cmng,
I know what the victim wrote earlier.
First of all, you are missing an important point. If the victim can prove the charge, he is entitled under the law to pursue that charge against the people who assaulted him.
That is his legal entitlement if he chooses to exercise it.
If he wants to try and nail the guy to the fullest extent that the law allows and is not intimidated by the prospect of having to go through the aggravation of a long and costly court battle, then it's his choice.
Whether the whole thing is worth it or not is something he must weigh for himself assuming he is getting good legal advice from credible legal practitioners who are telling him honestly the hard challenges that he will be facing should he go to full trial.
This guy is just telling what happened from his personal perspective. He's not asking for legal advice.
I think he's smart enough to know that there are better places to go for legal advice...certainly not ZTH .....a motley group of car enthusiasts, but some of you (especially that one fellow) is talking like he's the legendary re-incarnation of Justice Soong.
This is not rocket science for godsake!!
Like you said " If the victim can prove the charge,..."
THats the THING LA.. this Vios guy CANNOT PROVE!! Because:
1. No video.
2. No witness
3. Vehicles all are not at the incident site already.
4. Vios rear not damaged, but instead front is damaged, and city rear is damaged.
I am not giving any legal advice either (as im not qualified), but I am just explaning to him why the cops is telling him he will lose easily if he brings this case to court bcoz in the end, all 4 facts i listed above remains.
---------- Post added at 02:52 AM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 02:34 AM ----------
What exactly is "my vast experience in accidents" ?? How "vast" is your experience ??
My vast experience is I have involved in many accidents before. I never claim Im expert, but just speaking from my experience.. bcos thats how the traffic officers will deduce a conclusion on any accidents. You can go over them, by bring case to court, but the question is, you got proof or not?
This is the main point.
Also, why keep emphasizing "city backed into vios" ??
Besides front and rear damage, clearly those pics also show extensive side panel damage on all sides which is indicative of the car being subjected to multiple side-impacts and/or forced sideways onto barriers.....indicators which are consistent with the victim's report.
Side damages I am pretty sure the City also have. Side damages means squat if both cars have them.
But if car A has front damages and car B has rear damages, then car A is on thin ice.
If I get a cent for everytime I hear this statement, I'd be a millionaire by now. The need for video evidence before a case is solid is something often quoted during amateur night at sing-song-talk-cock sessions at your local kopitiam. Most cases rely on a mix of evidence, including circumstantial evidence. It's only in the very rare cases that video evidence is ever available.
Damn you are so unbelievable. Video is the best evidence. But also I mentioned about witnesses. But since both are absent, what that leave you? Just the hard evidence - damages/conditions of cars. And currently from pictures, all points to "Vios hit City"..
The last people I will ask are the cops. Most times, cops they don't know they are talking about. And that's one reason why I asked about your background experience in the first place in dealing with these kind of stuff.....background which you are reluctant to give.
As part of my job (legal affairs in my company), I have been dealing with lawyers and cops on a regular basis.
First of all, I'll be very circumspect about listening to any damn legal advice from any cop. Most cops, especially from the rank & file (even inspector rank), are not what you would consider 'smart' people. They are first and foremost enforcers, not prosecutors. They are not equipped to deal with legal complexities and all that bullshit court nonsense. You leave that to lawyers.
Dude, seriously. I know you want to boast your legal and laws jobs. But traffic cops are handling accidents everyday... and they have a set of rules to follow when judging who is at fault when accidents happens. You think every single accidents happens must go to lawyers??
If the Vios driver is earnest about pursuing the matter further, at the very least, this Vios driver ought to look at getting a good lawyer and review his case and evidence and canvassing witnesses where available. Generally, it will take some length time for a good lawyer to sit down with you over a few sessions going over the evidence before you get a clearer picture where you stand.
If he decides to go to the courts, he should know also that court cases are mostly tedious, long-drawn out affairs that will cost time and money and does not guarantee success.......but in the interest of justice, its still the only option if he decides to prosecute.
Agree on the last part here. But by reading his story, and seeing the photo of the Vios, I have a wild guess that he won't stand a chance, especially if the City guy stay with their own version story (sure will say Vios hit their car, chase them, and at traffic light, hantam their car butt.. etc etc). But don't take my word for it lah... better ask loyars... who knows.. nowadays good loyars can pusing a case till kingdom come also. Innocent also become guilty lidat.