bike vs. big rig truck (accident on the 18th) | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

bike vs. big rig truck (accident on the 18th)

barrebeast said:
because the officer wasnt there to see the incident, they have to make a decision and made theirs based on presumption.
Click to expand...

Frequently officers will charge people involved in single vehicle accidents with "operation without due care and attention." They will do so, despite not witnessing the accident in question. Charges are frequently laid based upon statements of witnesses and those involved, rather than the direct view of the officer.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Frequently officers will charge people involved in single vehicle accidents with "operation without due care and attention." They will do so, despite not witnessing the accident in question. Charges are frequently laid based upon statements of witnesses and those involved, rather than the direct view of the officer.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Frequently officers will charge people involved in single vehicle accidents with "operation without due care and attention." They will do so, despite not witnessing the accident in question. Charges are frequently laid based upon statements of witnesses and those involved, rather than the direct view of the officer.
Click to expand...


But to prove the charge the officer still has to present evidence to substantiate the charge. They can call the witnesses upon whom they have depended for the information to lay the charge, or they need to explain why the accident must have been the driver/operator's fault in the absence of a witness.

It still gives the defendant the opportunity to cut apart the officer's case, if the Crown has insufficient evidence.
 
Griffin said:
But to prove the charge the officer still has to present evidence to substantiate the charge. They can call the witnesses upon whom they have depended for the information to lay the charge, or they need to explain why the accident must have been the driver/operator's fault in the absence of a witness.

It still gives the defendant the opportunity to cut apart the officer's case, if the Crown has insufficient evidence.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the same opportunity afforded to the OP.
 
?spoc said:
How do you know that without disclosure?
Click to expand...

I suspect because he was there and the cop wasn't. Not sure why the OP needs disclosure to verify the cop wasn't there.

Hmm, although if your referring to the "presumption" part, how else would you describe the cop laying a charge for an event they have not witnessed? They must be presuming the evidence provided by some other entity - either another witness, video evidence or the evidence they gathered at the scene based on marks on the ground (I'm noting that the vehicles were not left in position to allow the cop to assess that).

Then again, maybe I'm missing something. Which wouldn't surprise me.:D
 
Griffin; yes i was referring to the presumption part.

presumption n. a rule of law which permits a court to assume a fact is true until such time as there is a preponderance (greater weight) of evidence which disproves or outweighs (rebuts) the presumption.

He does not know what information the officer based his decisions upon, as he has no notes, no statements or any other info beyond what he has told us. I don't know why OP has such of problem with police basing their decisions upon sets of facts and circumstances. Police aren't normally a direct witness to events, exception would be traffic stops.
 
barrebeast said:
i got into an accident on the 18th and am lucky to be alive...
Click to expand...

Well, I am glad that you're alive to tell the tale, and I don't want to sound like an insensitive a**hole but, which brand and model of helmet were you using?

I want one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom