Video evidence - Pros and cons

**Scuba_Steve** · 23rd April 2015, 09:14

Originally Posted by Erelyes

*buzzer* wrong. You are not 'guilty until proven innocent', you are 'charged with an alleged offence until proven innocent'. Just like any. other. offence. The only difference is, you don't have to go to court to plead guilty and be sentenced, you can just pay the fixed fine and move along. Or you can deny the offence and have your day in court just like anything else.

Wow you REALLY don't have any idea how it works then. While you maybe correct as per "letter of the law" you are incorrect as per reality of the legal system

**Erelyes** · 23rd April 2015, 09:42

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

While you maybe correct as per "letter of the law" you are incorrect as per reality of the legal system

You should try that one in front of a judge.

**rastuscat** · 23rd April 2015, 11:04

Lets clarify.

A ticket is the officers allegation that you've broken the rules.

You can plead guilty by paying the fine, or plead not guilty by asking for a hearing in front of the JPs.

Until you pay the fine or are ordered to pay by a JP, you are presumed to be innocent.

It's the system.

**nodrog:Me** · 23rd April 2015, 11:29

Its still won't be good enough.

Some jumped up little tardlett will just say its computer shopped.

**Scuba_Steve** · 23rd April 2015, 11:35

Originally Posted by rastuscat

Lets clarify.

A ticket is the officers allegation that you've broken the rules.

You can plead guilty by paying the fine, or plead not guilty by asking for a hearing in front of the JPs.

Until you pay the fine or are ordered to pay by a JP, you are presumed to be innocent.

It's the system.

So to do nothing is to be presumed innocent... yet they'll steal your money anyways meaning in reality you were presumed guilty, the fact the accused has the onus of proving their innocence & that they have to arrange for the chance to do this confirms they are presumed guilty until proven innocence in reality

It's the system, but not the law

**nodrog:Me** · 23rd April 2015, 11:43

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

So to do nothing is to be presumed innocent... yet they'll steal your money anyways meaning in reality you were presumed guilty, the fact the accused has the onus of proving their innocence & that they have to arrange for the chance to do this confirms they are presumed guilty until proven innocence in reality

It's the system, but not the law

They aren't presuming you are guilty, they have evidence (however they have obtained it).

It is up to you to provide better evidence than theirs.

**TheDemonLord** · 23rd April 2015, 11:47

Originally Posted by nodrog

They aren't presuming you are guilty, they have evidence (however they have obtained it).

It is up to you to provide better evidence than theirs.

If their evidence is their word, its not Evidence

**nodrog:Me** · 23rd April 2015, 11:50

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

If their evidence is their word, its not Evidence

Apart from the fact the Law says it is.

**TheDemonLord** · 23rd April 2015, 11:56

Originally Posted by nodrog

Apart from the fact the Law says it is.

And this is wrong - An officer is human, Humans make mistakes, can be affected by emotional states, can act inappropriately etc.

A Measurement from a radar gun is objective - the Radar gun never gets tired, isn't affected by judgement and will yeild the same result (all other factors being equal) regardless of who pulls the trigger

**nodrog:Me** · 23rd April 2015, 12:06

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

And this is wrong - An officer is human, Humans make mistakes, can be affected by emotional states, can act inappropriately etc.

A Measurement from a radar gun is objective - the Radar gun never gets tired, isn't affected by judgement and will yeild the same result (all other factors being equal) regardless of who pulls the trigger

Well change It then.

At the moment it is the law, no amount of " its not fair " is going to help.

**Scuba_Steve** · 23rd April 2015, 12:53

Originally Posted by nodrog

Well change It then.

At the moment it is the law, no amount of " its not fair " is going to help.

It's NOT the law you daft git, the law states quite fucking clearly you are NOT guilty until proven so in a court of law... Someone writing something on a piece of paper is NOT proof of guilt it is nothing more than an accusation under the letter of law... learn some legislation!

**TheDemonLord** · 23rd April 2015, 13:35

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

It's NOT the law you daft git, the law states quite fucking clearly you are NOT guilty until proven so in a court of law... Someone writing something on a piece of paper is NOT proof of guilt it is nothing more than an accusation under the letter of law... learn some legislation!

I will admit I don't know if it is specified in legislation or not - however I am certain that it is contrary to the principles that Western Law was founded on.

**nodrog:Me** · 23rd April 2015, 13:38

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

It's NOT the law you daft git, the law states quite fucking clearly you are NOT guilty until proven so in a court of law... Someone writing something on a piece of paper is NOT proof of guilt it is nothing more than an accusation under the letter of law... learn some legislation!

Do you have the bends?

The law states that an officers sworn testimony is legally admissible as evidence. So if an officer says you are guilty, and you cannot provide better evidence stating otherwise, according to the law you are guilty.

its the way it is.

#Retards

**TheDemonLord** · 23rd April 2015, 13:47

Originally Posted by nodrog

The law states that an officers sworn testimony is legally admissible as evidence. So if an officer says you are guilty, and you cannot provide better evidence stating otherwise, according to the law you are guilty.

Can you refer me to the particular section of legislation that says that?