Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf
1-cctv[ static or in car will do]
2cctv-moile phone footage- forensic evidence-finger prints on weapon
|
Ok so you are quite happy for a huge increase in the amount of CCTV cameras and filming taking place at every road junction in the land.
Oh and you can't just pick up forensics out of thin air, there isn't always any lasting evidence.
Fists and feet can be used to assault people, are you going to fingerprint them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf
3 caught in the act [with evidence ] is a little different to we saw him with a phone your worships [you can trust me i'm a copper]
|
How. In the original link two cops saw a driver on a phone. He said he wasn't. Whats the difference to two cops finding someone in a building but when he gets to court he says he wasn't there.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Will21st
That aside,i think the judge was right to throw the case out.There was insufficient evidence,and if that's the case,the defendant should be acquitted.period.
|
There
wasn't insufficient evidence though. Two witnesses both swore, under oath, they saw the accused driving whilst using a phone. Plenty of people are convicted every day in courts on the evidence of two people with no other corroboration. This shouldn't have been any different.
Out of virtually every other road traffic case in the country the evidence is what the Police saw. Not every car is fitted with cameras to record what happens.