Man Jailed For Revving His Car In A 'Racist Manner'

[Laisrean]

Link (http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D17762264%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D64736%26headline%3Dracist-rev-row--name_page.html)


A DRIVER spent two nights in jail after being accused of "revving his car in a racist manner".

Mechanic Ronnie Hutton, 49, yesterday described his court ordeal which finally ended when prosecutors dropped the allegation of racism.

But he was still convicted of a breach of the peace for revving the engine of his £25,000 Lotus.

Witnesses claimed he had been trying to intimidate a Libyan couple on the pavement. Ronnie, of Stirling, claims he was only revving the powerful V8 engine to avoid another £15,000 repair bill.

But off-duty Chief Inspector Eoin Jenkins thought he was targeting Muslim Isam Maigel and his wife Hana Saad.

Only in Britain. :toofless:

[watersprite]

That's not only in Britain. That's everywhere. Humans are disgusting.

[aranarose]

First off, since when is being a racist a crime? Idiotic, yes, but criminal?

Secondly, how do you rev an engine in a racist manner?

[evergreen]

First off, since when is being a racist a crime? Idiotic, yes, but criminal?

Secondly, how do you rev an engine in a racist manner?

I was wondering the same thing. :lol:

[Lunacie]

First off, since when is being a racist a crime? Idiotic, yes, but criminal?

Secondly, how do you rev an engine in a racist manner?


I was wondering the same thing. :lol:


It explains in the article, it wasn't the manner of revving the engine, it was the timing and the location and the fact that someone who cried "victim" was very startled by the noise.

I find revving engines very annoying and sometimes quite startling, but I think playing the race card was out of line.

[evergreen]

It explains in the article, it wasn't the manner of revving the engine, it was the timing and the location and the fact that someone who cried "victim" was very startled by the noise.

I find revving engines very annoying and sometimes quite startling, but I think playing the race card was out of line.

Agreed. I walk my dog by a particularly busy intersection occasionally and I absolutely can't stand when people rev their engines or speed up when they pass me. Freaks me out.

Making it a race issue is a bit odd to me, though.

[sleepycat]

I don't know Scotland's laws, but in the USA, this guy would get an attorney and file a suit against the police dept. Going back and arresting him months after the incident smacks of harassment.

[Vampiel]

What?? :rotfl:

How did they determine that it was a racist act? Revving your engine is a crime? Annoying someone for 10 seconds is a crime? :goodgrief

[Invidosa]

What?? :rotfl:

How did they determine that it was a racist act? Revving your engine is a crime? Annoying someone for 10 seconds is a crime? :goodgrief

huh, if thats the case i'm going to be in a loooooot of trouble!

[Laisrean]

I don't know Scotland's laws, but in the USA, this guy would get an attorney and file a suit against the police dept. Going back and arresting him months after the incident smacks of harassment.

In the U.S. he wouldn't have been arrested or charged at all, because neither racism nor revving an engine is illegal under U.S. laws.

[Lunacie]

I don't know Scotland's laws, but in the USA, this guy would get an attorney and file a suit against the police dept. Going back and arresting him months after the incident smacks of harassment.

Apparently he tried to file a complaint about the incident so the police came back with a counter complaint of swearing at a senior officer. Sounds like if he'd let the sleeping dog lie it wouldn't have reared up and bit his bum.

[Vampiel]

Apparently he tried to file a complaint about the incident so the police came back with a counter complaint of swearing at a senior officer. Sounds like if he'd let the sleeping dog lie it wouldn't have reared up and bit his bum.

Officers arent "seniors" they are people just like the rest of us should I file a compliant if some tells me to f*** off?

They are just using their power to pester him.

[Lunacie]

Officers arent "seniors" they are people just like the rest of us should I file a compliant if some tells me to hug off?

They are just using their power to pester him.

There are "junior officers" and "senior officers." It seems that in Scotland it's more serious to swear at a senior officer than some bobby on the beat.

I don't know what the laws are like in Scotland, but here in the U.S. a person can be arrested for "disorderly conduct" if they are giving the police a very hard time of it, thinking they can say anything because of Free Speech. You're more likely to have the cops respect you and treat you decently if you show them a bit of respect, eh?

http://arizona-criminal-defense-dui-attorney.blogspot.com/ (http://arizona-criminal-defense-dui-attorney.blogspot.com/)

[Vampiel]

There are "junior officers" and "senior officers." It seems that in Scotland it's more serious to swear at a senior officer than some bobby on the beat.

I don't know what the laws are like in Scotland, but here in the U.S. a person can be arrested for "disorderly conduct" if they are giving the police a very hard time of it, thinking they can say anything because of Free Speech. You're more likely to have the cops respect you and treat you decently if you show them a bit of respect, eh?

http://arizona-criminal-defense-dui-attorney.blogspot.com/ (http://arizona-criminal-defense-dui-attorney.blogspot.com/)

I dont understand why it would make a difference if they are senior or not. Also the officer that approached him is retired so he wasnt even in uniform.

What it seems happened is the guy revved his engine and the officer was either annoyed or made some wild judgement that it was because the guy was being racist or both. Then approached him in plain clothes and was told to hug off. That isnt complaint material and the officer shouldnt have even approached him in the first place on the grounds of it being racist, annoyed fine but pulling the racist card? Sounds like he had to many years on the force and always looks for meaning in things, even a simple revving of an engine.

Its ridiculous that he just revved his engine and this officer approached him making accusations I probably would have been ticked to. I think this retired officer needs to get a new hobby other than perstering people about stupid silly little things.

[Lunacie]

I dont understand why it would make a difference if they are senior or not. Also the officer that approached him is retired so he wasnt even in uniform.

What it seems happened is the guy revved his engine and the officer was either annoyed or made some wild judgement that it was because the guy was being racist or both. Then approached him in plain clothes and was told to hug off. That isnt complaint material and the officer shouldnt have even approached him in the first place on the grounds of it being racist, annoyed fine but pulling the racist card? Sounds like he had to many years on the force and always looks for meaning in things, even a simple revving of an engine.

Its ridiculous that he just revved his engine and this officer approached him making accusations I probably would have been ticked to. I think this retired officer needs to get a new hobby other than perstering people about stupid silly little things.

Well, the judge agreed that what the driver did could be considered Disturbing the Peace.

And there is a difference between simply revving the engine just a bit and revving the crap out of the motor. For instance, if I were in the crosswalk and a driver revved the crap out of his engine just as I was passing the car, it would scare the crap out of me. I might call it "intimidating" or "threatening" or even "harassement".

My neighbor works on his car and the cars of his friends and family members under his carport across the street from us. And he often revs the crap out of those engines. I hate it, but unless he was doing it before 8 am or after 9 pm I wouldn't call the cops. But if he was sitting there in the car and saw me walk down the street past his house and looked like he deliberately revved the engine just as I was passing, and maybe grinned as he did it - then I'd feel like I had a reason to file a complaint.

The article says that witnesses reported that the driver was apparently trying to intimidate the couple that was walking past. That's hardly a "wild judgment."

From what I read, the officer was off-duty, not retired from service. I think officers who are off-duty and out of uniform can and do act in an official manner when there aren't any other officers present.

[Vampiel]

Well, the judge agreed that what the driver did could be considered Disturbing the Peace.

And there is a difference between simply revving the engine just a bit and revving the crap out of the motor. For instance, if I were in the crosswalk and a driver revved the crap out of his engine just as I was passing the car, it would scare the crap out of me. I might call it "intimidating" or "threatening" or even "harassement".

I guess some people have really thin skin. I would have just ignored it and kept on my way.


My neighbor works on his car and the cars of his friends and family members under his carport across the street from us. And he often revs the crap out of those engines. I hate it, but unless he was doing it before 8 am or after 9 pm I wouldn't call the cops. But if he was sitting there in the car and saw me walk down the street past his house and looked like he deliberately revved the engine just as I was passing, and maybe grinned as he did it - then I'd feel like I had a reason to file a complaint.

Awesome we should file complaint against each assholish act that is done against us.

I just ignore it and it doesnt even bother me, you only give them satisfaction when you let if effect you. If it kept on happening thats a different story.


The article says that witnesses reported that the driver was apparently trying to intimidate the couple that was walking past. That's hardly a "wild judgment."

Actually it is a wild judgement, even if he was attempting to intimidade them how do you go from that to racist? Maybe the guy knew them, maybe he was in a bad mood, theres so many other things it could have been. To throw out the racist bait right off the bat is basically just looking for something you can hook them with. Its seems to be the in thing to do now is to accuse someone of being racist.


From what I read, the officer was off-duty, not retired from service. I think officers who are off-duty and out of uniform can and do act in an official manner when there aren't any other officers present.

I agree but I dont recall many cases of an officer pulling someone over because they revved an engine at someone.

It seems a bit ridiculous to me and I think you might have some of your own personal frusterations shining through with your opinion. ;)

[Lunacie]

Yeah, our personal experiences influence our opinions to some degree. I was wondering the same thing about you. Perhaps you have been pulled over for driving aggressively or for having a noisy muffler at some point?

[Vampiel]

Yeah, our personal experiences influence our opinions to some degree. I was wondering the same thing about you. Perhaps you have been pulled over for driving aggressively or for having a noisy muffler at some point?

Nope never have, the whole thing just seems silly to me to approach someone and accuse them of being a racist harasser for revving an engine, even if there happened to be someone of another race in front of them. You racist harasser!!:alol:

[Lunacie]

You are fortunate that you've never experienced that kind of intimidation because of some percieved difference, something that somehow makes the other person feel superior to you and therefore feel they have the right to treat you like crap. Intimidation and harassment and racial bullying are very real in some places, and sometimes have nothing at all to do with being "thin skinned." And some people never grow out of that junior high mind set where it's funny to crap some poor kid into a locker because he plays chess instead of football, or because he's the "wrong race."

[aluokaloo]

how the hell do you rev up your engine in a racist manner? thats so lame its not funny. those people need to pull their heads out of their bums and realize that the whole world is not out to get them. so he was revving his engine. so what? as long as he wasn't doing it in the middle of the night or before the asscrack of dawn i'd hardly call it harrassment of any sort. annoying as hell maybe.

[Vampiel]

I agree with you but in this case there was no grounds for harrasment or racist. You could rev your engine for many different things, just by going off what the witnesses testified I would like to know how they came to that conclusion. Was he flipping them off? It probably would have said it. He simply revved his engine at the point that they were walking by and through that im wondering how they came to the conclusion thats harrasment or intimidation.

This was a single occurance not a repeating thing happening over time. I dont see how the judge made the decision that it was harrasment in any way. I think he might just be playing favoritism or has a chip on his shoulder.

If this was a repeated problem then I could agree but a single occurance really has no grounds to say that it was harrasment much less racism.

[Lunacie]

I agree with you but in this case there was no grounds for harrasment or racist. You could rev your engine for many different things, just by going off what the witnesses testified I would like to know how they came to that conclusion. Was he flipping them off? It probably would have said it. He simply revved his engine at the point that they were walking by and through that im wondering how they came to the conclusion thats harrasment or intimidation.

This was a single occurance not a repeating thing happening over time. I dont see how the judge made the decision that it was harrasment in any way. I think he might just be playing favoritism or has a chip on his shoulder.

If this was a repeated problem then I could agree but a single occurance really has no grounds to say that it was harrasment much less racism.

Hello? The judge didn't make a decision in favor of racial harassment. All he ruled on was "breach of the peace" for excessive noise.

I would assume that the witnesses saw something that made the off-duty officer think there was more to it than that, but it's also possible that he may have had a chip on his shoulder.

[Vampiel]

Hello? The judge didn't make a decision in favor of racial harassment. All he ruled on was "breach of the peace" for excessive noise.


I didnt say racial harrasement. Anyhow breach of peace for excessive noise I agree with the defendant.



To be convicted for revving my car in a busy street is hard to take. Does this mean anyone driving a noisy car in Scotland is now a criminal?



I would assume that the witnesses saw something that made the off-duty officer think there was more to it than that, but it's also possible that he may have had a chip on his shoulder.

Were does it say the officer approached him because of the witnesses? It simply said he was approached.

It also may have been what he claimed it to be.

Tis a sad day when you get fined for revving your engine one time. Its ridiculous.

[Lunacie]

I didnt say racial harrasement. Anyhow breach of peace for excessive noise I agree with the defendant.

I just simplified things by putting "racism" and "harassment" in the same phrase. Not worth fighting over in my opinion.



Were does it say the officer approached him because of the witnesses? It simply said he was approached.

Third paragraph down in the linked article says:


Witnesses claimed he had been trying to intimidate a Libyan couple on the pavement.


It also may have been what he claimed it to be.

Tis a sad day when you get fined for revving your engine one time. Its ridiculous.

Where does it say that he only revved the engine one time? I didn't see where it said whether it was a one time occurance or was repeated revving.

I'm sorry he can't force the seller to fix the problems that require him to rev the engine in order to prevent costly repairs. Guess he should really disclose that to any buyers, eh?

[Vampiel]

Third paragraph down in the linked article says:

No you said this :

"I would assume that the witnesses saw something that made the off-duty officer think there was more to it than that"

Meaning that the witnesses saw something to make the off-duty officer think there was more to it than that. What did what the witnesses see and what the officer did have any correlation to each other? Or do you just mean they saw the same thing? Its just the way your worded it.


Where does it say that he only revved the engine one time? I didn't see where it said whether it was a one time occurance or was repeated revving.

I'm sorry he can't force the seller to fix the problems that require him to rev the engine in order to prevent costly repairs. Guess he should really disclose that to any buyers, eh?

Ok, I meant a single occurance. Its not like he was accussed of going around revving his engine at people to intimidate them all the time. Like I said I could agree if it was a more common complaint but a single occurance proves nothing beyond circumstances that could have been completely coincidental. It doesnt display the intent that he was 'disturbing the peace' from revving his engine by this one occurance of doing it. If it was a repeated behaviour then I would agree he is intentionally doing it just to pee people off.

[Lunacie]

Maybe Libyans aren't common in his neighborhood and this was the first time he encountered a couple while he was driving his very noisy car. Maybe he usually tolerates those who seem different but was having a bad day and took it out on this couple. Maybe he had done it before but no one realized he was trying to intimiate them, or maybe they were too imtimidated to file a complaint. Who knows whether this couple would have filed a complaint if the policeman hadn't been right there and stepped in? There are a lot of maybe's here. I'm not painting anyone all evil or all victim, just discussing all the maybe's.

[Stormbeard]

People who can afford a £25,000 Lotus should be ****ing imprisoned.

Ban the rich!

[Lunacie]

People who can afford a £25,000 Lotus should be huging imprisoned.

Ban the rich!

Finally - someone who makes sense! :T

[Laisrean]

People who can afford a £25,000 Lotus should be huging imprisoned.

Ban the rich!

If you don't like the rich it might be easier for you to move to North Korea. There you will only find one rich person (Kim Jong-Il).

[ignescentphoenix]

This story may not be to farfetched. I once seen a guy peddle his bike in an anti-semitic way.:smileroll

But seriously, this is the most idiotic story ever. I might be able to understand the breach of peace charge, but not the accusation of racism.

Maybe the muslim couple never heard an engine rev before and they got startled.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

If someone revs their engine at me , when I walk by ,
in an "intimidating" way...all I have to see is a certain
look on their face , or in their eyes...

They would be extremely lucky , if I did not kick their
windshield , or driver window in , haul them out of
the car by their neck , through the broken glass , kick
and stomp the shit out of them , then open their hood ,
and start ripping wires out of their engine...

Have I done this ?

Ahem...once...:smileroll...guy left town...

There are *plenty* of assholes like this...

In my direct experience...rich white assholes...

Or gang members of different colors...

Hey...I won't discriminate...until someone
takes me down...I am an equal worker for all
who need a shit kicking...

Though I prefer peace and harmony...:thumbsup:

Do not disturb my peace and harmony with
a spoiled rich brat car...asshole...:uhhuhuh:

I may only kick someone's ass *once*...

But whoever it is...they will remember it...

More of us need to stand up , and say...no more...




Ok, I meant a single occurance. Its not like he was accussed of going around revving his engine at people to intimidate them all the time.

[Vampiel]

Maybe Libyans aren't common in his neighborhood and this was the first time he encountered a couple while he was driving his very noisy car. Maybe he usually tolerates those who seem different but was having a bad day and took it out on this couple. Maybe he had done it before but no one realized he was trying to intimiate them, or maybe they were too imtimidated to file a complaint. Who knows whether this couple would have filed a complaint if the policeman hadn't been right there and stepped in? There are a lot of maybe's here. I'm not painting anyone all evil or all victim, just discussing all the maybe's.

So tell me how this was a provable "breach of the peace"? Maybes arent enough for a conviction but apparently a few witnesses and an officer making assumptions are.

[Lunacie]

So tell me how this was a provable "breach of the peace"? Maybes arent enough for a conviction but apparently a few witnesses and an officer making assumptions are.

I don't know enough about English/Scottish law to know what constitutes a breach of the peace. Apparently both the officer and the judge agreed on that much though.

[Vampiel]

I don't know enough about English/Scottish law to know what constitutes a breach of the peace. Apparently both the officer and the judge agreed on that much though.

Right wich is ridiculous, they are just playing power trip. Guy revs engine - people happen to walk by, gets nailed with a fine for 'distrubing the peace'. That could have been the case of what he described as happening or the maybes you listed. They have no evidence other than a few peoples assumptions guess it doesnt take much to convince that judge. Like I said sounds like he is playing favoritism toward the officer despite lack of evidence which isnt uncommon.

[Lunacie]

Right wich is ridiculous, they are just playing power trip. Guy revs engine - people happen to walk by, gets nailed with a fine for 'distrubing the peace'. That could have been the case of what he described as happening or the maybes you listed. They have no evidence other than a few peoples assumptions guess it doesnt take much to convince that judge. Like I said sounds like he is playing favoritism toward the officer despite lack of evidence which isnt uncommon.

Your possibility is one of the many maybes that could be the truth. There is no more evidence to support your possibility than any of the maybe's that I posited.

[Vampiel]

Your possibility is one of the many maybes that could be the truth. There is no more evidence to support your possibility than any of the maybe's that I posited.

Which is why by default he is found innocent.

[Lunacie]

So tell the judge you want an appeal. ;)

[Shawn Blackwolf]

I have a suspicion , Vampiel , you are the type to
rev their engine...don't do it in my neigborhood...

[Caitlin.ann]

What is wrong with revving engines? It may be irritating but its not a punishable offense and its not really illegal. 'Not in my neighborhood' as if anyone but the driver would have any control over that.

And before anyone starts bitching I am not one to rev. my engine.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

I have been the witness , and recipient , of someone
revving their engine in an antagonistic , and very
threatening manner...

I do not take kindly to it , and will make a point of
making that clear to anyone...no apology for that...:uhhuhuh:

[quote=Sacredsin;3982287]What is wrong with revving engines? It may be irritating but its not a punishable offense and its not really illegal. 'Not in my neighborhood' as if anyone but the driver would have any control over that.
[quote]

[Philosophia]

"Revving the engine" could be classed as illegal if it is loud enough for "disturbing the peace" or noise violations.

[Caitlin.ann]

That would imply that 'reving they enginine' is done always in a threatening manner.

[Philosophia]

That would imply that 'reving they enginine' is done always in a threatening manner.

Not necessarily.


Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disturbing_the_peace

[Vampiel]

Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence.
:rotfl: That is the stupidest thing ive ever read. I would agree if the occurance was repeated intentionally but to fine someone for revving an engine or their dog barking is absurd.

Tis a sad day when your dog cant even bark without worrying about being fined. Ridiculous.

[Vampiel]

So tell the judge you want an appeal. ;)

He's already considering it, perhaps the next judge wont play favorites. ;)

I hope you dont have any loud dogs - you could be facing a fine if this officer came near your house and they 'loudly barked' at him. :lol:

[Lunacie]

:rotfl: That is the stupidest thing ive ever read. I would agree if the occurance was repeated intentionally but to fine someone for revving an engine or their dog barking is absurd.

Tis a sad day when your dog cant even bark without worrying about being fined. Ridiculous.

I don't know about Scottish laws, but here in the U.S. it generally takes 'a ridiculous' amount of noise in an otherwise quiet residential neighborhood, or repeated offenses, to warrent getting a citation. If you think the laws concerning 'disturbing the peace' are so ridiculous' then write to your congressman or something.

We have a couple of dogs at the end of our street who bark ridiculous amounts of the time. If I lived any closer I'd file a LOT of complaints for disturbing the peace. We keep our dogs indoors so they don't bark at every cat, squirrel, other dog, walker, bike rider, and moon shadow all the freaking time. We don't sit in our driveway and rev the crap out of our engines - that isn't good for the engine. We tend to be considerate of our neighbors and expect the same consideration from them.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Always a good policy...

Anything less , demonstrates bad manners , and
ignorance regarding proper behaviour in a shared
space , and leads to disharmonic relations with others...:thumbsup:


We tend to be considerate of our neighbors and expect the same consideration from them.

[Vampiel]

I don't know about Scottish laws, but here in the U.S. it generally takes 'a ridiculous' amount of noise in an otherwise quiet residential neighborhood, or repeated offenses, to warrent getting a citation. If you think the laws concerning 'disturbing the peace' are so ridiculous' then write to your congressman or something.

We have a couple of dogs at the end of our street who bark ridiculous amounts of the time. If I lived any closer I'd file a LOT of complaints for disturbing the peace. We keep our dogs indoors so they don't bark at every cat, squirrel, other dog, walker, bike rider, and moon shadow all the freaking time. We don't sit in our driveway and rev the crap out of our engines - that isn't good for the engine. We tend to be considerate of our neighbors and expect the same consideration from them.

Right you keep arguing about something that never happened. He revved the engine on a single occurance not repeated annoyances.

That would be like fining you for your dogs barking at someone for the first time as they walked by because 'it was loud an annoying'.

Im talking specifically about this charge not about annoying neighbors. Its ridiculous to fine someone for revving an engine on a single occurance.

[Lunacie]

Right you keep arguing about something that never happened. He revved the engine on a single occurance not repeated annoyances.

That would be like fining you for your dogs barking at someone for the first time as they walked by because 'it was loud an annoying'.

Whoa! :achillpil I have not been arguing about something that never happened. I never said that the driver in the news article revved his engine repeatedly. I have no idea where you are getting that impression.

In fact, I said that it usually takes a ridiculous amount of noise in an otherwise quiet neighborhood, or repeated offenses, before someone is issued a citation here in the U.S.

Now, if you can't chill out and discuss what I've actually written, maybe it's time for you to take a break and do something besides get yourself so worked up over this topic. I'm going to take a break from this until someone has something to actually add to the discussion.

[Vampiel]

Whoa! :achillpil I have not been arguing about something that never happened. I never said that the driver in the news article revved his engine repeatedly. I have no idea where you are getting that impression.

In fact, I said that it usually takes a ridiculous amount of noise in an otherwise quiet neighborhood, or repeated offenses, before someone is issued a citation here in the U.S.

Now, if you can't chill out and discuss what I've actually written, maybe it's time for you to take a break and do something besides get yourself so worked up over this topic. I'm going to take a break from this until someone has something to actually add to the discussion.

Ok well I assumed you were talking about the article since thats what we were discussing but I agree with you about repeated occurances. I was speaking of the charge that the judge brought down in the article of distrubing the peace and you seemed to agree with the decision.

By you asking me to chill, I didnt mean it in any offensive manner I just took your post the wrong way so :achillpil with the defensiveness instead simply clarify your position. :thumbsup:

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Personally , I have the "feeling" , since the judge
could not get this guy on harrassment , and did
not like his attitude , she / he got him on what she / he could...

Anyone who thinks the guy just put his foot on the
pedal once...should think again...

As I say...I have known assholes like this...

I think it is ridiculous to assume his innocence , as
far as his possible harassing attitude , disciminatory
feelings , or his possible need to show off , by revving
his engine to make up for a lack of horsepower , somewhere
else...

As Stormbeard inferred...fine him for having a Lotus...:smileroll

Perhaps it is wrong to assume he is an asshole...

But , hey...that is my feeling...

And revving your engine , like an asshole , once...

Fine him...and tell him to stick it up his tailpipe...:thumbsup:

[Lunacie]

Ok well I assumed you were talking about the article since thats what we were discussing but I agree with you about repeated occurances. I was speaking of the charge that the judge brought down in the article of distrubing the peace and you seemed to agree with the decision.

By you asking me to chill, I didnt mean it in any offensive manner I just took your post the wrong way so :achillpil with the defensiveness instead simply clarify your position. :thumbsup:

I never said I agreed, or disagreed, with the judge. This whole time I've been talking about possibilities, and like Shawn, examples I've seen.

I've been quite clear that I don't know whether the law in Scotland is all that similar to the law in the U.S., but I can understand how someone could have felt intimidated - even by a one-off occurance. I can understand how the witnesses may have seen what made them think it was deliberate and intended to intimidate. I can understand the cop writing the citation and leaving it up to the judge and the driver to determine what really happened.

What I can't understand is trying to justify a need to be quite annoying and perhaps even frightening by revving what apparently is a rather powerful engine. In my experience, people who feel the need to rev their engine either like the noise and the feeling, or are trying to keep the engine from dying. The odds of it being a one-off event are pretty slim, in my opinion.

If I have been unclear in any way there is nothing to prevent the reader from asking for clarification.