紧急求助！！！！@

[househouse]

Oh, don't abuse the words. "无罪推定"-- Presumption of innocence is for criminal law only, baby.

That's my first question, I don't know if 无罪推定 applys to traffic court or not as it apply to criminal court.
I feel it should apply, since they want to decide if I'm guilty or not, just like criminal court.
无罪推定 doesn't apply in civil court, that's for sure, since there's no such thing as guilty or not on a civil court.

 

[househouse]

错误理解美加的innocence推定。Innocence主要是criminal court用的。

不知道肇事的另一方会不会来。如果你自己不理清事情发生的状况，只一味以为自己没有错，结果可能你会更生气。因为在法庭上这不是你对单方的警察，可能是你对警察和那个小毛头两个人。

没有见你老公的评论，请你把他的看法也贴出来。

而且，他没有陪你去见警察吗？如果他陪你去了，那么你们是2：1，结果警察还是相信了对方。这就很说明问题了。如果他也去了，他的英文也不灵光吗？

LZ就像江主席说的：naive and sometimes too simple.

My English bad, his English even worse. He tried to talk to the officer, the officer does not allow him to talk.

 

[ccc]

My English bad, his English even worse. He tried to talk to the officer, the officer does not allow him to talk.

The officer didn't want to listen to him because he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time, not because his English is better or worse than yours, I believe.

 

[househouse]

The officer didn't want to listen to him because he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time, not because his English is better or worse than yours, I believe.

exactly.

 

[househouse]

The officer didn't want to listen to him because he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time, not because his English is better or worse than yours, I believe.

But, I don't think the officer is completely right for not letting my husband to talk, as he is the full license holder sitting by the G1 as per law, he somewhat share the responsibility of the operation. So the officer should let him talk at some point, but she didn't allow him to talk.

 

[会摇尾巴的狼]

I don't think it's my responsibility to convince the judge that I'm innocent ( as under 无罪推定 ) ( hOW TO SAY THAT IN ENGLISH?)
under 无罪推定, I don't have responsibility to prove that I'm innocent, it's all the police responsibility to prove that I'm guilty. Then how can they? Just one piece of evident which is the other party's words?

在这里有两个相互关联而又相互独立的事项：

1) 警察指控你违章驾车， 所以给你告票。

2) 你在这次事故中损坏他人财物的民事责任。

在第一事项里，警察相当于“公诉人”， 控你违章驾车。 他有"primary evidence" 他的"primary evidence“ 包括物证 (即， 追尾事件导致损坏的车辆) 和人证(即， 对方证词)。 你上庭是要解决第一事项。“公诉人”如何采纳证据是他的事情。因为是“公诉人”对你的指控，所以你有责任证明你无辜。其途径是让法官相信 ”公诉人”所用证据无效。比如用TD票据证明对方证词有撒谎嫌疑。

第二事项是民事责任。 即使你庭上让法官取消了告票，并不等同于你没有民事责任。但你若没了告票，解决第二事项时会对你有利。

如果涉及数额大，比如一方告另一方要求人身伤残赔赏，第二事项一般会另案审理。

 

[househouse]

在这里有两个相互关联而又相互独立的事项：

1) 警察指控你违章驾车， 所以给你告票。

2) 你在这次事故中损坏他人财物的民事责任。

在第一事项里，警察相当于“公诉人”， 控你违章驾车。 他有"primary evidence" 他的"primary evidence“ 包括物证 (即， 追尾事件导致损坏的车辆) 和人证(即， 对方证词)。 你上庭是要解决第一事项。“公诉人”如何采纳证据是他的事情。因为是“公诉人”对你的指控，所以你有责任证明你无辜。其途径是让法官相信 ”公诉人”所用证据无效。比如用TD票据证明对方证词有撒谎嫌疑。

第二事项是民事责任。 即使你庭上让法官取消了告票，并不等同于你没有民事责任。但你若没了告票，解决第二事项时会对你有利。

如果涉及数额大，比如一方告另一方要求人身伤残赔赏，第二事项一般会另案审理。

Right, I do have TD's ticket. I'll let them print another one for me, with detailed time shown on it.

 

[househouse]

The presumption of innocence – being considered innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern countries. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted.

In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

A common opinion held in countries based on common law is that in civil law or inquisitorial justice systems, the accused does not enjoy a presumption of innocence.

All but one of the provinces of Canada use a common law system (the exception being Quebec, which uses a civil law system for issues arising within provincial jurisdiction). Criminal law, which is uniform throughout Canada, is based on the common law in all provinces.

So, I can't enjoy the presumption of innocence, and have to prove my innocence by myself then.
The problem is , there's no direct valid witness, just a " you say, I say " situation. Just a matter of whose words the judge is going to take issue.

The police at the first place, took the other party's words because he speaks clear English, describe things better, blamed me properly ( while I never blamed him at that time as I think the damage of the car can prove everything). I think I didn't provide the officer much information at that time as I was so confident it was all his fault, even needless to say. PS, my English in car accident area is very limited, can't really describe things clearly.

So I got to clearly sort out what has happened and convince the court now.

 

[househouse]

那个TD's ticket没有用。

现在搂主需要打掉的是“failling to signal”.

I'm 100% sure I signaled.
The police didn't even ask I signaled or not.

 

[househouse]

我的了解（可能不准确），搂主应该得到两份东西：ticket和一个事故报告号码。支持警官做出判罚的证词，证据，调查结果等都在事故报告里。这个报告搂主拿不到，但如果搂主雇了律师的话，律师可以拿到。

Should be right. But the police's only evident is the other party's words. Since I asked the police to check the scene at the very beginning, and they refuse to come.

My other concern is, actually my first court meeting is with the prosecutor, who actually represent the police and try to make some agreement with me. And if we can't reach an agreement, then next step is trial. The thing is, will my words talking with the prosecutor at the first stage become evident against me later on the trial?

 

[househouse]

我在#64帖中给你了个重要的东西。遗憾的是，到目前为止，还没有人注意到。

你应该从情绪化，主观想象或主观判断中走出来。

你应该抛开枝节，针对主题（142(1)）。

你需要在法庭上拿出无可辩驳的事实，或逻辑判断（不是主观判断），说服法官，警官的结论是错误，或者警官形成结论的过程是错误的。

Right, but that'll have to be in Chinese. Hopefully the judge can understand me. The whole accident is very confusing.

 

[会摇尾巴的狼]

那个TD's ticket没有用。

现在搂主需要打掉的是“failling to signal”.

我的前提是：对方一直在中线LZ车的后面。而LZ不是从左线换到中线的。

中线前面的车在中线上有路权。换右线时要对右线后面的的车负责。但不对中线后面的车负责。这一点很重要。与“failling to signal”无关。在这一点上，你和3C似乎都有一个误解。

对方以为LZ可轻易换线， 所以没减速而导致事故。

如果对方一直在右线，那LZ赢的希望很小。但如何造成对方前右撞LZ后左，对方最好能给出合理的解释。

 

[rain_man]

about the ticket

Hi, if you know who is the prosecutor you can ask him to send you the detail for the document about your case, that is your right as well, then you can know what that police wrote on your case, which can help to fight your ticket.

If the police report mentioned you changed two lanes, then the TD receive and locate map can help to win this, simple that evidence which police based on will be doubted.

So find out what is in police report is very important, I win a case because they had a mistake in the report.

Use the file I attached as example. I think everyone saw this should save this file, this one helped me and one day may help you.

 

[viper99]

没有见你老公的评论，请你把他的看法也贴出来。


LZ就像江主席说的：naive and sometimes too simple.

这个问题 3C 和在下都问过, 没有得到回答, 其实,没有回答也是一种回答.

在下不认为LZ naive and sometimes too simple, 比较执着.

既然这么执着,为何最关键的第一时间没和警察说上话?我不认为LZ英文交流有问题,有可能LZ当时说的和对方说得比较一致,警察认为LZ有错. 对方是18岁,很容易让警察认为超速的.

如果事实是LZ车在右道走了一会被撞,根本不可能算LZ错,100%是对方追尾错,都完成换道了,信号根本不是问题

现在似乎是为了上庭而修改口供和事实,那,有意思,有用吗? 诸位上过庭的说有用吗?不要凭想象.

在下和警察打过太多次交道,从开始害怕到后来谈笑风声,有成功(警察放我一马)有失败(上庭),都是超速(太多次了,没办法)

通常上庭时,一帮老外,都很有经验,一看警察来了,法官一问,就说认罚,求减免.如果警察没来,就赢了,我算看明白了,就是赌警察不来. 第一轮法官这么处理完,差不多一小时,

这时有两三个人不服的,警察也来的,换一个庭,小一些,正归一些,法庭会指派一人帮你(不是翻译),这人会劝你认输,说如果你赢不了,可能会罚你更多.在下想来都来了,时间也浪费了,干到地吧,最多多花钱,学点知识.

先是警察走到前面那个位子,按这圣经宣誓,然后非常有经验陈述,靠,我听了都觉得无无懈可击
然后是我,以前也上过庭,但都是第一轮要么警察没来,要么认罚了,这次是真干,一点规矩也不懂,比如问候法官啦,比如倒着走,始终面对法官啦,首先就露了怯,输了一步,后来宣誓也不会,只好法官说一句我说一句,总之,轮到自己陈述时,已经没了那心劲了,最后输了.

另外一老外上去也输了

事后,总结一下,发现,跟本赢不了,警察太专业了,咱们太业余了,嘴巴说没用,你没证据. 还是老外从小在这有经验,在第一轮认罪,然后陈述自己理由,然后减免. 你不认罪,真的进入第二轮(法官也换了),那就是靠证据,如果只是嘴巴说,有戏吗?

 

[冰中取火]

那个TD's ticket没有用。

现在搂主需要打掉的是“failling to signal”.

142 (1) 包括了:

Turn – not in safety
Change lane – not in safety
Fail to signal for turn
Fail to signal lane change 等

我的感觉警察给罚单是基于" 连续变两条线", 否则LZ错的成分不多. 要有充分证据说明没连续变线比较重要.