Somehow I have the Benny Hill theme running through my head.
|
|
|
Extortion by shop? Breach of privacy by cop?
- Thread starter FitzR6
- Start date
Gixxer6
Well-known member
Was thinking Clutch the whole time...
OP get your friend some rider training, maybe the shop will pay for it...
I've seen experienced racers have trouble dealing with a sticking throttle. Things happen fast.
RIP Benny. It took a while for the theme song to come to me and yes I envision a bunch of clowns and fools running around like Keystone Cops. Unfortunately no scantily clad buxum barmaid.
My prediction should this go to court, the winner is................................(trumpet sounds).............. THE LAWYER.
Seriously, this is a bluff-fest. Everyone go home and lick your own wounds.
The injured rider needs a full checkout to make sure he isn't seriously or permanently injured. If he has serious injuries I suggest the shop plan for the worst.
P.S. How old is the rider? So far it sounds like the collective intellegence for all parties is about that of a 12 year old.
He is not a pro but he is a competent rider. He just panicked when the unexpected happened.
@noobie-48 He is 21, goes to a shop and has a bunch of grown men (30years old and upwards) give him keys and tell him it's okay go for it. I know he is an *** and I am not saying he is a victim, just that he is on the losing end of a ****** stick.
That's my point: If experienced racers, even pros can screw up with a stuck throttle, then I think it's rather asinine to poke at a regular street rider who happens to do the same.
"STORY" being the operative word here. Sorry, I just think there's too many holes and problems here for this to be believable.
1- I have trouble believing that an established shop would do this, and as you've mentioned that it's a Ducati dealership, I can presume that it's established.
2- Your friend is responsible for all sorts of HTA issues here and nothing has happened yet. You mentioned that the bike didn't belong to the shop so even the big "permit use - no insurance" doesn't apply to the shop.
A customer's bike that the established shop just gave out? Again, I have a problem believing this. Also that, knowing that the bike had issues and that your friend just damaged the bike and himself potentially because of, they simply admitted to knowing of the problem.
Define "hold"... it makes a BIG difference.
Depending (only a little) on the above answer, you've now got a fail to remain on top of your friend's other HTA issues. As for your question later in the thread about this incident meeting the criteria to remaining; if you leave without providing your information (among other things depending on which charge exactly is in question) then you've just committed an offense. Unless of course, your friend had already left his information with them before the test ride which then negates a lot of what follows in this story.
Later in this thread you state that you "suspect" that they are friends with the cop... a little different than this version, no? You also state that your friend did not provide his D/L to the shop to test ride the bike. As mentioned previously, I've yet to test ride a bike or car without a photocopy of my D/L being provided by me so again the legitimacy of this story is brought into question.
"Hit and run" is a generic term for "fail to remain". And your friend and the bike DID hit the ground, damage was done, injuries were sustained, it's a motor vehicle collision, plain and simple.
They will be at his house to do what? This is them trying to scare him into paying. If they didn't mention any particular criminal action then they haven't crossed the criminal line... yet.
Again, I'm thinking there's a LOT of holes and questionable facts here, but IN MY OPINION;
A) Ultimately, yes. The owner goes after the shop, the shop goes after your friend.
B) IF he can prove that they knew there was a problem with the bike and it wasn't safe then perhaps in a civil court, yes. Without any indication of any evidence that they knew of an issue (if there was in fact an issue and not just a rider issue) then there would be no criminal avenue.
C) With the "story" given he'd have a complaint with the police service however ultimately if the shop started up a complaint then your friend's info would have been obtained by police then likely obtained by the shop or their lawyer through Freedom of Information for the civil proceedings against him if they decided to go that route so a complaint to the police probably wouldn't go too far although it would be a privacy issue...
Except that I still don't believe they let the bike go without some ID, likely in the form of a D/L and from that a quick canada411 search can spit out a phone number (that he probably already gave them) and even IF he didn't give them a D/L, he MUST have told them his name before they gave out the bike and depending on that he may have been easy to find anyway.
All in all, I think I just fell victim to a troll... or your friend isn't being honest with you / us.
OpenGambit
Banned
This is 100 % untrue.
How so? They said they were going to come by his house if he didn't pay up... nothing illegal in that. We may all (likely) receive the implication that they are threatening, but WHAT are they threatening;
- to bring a bill over?
- to talk to him about the incident?
- to break the door down and beat the money out of him?
- to offer him a free motorcycle?
Only one of the above is criminal, and that wasn't mentioned in the story.
There's no criminal offense here.
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
There is no need for a threat to include details of the exact criminal activity to be a threat. I don't know whether the activity described by the OP is illegal or not, but your statement is still 100 % false.
in any event, it doesn't even matter if its illegal, if the guy feels threatened, he should call the cops, and no one knows that except him.
The sections of the code are for threaten (insert criminal act here, such as assault). What's this, threaten to assume?
As for him FEELING threatened; entirely different. Yes he should call the cops and yes an investigation should take place but without something more to the "threat", there's no way anyone's getting charged.
OpenGambit
Banned
whatever you say expert.
The statement was made in order to intimidate and, therefore, to elicit a specific response. that's hurdle #1 in 'utter threat.'
This Court considered the provisions of s. 264.1(1)(a) in R. v. McCraw, 1991 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72. The manner in which a court should approach charges of threatening was set out at pp.82-83 in these words:
How then should a court approach the issue? The structure and wording of s. 264.1(1)(a) indicate that the nature of the threat must be looked at objectively; that is, as it would be by the ordinary reasonable person. The words which are said to constitute a threat must be looked at in light of various factors. They must be considered objectively and within the context of all the written words or conversation in which they occurred. As well, some thought must be given to the situation of the recipient of the threat.
The question to be resolved may be put in the following way. Looked at objectively, in the context of all the words written or spoken and having regard to the person to whom they were directed, would the questioned words convey a threat of serious bodily harm to a reasonable person?
The question to be resolved may be put in the following way. Looked at objectively, in the context of all the words written or spoken and having regard to the person to whom they were directed, would the questioned words convey a threat of serious bodily harm to a reasonable person?
Thus, the question of whether the accused had the intent to intimidate, or that his words were meant to be taken seriously, will, in the absence of any explanation by the accused, usually be determined by the words used, the context in which were spoken, and the person to whom they were directed.
Bitter much? I normally am a supporter of yours however have noticed of late that you've been quite short and bitter in many replies to a lot of people.
The Code (as you know);
- 264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
- (a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;
- (b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
- (c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.
- (a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;
I fail to see where in the story the elements of a criminal offense are made out, taking into account current case law.
But was it made that way? You're assuming this from a third party account of the situation with nothing to indicate intent.
OpenGambit
Banned
Maybe its because of the responses I get, I am also doing it for free.
if you think it through. its a silly requirement to have to identify the exact threat before it becomes criminal. ( thats actualy the test to break solicitor client privilege, there is a big difference )
it is not difficult to threaten someone without telling them exactly what is going to happen.
scroll up and read again the part I actually quoted. Rob understands what I am saying.
if you think it through. its a silly requirement to have to identify the exact threat before it becomes criminal. ( thats actualy the test to break solicitor client privilege, there is a big difference )
it is not difficult to threaten someone without telling them exactly what is going to happen.
scroll up and read again the part I actually quoted. Rob understands what I am saying.
As all that we have to work with is one side, that's what I'm working with. I assume that the information given is correct and if it isn't, be it on the head of the person seeking advice.
"Approach, and repeat ultimatum in an even firmer tone of voice. Add the words, "or else"."
Which is where I also have a problem, as mentioned in my initial post... the entire story is, in my opinion, not too believable.
|
|
|
|
|