Don't post your shenanigans on tiktok | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Don't post your shenanigans on tiktok

cmattina said:
You'd be surprised how it actually unfolds in court in terms of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown will connect the tiktok account to the individual via IP etc., they will then show that said individual owns the bike in the video. The onus is then on the accused to provide evidence it wasn't him. And that evidence would need to create a "reasonable" doubt...

Ultimately, there is no onus to PROVE it was he that is riding. Just evidence to the lead to that.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you're talking about

The onus is on the crown to prove their case... not the accused to prove their innocence.
The video is almost useless without some corroborating evidence.
My guess the accused admitted it was them riding the bike
 
Evoex said:
where were you at said /date time video was taken, etc.
Click to expand...
I have a memory of a goldfish, judge. But most probably I was drunk and sleeping in my bed - I always do this on the weekends. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
raginduck said:
You don't know what you're talking about

The onus is on the crown to prove their case... not the accused to prove their innocence.
The video is almost useless without some corroborating evidence.
My guess the accused admitted it was them riding the bike
Click to expand...
Can they track his cell phone and its speed?
 
You'd really have to be an idiot to post a video of yourself not just speeding, but recklessly speeding, and not understand that there may be consequences.

Like the Billy Bob brain trust gang of 3 in the U.S. who chased down some poor Black guy and then shot and killed him. Apparently he was guilty, in their eyes, of jogging while Black. They would have gotten away with it, but (thankfully) one of the idiots posted a video of the whole sorry incident that ended up resulting in them getting arrested, tried and sent to prison.
 
DownUnder said:
Real question is.... why are you snooping and commenting on pictures of some randoms woman's kids?
Click to expand...

Because a friend had also commented on it (which is likely why I saw it to begin with, FB works in mysterious ways with the “Your friend so-and-so commented on so-and-so’s post” and they were debating about a kid about 2 years old riding on a motorcycle.

I commented that it wasn’t legal if their feet couldn’t reach the pegs, much less unwise at that age regardless as they tend to fall asleep and fall off.
 
raginduck said:
You don't know what you're talking about

The onus is on the crown to prove their case... not the accused to prove their innocence.
The video is almost useless without some corroborating evidence.
My guess the accused admitted it was them riding the bike
Click to expand...
Nope...

Only the initial onus.

You think the owner of the bike can say: "Even though I have the IP address of the tiktok user and the exact same model of bike in the video is registered to me, that is not me in the video" and will get off based on that? The owner can say "my bike was stolen the day before". However, the ONUS is then on him to show evidence it was stolen, i.e. a police report.

I know we all learn when we're 11 that in British common law it is "innocent until proven guilty" (which is true), it is actually more complicated than that.
 
cmattina said:
Nope...

Only the initial onus.

You think the owner of the bike can say: "Even though I have the IP address of the tiktok user and the exact same model of bike in the video is registered to me, that is not me in the video" and will get off based on that? The owner can say "my bike was stolen the day before". The ONUS is on him to show evidence it was stolen, i.e. a police report.

I know we all learn when we're 11 that in British common law it is "innocent until proven guilty" (which is true), it is more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
Also the friend of the court crap. I agree with you. Letter of the law is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt but when you are in there it sure seems to function much closer to preponderance of evidence. In the simplest case, cop says that they saw you pass in the dark at 200 km/h and chased you. They knew they got the right car as it had the same plate number (like hell they read it at speed in the dark but that line of testimony has won many a case). You say they got the wrong car, you were driving that night but were not the speeding car. Guilty as you didn't prove that you weren't the speeding car and cop proved that you were by reading your license plate in the dark while you passed at 200 km/h. A reasonable JP would note in the transcript that the cop was unbelievable and had likely purgered themselves and declare not guilty.
 
cmattina said:
Nope...

Only the initial onus.

You think the owner of the bike can say: "Even though I have the IP address of the tiktok user and the exact same model of bike in the video is registered to me, that is not me in the video" and will get off based on that? The owner can say "my bike was stolen the day before". However, the ONUS is then on him to show evidence it was stolen, i.e. a police report.

I know we all learn when we're 11 that in British common law it is "innocent until proven guilty" (which is true), it is actually more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

This post just confirms what I said in response to your last post.

It doesn't matter if it was his bike, his jacket and his gloves nor that he posted the videos to his tiktok account.
They have to prove he was the one riding the bike at the time of the offence.
The owner shouldn't say anything except..'I want to talk to a lawyer" and then STFU.
 
raginduck said:
This post just confirms what I said in response to your last post.

It doesn't matter if it was his bike, his jacket and his gloves nor that he posted the videos to his tiktok account.
They have to prove he was the one riding the bike at the time of the offence.
The owner shouldn't say anything except..'I want to talk to a lawyer" and then STFU.
Click to expand...
They just need to "prove" beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. If they have his bike (matched to video by mileage, marks, etc), his jacket and gloves (seen on video, don't fit anyone else in the house), and a mark on his body seen in video (tattoo, scar) and the watch he was wearing when he got arrested was seen in the video and videos were posted from IP addresses associated with his home and cell phone, he is in trouble. If they are missing most of those and just have the bike, he has a good chance (assuming he didn't talk). The real situation (assuming he didn't talk) is probably somewhere between my two extremes. Whether the JP believes they cross the reasonable doubt threshold is always a crapshoot.
 
GreyGhost said:
They just need to "prove" beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. If they have his bike (matched to video by mileage, marks, etc), his jacket and gloves (seen on video, don't fit anyone else in the house), and a mark on his body seen in video (tattoo, scar) and the watch he was wearing when he got arrested was seen in the video and videos were posted from IP addresses associated with his home and cell phone, he is in trouble. If they are missing most of those and just have the bike, he has a good chance (assuming he didn't talk). The real situation (assuming he didn't talk) is probably somewhere between my two extremes. Whether the JP believes they cross the reasonable doubt threshold is always a crapshoot.
Click to expand...

I repeat...
"Unless the video clearly identified the rider... It would be a very hard case to prove without him admitting it."

Your example identifies the rider in the video.
This case will be heard by a judge... not a JP.
 
raginduck said:
I repeat...
"Unless the video clearly identified the rider... It would be a very hard case to prove without him admitting it."

Your example identifies the rider in the video.
This case will be heard by a judge... not a JP.
Click to expand...
He had a lot of videos up. Private now. Danial94_ The chance that he didn't slip up in one where he was both identifiable and breaking a law in the same video is low. He also rode with a pack in TO that like to post videos of their group douchebaggery. Should be another valuable source of ID.
 
raginduck said:
I repeat...
"Unless the video clearly identified the rider... It would be a very hard case to prove without him admitting it."

Your example identifies the rider in the video.
This case will be heard by a judge... not a JP.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that the small clip the OPP showed in the original release was all they had to work with.

From what I've heard, they've got a LOT more as this guy posted all sorts of stuff where he was indeed very identifiable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom