Threat of death as a resonable defence?

[Bignoga]

Hey,

I received a speeding ticket from a police officer doing radar just south of Burnhamthorpe on Winstin Churchill.

The reason for my speeding was I had a cager almost kill me twice in a matter of 1 minute and wanted to get the hell out of there. I was traveling on Winstin in blocking position in the left hand land(2 Lane road) it was 6:15ish on Thursday afternoon so there was still a decent amount of traffic on the roads. While traveling southbound a silver accord turned into my lane without seeing me and I was forced to swerve in my lane and honk my horn to get him to move back over which he did. Didn't reall bug me that much happens all the time on the bike. After waiting for a gap he then moved in behind me. Upon approaching Burnhamthorpe I got the red light and ended up stopping in the #1 position of the queue. Buddy in the silver accord behind me isn't paying attention and locks up his tires when he realizes we are stopping. Luckily I was paying attention as I had to scoot forward a couple feet otherwise he would have hit me(Stopped about 1-1.5 feet behind me). After this second close call I'm worried about this crazy driver hitting me so when the light turns green I accelerate and change lanes to put as much distance as I can between me and him. The police officer was doing radar approximately 350 meters down the road and I was ticketed for 105 in a 60. I told him what had happened and he suggested I speak to the prosecutor before a trial to see what they can reduce it too.

My question is if I take this to trial will I be able to use this situation as my defense? I'm sure there had to be some kind of exception in life threatening situations. While I sure many people and the police officer told me to slow down to get away from him that wasn't really an option with him being behind me.

If anyone has any input I would appreciate it.

Thanks
Kyle

[boooya]

I dont see that working in your favor.

[PLau]

I'd say you would have a hard time proving it.

[OpenGambit]

it doesn't matter if you can prove it or not, HTA offences are not subject to mens rea type defenses and this is one of them. so if you end up in front of a JP with this, you won't get off scott free (because you are essentially admitting to the offense in your defense)

That being said. if the prosecutor chooses to drop/reduce it because he is kind of a nice guy, that is completely different. And yes he can do that.

[Markovic]

They will usually reduce it to avoid trial...

[whetaus-tr]

I was ticketed for 105 in a 60.

Wow that's close.....

[FiReSTaRT]

They will usually reduce it to avoid trial...

And you'll still end up with a conviction on your record. Fight it all the way. For this ticket dollar amount, it might pay off to hire Redline.

[Rob MacLennan]

Unfortunately that will work out to "guilty, with an explanation" which would act to potentially reduce the fine, but not the infraction. It's worth a try to either plead it down, or get representation.

[LoneRonin]

defense of necessity maybe? Lets say there was a crazy guy waving a gun at you from his car and you speed away and get pulled over, I don't see why its not a legit defense...but how the hell can I prove it unless I got a GoPro?

[FiReSTaRT]

defense of necessity maybe? Lets say there was a crazy guy waving a gun at you from his car and you speed away and get pulled over, I don't see why its not a legit defense...but how the hell can I prove it unless I got a GoPro?

On a slight tangent, I love the fact that one has to prove his innocence in a court of law

[Rob MacLennan]

On a slight tangent, I love the fact that one has to prove his innocence in a court of law

You don't. They have to prove guilt. Generally speaking the deck is stacked in their favour though.

[caboose483]

There are times when I think that quick acceleration is the easiest and arguably the safest escape route.

I don't think this is one of those times. In this particular case I would argue that the safest and easiest escape route would be to change lanes and let the guy pass you. It is much easier to keep an eye on a potentially hazardous driver if they are in front of you than it is if they are behind you.

[Rob MacLennan]

There are times when I think that quick acceleration is the easiest and arguably the safest escape route.

I don't think this is one of those times. In this particular case I would argue that the safest and easiest escape route would be to change lanes and let the guy pass you. It is much easier to keep an eye on a potentially hazardous driver if they are in front of you than it is if they are behind you.

Which is unfortunately how the law sees it, when the reality can be quite different.

[turbodish]

My question is if I take this to trial will I be able to use this situation as my defense? I'm sure there had to be some kind of exception in life threatening situations. While I sure many people and the police officer told me to slow down to get away from him that wasn't really an option with him being behind me.

Defence of necessity implies that there was no legal alternative. In this case the Accord was not waving a gun at you or otherwise trying to cause you deliberate harm, so there were plenty of alternatives. You were in the number 1 position of the left lane? You could have accelerated off the line on the green and immediately moved over to the right lane to let that Accord by. That would be the more reasonable thing to do and would eliminate the "threat" without you having to exceed the speed limit at all.

[OpenGambit]

On a slight tangent, I love the fact that one has to prove his innocence in a court of law

The Common law has always put some kind of obligation on the defense when they assert positive defenses, such as alibi, necessity, intoxication, duress etc.
To do otherwise would be to require the crown to prepare a case on an unreasonable amount of things to "disprove".

ok they have to prove you aren't insane, you weren't drugged, you weren't in danger, you weren't stung by a bee and deathly allergic, you weren't off in a vacation in cuba/florida/your cousins house. How would the crown prove these things???
Accordingly, they make reasonable assumptions that can be disproven, you aren't proving your innocence, you are disproving certain assumptions.

The biggest one being that your actions are "voluntary". That to me is an entirely reasonable assumption.

[Dresden]

On a slight tangent, I love the fact that one has to prove his innocence in a court of law

There is no innocence. He's admitted guilt with an explanation.

OP Good luck.

[jonpurdy]

I'm not the OP so I don't know how I would've reacted. Perhaps accelerating and switching lanes would be better but I wasn't there so I'm not in a position to judge.

This is a good example of why insurance companies should base their rates on the number of points for the ticket, not on just having received the ticket. OP could plead guilty with explanation, maybe get it reduced to a 15 over and get no points. So he'd still pay a fine but not suffer for years after from the insurance.

[Griffin]

I would probably have done exactly the same as the OP. But, I think you're screwed. Trying to prove that your actions were necessary is not likely to sway the court and may well just annoy them.

I'd suggest either plead it down and take your lumps, including insurance hit, or hire a lawyer and fight (but unless they're able to discredit the evidence against you, I don't like their odds).

[FiReSTaRT]

On a good note the OP can still try to take advantage of the Holy Trinity - no-show, disclosure, 11b

[Smutty]

To help prove your side - go back to the intersection where he locked up his wheels. See if there are any skid-marks and take photos.