Perhaps. Then again it's a lot like sexual harassment, where the target gets to decide if the unwanted attention is harassment or not.
|
|
|
Smile, you're on camera.
- Thread starter inreb
- Start date
As long as posting like this gratifies you then all is good. Now get off my lawn.
We're you in Uxbridge? Happens every freakin time I ride down secret road
We're you in Uxbridge? Happens every freakin time I ride down secret road
No, I've had it up to here with Uxbridge, been trying to find this one road but I give up. No mas.
Riceburner
Well-known member
Only happened once, a while ago. Couldn't care less. But for the sake of argument, the footage would show it panning past the passenger area then thru the front. Could only be taken from the driver's seat. The way the guy was moving the camera or phone it would be pretty obvious in the footage.
That still wouldn't prove WHO was in the driver seat at the time the footage was taken.
Even if the driver was called to give evidence against you at trial, and during YOUR trial admitted that he was the one who took the footage from behind the wheel, the Canada Evidence Act for criminal offences and the Evidence Act of Ontario for provincial offences would prevent that statement from being used against him at his own trial were he to be so charged.
Huh! That's interesting. Can you or anyone else elaborate on this?
I had a bus driver do it to my car after I pulled an idiot move and cut him off. Apparently it was bad enough that he pulled over the bus (full of passengers) and started walking back to the lot he thought I was going to park in to get a photo. Lucky him I made the wrong turn so I was driving back towards him and saved half his walk. Never heard anything about it. I still felt bad but I didn't think I had actually cut him off that bad. That was like 10 years ago.
It's the law, which is why someone taking a video to the police will at the most end up as a warning to the driver through a letter, based on the plate.
Video can still work for an accident because following the accident, you have proof of who was driving.
Taking a picture of a vehicle and claiming it did something is pointless, purely the fodder of middle-aged men with nothing better to do after writing a steamy letter of complaint to the Editor of the local shopping news, usually involving widening or repaving roads with their taxes.
I get a lot of this on my bicycle from obese housewives in minivans who don't like me filtering up at a red light. I even have my name and address printed out on cards I hand them and encourage them to call police.
Right, but that's not what griff2 was saying - He suggested (and I have no reason to believe this is untrue) that if party A was recording party B doing something illegal, but the very act of party A doing the recording being illegal because they are operating a vehicle at the same time, and if party A was testifying against party B and stated that they were in fact the one doing the recording, that testimony could not be used against them if they were tried for operating a recording thing while driving the vehicle thing
What part of it do you want elaborated? Basically, a witness can admit to their own criminal or provincial offences wrong-doing while on the stand giving evidence against another charged person. That admission, though on the record against another accused, cannot be used against the witness if the witness is charged with an offence either before or after the trial at which he is giving witness evidence against another accused. It would be up to police to find OTHER evidence on which to convict the witness, although there is nothing preventing them from using the admission as a starting point for further investigation.
In the US, a witness in that situation would simply refuse to answer based in their Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate themselves. We have no Fifth Amendment in Canada, and if you are on the stand you MUST answer any questions put to you even if it would incriminate yourself. The Canada Evidence Act and the Evidence Act of Ontario let you give that evidence without incriminating yourself.
Canada Evidence Act http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-5/page-1.html (following sections)
- Incriminating questions
5. (1) No witness shall be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer to the question may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person.
Answer not admissible against witness
(2) Where with respect to any question a witness objects to answer on the ground that his answer may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person, and if but for this Act, or the Act of any provincial legislature, the witness would therefore have been excused from answering the question, then although the witness is by reason of this Act or the provincial Act compelled to answer, the answer so given shall not be used or admissible in evidence against him in any criminal trial or other criminal proceeding against him thereafter taking place, other than a prosecution for perjury in the giving of that evidence or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
- R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 5;
- 1997, c. 18, s. 116.
Evidence Act of Ontario https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-e23/latest/rso-1990-c-e23.html (following sections, very similar to Criminal Code equivalent))
Witness not excused from answering questions tending to criminate
9. (1) A witness shall not be excused from answering any question upon the ground that the answer may tend to criminate the witness or may tend to establish his or her liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person or to a prosecution under any Act of the Legislature. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 9 (1).
Answer not to be used in evidence against witness
(2) If, with respect to a question, a witness objects to answer upon any of the grounds mentioned in subsection (1) and if, but for this section or any Act of the Parliament of Canada, he or she would therefore be excused from answering such question, then, although the witness is by reason of this section or by reason of any Act of the Parliament of Canada compelled to answer, the answer so given shall not be used or receivable in evidence against him or her in any civil proceeding or in any proceeding under any Act of the Legislature. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 9 (2).
Answer not to be used in evidence against witness
(2) If, with respect to a question, a witness objects to answer upon any of the grounds mentioned in subsection (1) and if, but for this section or any Act of the Parliament of Canada, he or she would therefore be excused from answering such question, then, although the witness is by reason of this section or by reason of any Act of the Parliament of Canada compelled to answer, the answer so given shall not be used or receivable in evidence against him or her in any civil proceeding or in any proceeding under any Act of the Legislature. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 9 (2).
Last edited:
So in the US, if a witness elected NOT to exercise their Fifth Amendment right and gave self-incriminating testimony, that COULD be used against them?
Yes that is the case in the US.
Also if you read the wording very closely of the sections provided by Griff, he is "partially" right here as well. The issue can become if the person testifying is "compelled" to give the anser by the court and they are therefore, afforded the protection. However, if the person testifying doesn't know this and offers up the answer voluntarily, then it "could" be used against them. Also remember the distracted driving, (which recording whie driving would be the appropriate charge), is merely an HTA offence and therefore, it is highly unlikely the crown would pursue, the matter at all.
Also if you read the wording very closely of the sections provided by Griff, he is "partially" right here as well. The issue can become if the person testifying is "compelled" to give the anser by the court and they are therefore, afforded the protection. However, if the person testifying doesn't know this and offers up the answer voluntarily, then it "could" be used against them. Also remember the distracted driving, (which recording whie driving would be the appropriate charge), is merely an HTA offence and therefore, it is highly unlikely the crown would pursue, the matter at all.
FLSTC
Well-known member
No name/address cards for the non-obese housewives? Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
Only one time, then a nice officer showed up at my door. I wasn't even riding.
I was driving the jeep lol
That's up to the Crown to bother. but, in Canada, evidence is evidence, obtained illegally or not.
|
|
|
|
|