My rights as a supsect.......

[[TW]Fox]

why do people still have to pick on grammar and spelling. it's not a english exam... its a forum. if it reads, its reads...

Because it's just... indicative, isn't it? Why would anyone start a sentence without a capital letter in any medium, let alone one where your posts will be read by hundreds of people?

Nobody is after perfect spelling and flawless grammatical construct but there tends to be a link between post quality and tendancy to forget what puncutation and capital letters are for.

 

[wakayoda]

Once again proving that all BMW drives are *****!

 

[Robbo]

Once again proving that all BMW drives are *****!

Yeah...

 

[V4NT0M]

Two sides to every story. We have one.

Three, there are three sides to every story.

 

[Stretch]

So this guy ran you over then reported it to the police. I think we're missing part of the story.

someone may have asked this in the last 6 pages. but can't you get free legal advise in the uk?

Probably, but you get what you pay for.

 

[arc@css]

Although it's been mentioned umpteen times, do make sure you have legal representation when you speak to the Police. Never, ever go in without a lawyer! A duty solicitor will always be available, so it shouldn't cost anything.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

By why should it come to this?
In your post, you clearly stated that Police would not do anything to pervert the course of justice. Now you are stating that the defendant should ask him defence team to pull the statement apart.

Strictly speaking, the Police should be providing facts and not be giving a sinister slant to those facts. In effect, by providing a sinister slant, they are perverting the course of justice, by making the defendant sound guilty of some wrong-doing. This is my big gripe with the Police.

Of course, it doesnt help when channel 4 make a documentary, in which some coppers are openly admitting that in their opinion everybody should be locked up and how some of them love to make arrests.

So a defence barrister / lawyer shouldn't try and discredit evidence given by the prosecution ?

If you want slant, defence barristers do it better than most. Trust me on this because I have felt the wrath of barristers in the witness box where I have had accusations of malpractice levelled, totally unfounded, and with the sole intention of muddying the waters. It is what they are paid to do.

I notice you said some coppers. Not all are like that.

 

[Stu_Allcott]

Tbh, he has answered the best he can, i find it hard to recall things when they have really shook me up, i know what happened but most of the details i cant recall due to being too busy pooing my pants.

 

[Meridian]

someone may have asked this in the last 6 pages. but can't you get free legal advise in the uk?

AFAIK, you are only legally entitled to it once you've been arrested. Some organisations may give it before then, and some insurance polices may also cover it.


M

 

[ThePirateHulk]

If the car is travelling at 30mph it's gone before the instant reaction has kicked in with enough force to impact the vehicle, surely?

At 30mph the car is travelling at more than 13 metres a second - and a typical 3 Series is 4.5 metres long. It's no longer in front of you in less than a second.

So you think there was insufficient time for the OP to perform a reflex action which may have had the effect of placing his foot in an unusually high position for it to hit the car yet you think there was sufficient time for the OP to consciously make a decision to kick the car and to carry out that action?

 

[mcast]

The OP story doesn't add up and seems scripted, it's more likely he kicked the car.

OP just remember to keep the lie consistent for the police and you may get away with it or get a good lawyer.

 

[wannabedamned]

Best thing about these threads is how people tell the OP how events went down

You guys should use your physic powers for the good of mankind, not for the bad

 

[Pickman]

Is 'get a lawyer' the best advice? Poor chap might now have to pay a huge pile of cash for a lawyer he may or may not even need.

He doesn't need to 'get a lawyer' as such, but he should atleast speak to a criminal solicitor.

Many small criminal firms offer a free consultation. The OP could try to call local criminal solicitors and see if he could have a chat without charge about the case.

 

[AndyCr15]

So you think there was insufficient time for the OP to perform a reflex action which may have had the effect of placing his foot in an unusually high position for it to hit the car yet you think there was sufficient time for the OP to consciously make a decision to kick the car and to carry out that action?

Yes.

As I said before. Kick a ball at someone and at the last second call them. Then call them and kick the ball at them. In which case are they more likely to move out of the way, or successfully kick it?

 

[Castiel]

Get a lawyer. Ignore anything else said in this thread unless said by a lawyer.



M

GET A SOLICITOR. DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ENTER AN INTERVIEW OR VOLUNTEER ANY INFORMATION WITH THE POLICE WITHOUT LEGAL REPRESENTATION.

You can either arrange for your own to meet you at the station or you can ask for the duty solicitor when you arrive.

 

[mmj_uk]

If questioned I would just keep repeating for them to get the footage from the station, they must surely have a camera on the crossing... if they don't then maybe the police will do a Columbo style bluff 'we have the footage of you driving dangerously and hitting this pedestrian' etc. and get a confession. (yeah probably not )

 

[platinum87]

1 ) By law, remaining silent is not admission of guilt. In a Court of law, they won't convict you because you did not wish to answer questions during the interview.

2) Once you have been cautioned and started spilling your guts...all your words will be used against you. There will be no going back after this. The caution clearly states: "anything you say will/may be used against you". The Police are telling you this in advance. The problem with most people is that they don't listen/understand the caution. The caution is VERY dangerous for a suspect, especially if he decides to spill his guts.

You are more likely to create a problem for yourself if you end up saying something...those words may get twisted and before you know it, they are being read out in Court, making you sound like a very sinister individual.

3)

Also consider that by the time you get to Court, you have all the evidence which has been compiled against you...so you will effectively have inside information. During an interview, you will have absolutely no inside information and will be answering questions in a blind fashion. An intelligent Police officer can change his line of questioning according to what he wants you to say.

This is the very reason why a Police officer will do everything in his power to get you to talk. Of course, if there are witnesses to the case and "actual evidence", eg. a knife with your finger prints, found at the scene of the murder, then staying silent probably won't help you.



4)Have you had experience with the Police? If so, I would be interested to know in what capacity. I'm not having a go at you, I genuinely would like to know.

1) I meant that the police officer in question will believe you are guilty, saying nothing looks like your hiding something...

And as far as i know robots do not fill the positions of judges and jury, therefore being silent will be interpreted as suspicious, it makes people look harder to try to find or convince themselves of something that may or may not be true.

2) Not sure what exactly can be used against me, words cannot be twisted only re-arranged or used out of context. Im not sure how the OP's decription of the incident can be used against him?

3) I am unsure of court procedure, but i will have information based on what questions i am asked. Also, getting me to say what someone wants me to say based on a question is a very weird thing to say, if you ask me if i like pizza and i say yes, then i guess you've got what you wanted, other than that it serves no purpose.

4) I was searched once outside a pub for a made up reason, they found nothing and they went on their way

------------
Im happy to go along with it, If they help me, and be polite they are allies. If they are rude and lie and twist words, they are my enemies.

 

[sunama]

You cannot be proved guilty of a crime by staying silent. I don't think people are understanding this.

From what I understand, the OP has zero evidence, linking him to the alleged crime. Zero. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Correct me if I'm wrong...somebody.

If the only evidence the Police have against you, of causing criminal damage, is you staying silent there is a near 0% chance of you being charged. And if you do get charged, the case will get thrown out of Court, when it is heard.

Judge: Prosecutor can you take us through the evidence against the defendant.
Prosecutor: Your honour, we have no evidence as such, but the defendant did not answer our questions. Based on this, we believe him to be guilty of criminal damage.

If there is no evidence, it is the Police's duty to find evidence. This is their job. So, they must search for witnesses, CCTV and get statements which suggest that the defendant did indeed commit the crime.

The defendant has absolutely nothing to gain by talking. The only chance the Police will have of prosecuting the defendant (due to lack of evidence) is by getting a statement, picking it apart and looking for something he said, which can be used to infer guilt.

If you are suspect, the Police are not your friend. They are basically looking to nail you for the crime. If they can't, then you shall be removed from their enquiries. Remember...this is the job and they must leave no stone unturned.

A court of law doesn't give a damn what the Police "think". The only thing that matters is evidence (statements/witnesses/CCTV, etc). Nothing else. Just because the Police "think" that your silence is an admission of guilt, means nothing. The Judge is also duty bound to not allow personal beliefs to affect his/her final judgement.

The above reason was why OJ Simpson managed to get off on a murder charge. It was so blatantly obvious he did it...but the defence team resisted every argument put forward by the prosecution. The main thing that the defence team had going for them, is that at no stage did OJ admit to murder. Had he given a statement, he would've probably served a very long (possibly, life) sentence. His silence allowed him to walk.

Given that the officer in charge didn't seem too interested in the case, it wouldn't surprise me if nothing is heard about this case ever again. Especially when you consider that most Police forces are going to be a little busy processing cases which relate to the riots.

 

[sunama]

2) Not sure what exactly can be used against me, words cannot be twisted only re-arranged or used out of context. Im not sure how the OP's decription of the incident can be used against him?

In a court of law, a good prosecutor can make an innocent man, sound guilty as hell, providing he has some circumstantial evidence, along with a statement to back him.

Just as the OP's original post, has forced forumites to question his innocence, a good prosecutor will highlight any weaknesses in his statement and bring this to the attention of the Judge/Jury.

Anybody's words can be taken out of context. In law, statements are VERY powerful and any defendant/suspect must be careful what they say, during questioning.

Just as some guilty people "get off", there are also innocent people which get convicted. So, just because you are innocent, it doesn't mean you can put your guard down. Be defensive.

I remember John Leslie was accused of rape and his life was turned upside down. He was proved innocent but his career and life took one heck of a beating. The court case he had (though innocent), was career ending.

 

[Nitefly]

I recently had some studying / role plays about acting as a solicitor in a criminal matter.

As a rule of thumb (obviously depending on the circumstances), never say anything. Ever. Not even your name in an interview - seriously (answering one question can be shown that you are dodging later ones - best to say no comment to everything even if you feel you have nothing to hide).

As has been correctly said, get a solicitor on the case, pronto.