you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 124 points 10 months ago (31 children)

If they have the video of you placing the note then they will have the video of you not hitting them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [+] -23 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (30 children)
  • [–] 50 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    After reading your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you know absolutely nothing about the law or how a case would be tried.

    Please do not listen to this person on any legal matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    So they use the video as evidence of the person placing the note. The same video the defence will view to show that their client did not hit the car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I doubt that any cop would even bother writing a report for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    they have no obligation to reveal any part of it that would indicate your innocence

    So you just don't understand how the legal system works at all, amigo. What you described is completely false. One of the first phases of any court case is discovery, where the opposing party supplies the evidence that they have to support their case. Not including this type of evidence during discovery could get an attorney disbarred and a court case thrown out entirely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    To expand on that, the prosecution wouldn't have an obligation to reveal that evidence to the jury, but they would have an obligation to provide it to the court and/or defense during discovery. And, you know, that seems like something the defense would both use and request if it were missing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Then that snippet wouldn't be admissible in court.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    If the prosecution obtains it as evidence, I would think evidence handling procedure would make said discarding a no-go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    And which bit of damage did you confess to? They have no evidence of what you confessed to doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (9 children)
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    And how do you prove that ding is the one the note leaver caused?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    just because its a civil court doesnt mean it is based off vibes

    "Yes Officer, he damaged my car. this damage right here. The Proof? I say so your honor. I rest my case."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    verifiable evidence that the damage was pre-existing that the note leaver could somehow provide

    Like a photo of the driver circling the car, unable to spot where the damage was, immediately after reading the note? Hmmmm....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    No, I read that - it's just not substantial. If the ding already existed, my point is that the driver is overlooking it in the photo we're seeing. That is proof that it is not new damage and shouldn't be considered in this case. I get that you're trying to CYA, but it doesn't need to be to this degree of hyper-vigilance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    What if they removed the word “hit” from the note.

    So it just said “I accidentally your car”

    Then you’re not really admitting to anything.

    Would also probably frustrate the guy even more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments