Police Officer Blatantly Lies In Court Against Me Today | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Police Officer Blatantly Lies In Court Against Me Today

The requirements refer to "driving on a highway" with the exception for reversing. If you're stopped at the side of the road (as opposed to stopped at a traffic signal or heavy traffic) with the expectation that you may have to get out of the car, why would you need to keep your seatbelt on? Doesn't the officer have to observe the car in motion with the seatbelt not properly fastened?

Also, if there is an infant or toddler in the vehicle and the driver fastened their restraint, or ensured their restraints were fastened BEFORE driving the car, they're entitled to the reasonable believe that the restraint will not come undone. If another adult in the car unfastens it without telling the driver, that's got to be a valid defense.
 
EMEF: All these guys that say I was guilty or any other driver whose passengers unfastens himself are trolls or have no clue to men's rea and culpability. This is why they will never be judges... they are contradicting a judge's ruling who has like 20 years of experience and knowledge of the law... I knew I would get off.
 
Last edited:
Pegassus said:
EMEF: All these guys that say I was guilty or any other driver whose passengers unfastens himself are trolls or have no clue to men's rea and culpability. This is why they will never be judges... they are contradicting a judge's ruling who has like 20 years of experience and knowledge of the law... I knew I would get off.
Click to expand...

There is NO mens rea in traffic court.
That was my point.

Troll!


... oh, and there are no judges in traffic court either. Unless they are there as a defendent.
 
bitzz said:
defendent.
Click to expand...

Learn to spell my boy before trying to act like a lawyer.

I never said there was mens rea in court, I said that I had no mens rea in the case. Justice of the peace, judge, who cares what they are called, they perform the same function basically.
 
Pegassus said:
Learn to spell my boy before trying to act like a lawyer.

I never said there was mens rea in court, I said that I had no mens rea in the case. Justice of the peace, judge, who cares what they are called, they perform the same function basically.
Click to expand...

Remember one thing; mens rea, where the HTA is concerned, is applicable far less often than it isn't.
 
Almost all HTA offences are strict liability. Mens rea is irrelevant. You may be able to raise a defence of due diligence but that won't prevent you being charged.

Under the HTA the driver is responsible to ensure that all persons in the vehicle under the age of 16 are secured. If they aren't, at any time, then you're in violation of the HTA. The only available defence is that you exercised due diligence to ensure they were secured. If I was judging the defence, I'd want to know that the driver ensured they were properly secured initially, and that they checked periodically, dependant on the length of the journey, and that they paid attention to any movement by the occupants that would indicate they were not secured. So, for example, if some 12 year old is in the back seat and the driver tells them to buckle up, that ain't enough. If the driver looks and sees that the kid buckled up that's fine to start with, but they should be checking every now and then, IMO.

A related bit of info to consider: unrestrained passengers are potentially lethal projectiles in the event of a collision. I know of one example where the kid driving (wearing seatbelt) was decapatated by the kid in the backseat with no belt on as they flew by and out the windshield.
 
Griffin said:
< snip >
<snip>A related bit of info to consider: unrestrained passengers are potentially lethal projectiles in the event of a collision.
< snip >
Click to expand...
Just one more of the inconsistencies in the HTA. It’s a violation of the act to allow a 50 lb. child to be unrestrained in a vehicle. However, it’s acceptable to allow a 150 lb canine to romp freely. Oh, that is except for in the back of a pick-up truck or open trailer, that you can get charged for. It’s a wonder PETA hasn’t jumped all over this
one! :rolleyes:</snip>
 
Stephen W. said:
Just one more of the inconsistencies in the HTA. It’s a violation of the act to allow a 50 lb. child to be unrestrained in a vehicle. However, it’s acceptable to allow a 150 lb canine to romp freely. Oh, that is except for in the back of a pick-up truck or open trailer, that you can get charged for. It’s a wonder PETA hasn’t jumped all over this
one! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You can also have a sack of hammers or a 50kg bag of potatoes. If you have anything loose in your car you're in for a nasty (and potentially fatal) surprise in a collision. I store everything of more than a kilo or two in the trunk or in a bag seatbelted to the rear seat. The dog, well, you're right, she should be in her harness more of the time.
 
Griffin said:
You can also have a sack of hammers or a 50kg bag of potatoes. If you have anything loose in your car you're in for a nasty (and potentially fatal) surprise in a collision. I store everything of more than a kilo or two in the trunk or in a bag seatbelted to the rear seat. The dog, well, you're right, she should be in her harness more of the time.
Click to expand...

My co-worker got a big ticket by the MTO for having blunt objects in the cabin beside him in a company pick-up truck but this law is apparently not applicable to civilian cars.
 
Guise.

Please stop confusing the "Justice of the Peace" that exists in traffic court, with an actual "Judge" that works in criminal courts.

I've heard that there are absolutely no education or credentials needed to become a Justice of the Peace - all you gotta do is know someone in the right position to get appointed.
 
Kri$han said:
Guise.

Please stop confusing the "Justice of the Peace" that exists in traffic court, with an actual "Judge" that works in criminal courts.

I've heard that there are absolutely no education or credentials needed to become a Justice of the Peace - all you gotta do is know someone in the right position to get appointed.
Click to expand...

There are requirements, but they aren't necessarily educational. It's an appointed position.

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/jpaac/qualifications/
 
Rob MacLennan said:
There are requirements, but they aren't necessarily educational. It's an appointed position.

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/jpaac/qualifications/
Click to expand...

I’ll second that thought! Education or actual experience takes a back seat when you have friends in high places.
Defeated MPP Leona Dombrowsky was just appointed. Out of 11 new JP's she was the only former politician in this round. The other 10 were lawyers, or had other experience in the justice system.
Sorry Oshawa residents, you get to deal with her now.
http://www.quintenews.com/2012/12/leona-appointed-to-bench/38104/
 
Pegassus said:
Yeah righ I saw him thats why I kept going while knowing the cop was behind me eh? Go take a hike dude, you will never be a judge.
Click to expand...

Your response makes zero sense, and you didn't offer a cogent rebuttal. People usually do continue driving when there's a cop behind them. Why wouldn't they? My initial response to your ridiculous thread stands. YOU pointed out that you watched the cop following you. D'uh! Thus, YOU could have very well noticed a child jumping around and/or standing in your backseat, which would have been in your field of vision. If I were the 'judge', I'd find your story unreasonable. So many holes can be poked through it.

Furthermore, I'm not a "dude" and you know absolutely nothing about me. Ironically, I've been looking into applying for law school to obtain my Juris Doctor degree. LMAO!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom