part of "your side of the story". If your case is presented in court as you presented it here, your credibility is shot to Hades, handbasket or not.

Now, lets address your recounting of events:

I was behind him on the highway. he drives a ford pickup for his work. I did not know it was im as there are many trucks ( white ) just like his. We both went into the turn lane to exit to a side street. The cop was behind me in the trun lane. he turned into the outside ( right lane ) and I turned into the inside (left ) lane. I passed him and came uponm a small blues car in the left lane. I moved into the right lane, at which time he began to follow me VERY closely and at that time i realized who it was.

Now, reread carefully. Your first lines put YOU behind HIM in a single lane of traffic. And, you say as you made the turn, the road branched into two lanes. You then state "he turned into the outside) --he who? he, the cop, or he the truck? You then state you passed "him" (so you went in FRONT of him into the right lane)---then your story gets impossible. You state the blue car was in the left lane and started to come over so you swerved INTO THE BLUE CARS LANE since there was a ditch on the right? Aside from the fact that those statements make NO sense whatsover, your first posting says you slammed on the brakes--nothing was said about changing lanes. So, now you say you actually changed lanes OUT of the trucks lane? How could you be trying to get him to hit you if you were in a DIFFERENT lane? Makes no sense.

Not only have I had my life altered by careless drivers, after being hit by one on January 28, 2005, my husband also died at the hands of one last year. And, as the owner of several invaluable (to me---not necessarily money wise ) Corvettes, I am constantly driving in a defensive manner. When what you say about the blue car happened to me in one of the Vettes, I didn't swerve back AT the car that was heading towards me, and I didn't turn to the right either because there was another lane of traffic. But, you can bet your assets I stood all 500 hp up on end stopping and stripped about six months worth of rubber off the tires.

I cannot picture what you are stating happened. Why did the cop pull you over and give you no citation? Again, who signed the warrant? Did the cop? These details are all relevant and have a great deal of bearing on the reasonable outcome of the trial.

Oh, and PS back... it doesn't matter how many people are in the town. In fact, stating how small the town is makes it more unbelievable that you didn't recognize this guy--- I wouldn't try to convince a judge you didn't recognize the truck that belongs to your Nemesis. I own a stock black late model VW beetle---and I can pick it out of a crowd at a glance. I also own a huge 15 passenger van, completely white, like the truck you describe, no special markings or bumper stickers--and I, too, can spot it at a thousand paces among a dozen just like it.

If you want to be credible, stick to things that are believable and be upfront. Your "story" would have been much more believable if you said, before I was divorced, my wife and I each had affairs with another married couple, and it was he whose truck it was that I almost hit as a result of a careless driver who suddenly swerved lanes. I feel that, out of spite, he is bringing this action against me because I, too, had an affair with his wife. (you are admitting responsibility for your actions, and establishing motive for his). This is just an example of what I mean by telling the whole story. Thats why I keep asking you WHO SIGNED the warrant? if it was the cop, the other guy isn't the plantiff, he is just a witness against you. If HE signed it, HE is the plaintiff and the COP is the witness. It matters.

Although, I have to tell you, unfortunately, the whole "man my wife cheated with" thing is so unbelievable in the sense that you 1. didn't recognize him and 2. that you didn't act intentionally.

Note--I am not stating you are being untruthful, or that you acted intentionally. I am just trying to explain to you how it looks and sounds to a disinterested ( from a legal standpoint ) party.

One more thing I thought of regarding the whole affair issue. Why would either of you mention it? You both have as much to lose---I mean, its hardly his ace in the hole.

Omg.. there's a joke in there somewhere. And I am so NOT going to touch it.

But, you get my point?