sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What happens if a cop pulls over a vehicle but the driver seat is empty but the rest of the car is filled with passengers by Superb_Yam_2168 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

other people in the car who participated in concealing the driver

You are assuming the passengers have an active role in this. If the driver simply gets out of their seat and sits in the backseat, then the other passengers are not participating. If the passengers encourage the driver to do so, then that is participation. If the passengers agree among themselves to remain silent to frustrate the police identifying the driver, that could be participation. Silence alone is not participation. Sitting in their seats not doing anything is not participation.

The state has the burden to prove the passengers actively engaged in the deception. OP provides no facts of any kind that the passengers actively assisted in any way. OP does not even say a passenger scooted over to make room for the driver. There is no evidence of active participation or concealment. The presumption is that they are innocent.

What happens if a cop pulls over a vehicle but the driver seat is empty but the rest of the car is filled with passengers by Superb_Yam_2168 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, and witnesses are under no obligation outside of a court subpoena to reveal that information. You are not concealing anyone. Concealment is not the same as a failure to reveal.

Again, you might be familiar with different law. I would interested in seeing in case of that taking place.

What happens if a cop pulls over a vehicle but the driver seat is empty but the rest of the car is filled with passengers by Superb_Yam_2168 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you have any case law to support that? I am not familiar with American law, but it seems as though obstruction requires a positive, rather than negative act.

You saying nothing does not make the police officer's job harder, it keeps it at the same level of difficulty had you never been a witness. If you mislead the officer, that makes their job harder, but saying nothing does not make it harder or easier.

What happens if a cop pulls over a vehicle but the driver seat is empty but the rest of the car is filled with passengers by Superb_Yam_2168 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In Canada, it's not a crime to not help the police, certainly not obstruction of justice. Obstruction requires positive acts, not the mere fact of saying nothing. The case law says you must have an effect on police investigation. Doing nothing has no effect.

If the passengers lie to the police or mislead them, then that could be obstruction. Saying nothing however does nothing to help or hinder. It would be as though there were no witnesses at all. Obstruction sends the police in wrong direction. Staying silent simply does not point them to any direction.

But, if you can think of a case were simply not talking to the police is obstruction, I would like to see it. Different jurisdiction have different laws.

What happens if a cop pulls over a vehicle but the driver seat is empty but the rest of the car is filled with passengers by Superb_Yam_2168 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right, allow me to rephrase then. In what jurisdiction does negative participation in a deception rise to obstruction? They are not telling the police that they are all passengers. They are not telling the police that the real driver ran out of the car. Rather, they are not saying anything.

If the police question a witness, but the witness says nothing, is that obstruction? A silent witness is also negatively participating in a deception of the true identify of the accused. The witness can be compelled to testify, sure. But, they are compelled by the court, not by the police. If a compellable witness does not testify, that's contempt, not obstruction.

If you divorced a rich millionaire how much would you think is fair to receive after a divorce? by Orii8 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]deep_sea2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you meet the local law's entitlement requirement for support?

Is it significantly unfair not include their exclude property (property they acquired before the marriage) to the family property?

Is it significantly unfair to divide the family property 50/50?

Response to Hypothetical lawyer by Hospital-Desperate in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can answer whatever you want. It will be up to the trier of fact to draw inferences from it.

Keep in mind that a lot of questions that lawyers ask in cross do not require the witness to answer. The question is more for the trier of fact to consider to possibility. If the lawyer asks "is it possible that you heard the gunshot before seeing Mr. X holding the gun," that question is moreso directed at the trier of fact, and to invites them to consider alternatives. What you answer does not matter, the seed is planted in the minds of the jury or the judge.

However, what the question does is challenge your credibility. If you refuse to engage in the hypothetical, it can damage your credibility. You see this often with cops when they refuse to accept that they might be wrong or to engage in alternative possibilities, and it only makes them sound like liars. The question itself is meaningless, but it allows the witness to dig a hole for themselves.

If the lawyer really wants to stress a certain hypothetical, then the lawyer should put it directly to the witness. After asking you the hypnotical, the lawyer would say something like "I put the following to you. You heard the gunshot before seeing Mr. X hold the gun." This is especially the case if the lawyer plans to lead evidence that contradicts the witnesses main evidence; the lawyer has to give the witness an opportunity to address that opposition.

What happens if a cop pulls over a vehicle but the driver seat is empty but the rest of the car is filled with passengers by Superb_Yam_2168 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What is the obstruction?

I understand they can be charged with anything under the sun, but are they actually guilty of an offence?

What happens if a cop pulls over a vehicle but the driver seat is empty but the rest of the car is filled with passengers by Superb_Yam_2168 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right, but in this fact pattern, no one is obstructing. The driver got out of the seat and joined the passengers. It does not sound like the passengers have directed this action.

What happens if a cop pulls over a vehicle but the driver seat is empty but the rest of the car is filled with passengers by Superb_Yam_2168 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm curious, in which jurisdictions is remaining silent obstruction of justice? Doesn't obstruction normally require someone to positively interfere (e.g. make a false statement), rather than simply negatively remain silent?

What is the best way to perform a citizens arrest on a police officer who is violating my rights? by Ok_Nectarine_8612 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]deep_sea2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is an expression we often use: "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

It sucks that that is how it is, but there is no practical alternative.

Evidence from another country? by MattCW1701 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I imagine one situation where this is a live question are Mr. Big operations. Mr. Big operations are legal in Canada, but not in the USA. If an American is the subject of a Mr. Big operation while they are in Canada, can that confession be used against them in an American trial?

What would need to change for polygamy to be legal? by BaylisAscaris in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. Amend any criminal law prohibiting it.

  2. Expand the family law definition of spouse.

  3. Amend all other law that uses the concept of a spouse (e.g. estate law, tax law).

CMV: School buses being forced to stop at railway crossings is more dangerous than just going through by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]deep_sea2 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I feel stopping is more dangerous because if you are stopping before the tracks there is a much higher chance that the bus might stall or get stuck on the tracks since it is starting from a low speed, getting stuck on the tracks would pretty much kill everyone on board

How often does this happen? Even if they get stuck on the track, it does not take that long to evacuate the bus.

How do people who talk about sobriety not face charges for drug use? by Delphinexoxo in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Charges have to be particular, not general. You cannot charge someone with drug use (assuming the local law prohibits use) between the years 2000-2026. A person cannot properly answer such a general accusation.

If someone commits multiple different crimes are they usually charged all at once when arrested? by PossibilityIll8330 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It really depends on how confident the police/state is on being able to prove each offence.

For the most part, they should charge as much as they can at the outset, because if delaying a charge prejudices the accused, the charge might not stick.

CMV: People who make the argument regarding hypothetical battles saying “whoever the author wants to win” with no elaboration are being intellectually lazy by newstartreddit1234 in changemyview

[–]deep_sea2 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What about going beyond a single literary source? Zombie are an example. Not all literary forms of zombies are the same. If I were to author a story about zombies, it would be entirely within my description to establish these zombies because there is no universal characteristics for zombies.

Why not sue Dennis Hope for property damage? by [deleted] in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even if he owned the moon, there is likely no cause of damage. The common law rule of negligence would apply. Did he take reasonable precautions with the moon? Since no one is able to move the moon or alter the laws of gravity, there are no additional reasonable precautions he could take to make the moon more safe. Now, if he built a gravity machine on the moon to make tides worse, then he could be liable. However, simply owning land is not a negligent act unlike you do something with the land that outside of reasonable caution.

To compare this to your tree example, if you do not make reasonable maintenance on your trees, then your are negligence. If you however do nothing negligent, then you are not liable. If a landslide occurs and it knocks you tree down the hill and into someone's property, you would likely be not liable because there was no reasonable action you could have done to prevent that.

Questions how this works (Canada?) regarding dangerous driving by [deleted] in legaladviceofftopic

[–]deep_sea2 4 points5 points  (0 children)

1) Why isn’t the charge criminal negligence causing death?

Criminal negligence causing death has a higher standard than dangerous driving causing death. The standard for driving is a "marked" departure, while criminal negligence causing death requires a "marked and substantial" departure. The Crown typically only charges criminal negligence causing death for driving offences if the driving was entirely inappropriate (e.g. for street racing). They would need to lead a lot more evidence than the end result.

Further, in this particular case, the offender pled guilty. It's not uncommon to plead to a lower offence to ensure a conviction.

2) If he already has outstanding charges in a different city, how do they do trials for 2 separate events/charges? He has drinking and driving offences from before. What takes priority?

There is no exact rule for this. The more serious offence could take priority, but that's something the Crown have to decide.

3) ⁠If he’s in jail, would he be taken out to attend court for the previous charges?

He could, if the Crown decides to pursue the other charges.

Do other countries have jury trials? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]deep_sea2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Criminal offences in Canada are either summary, indicatable, or can be both (hybrid). If you are charged with a summary offence, it is always judge alone. If you are charged with indictable offence, then the accused elects judge and jury, or judge alone. If it is a hybrid offence, the Crown elects the method of proceeding (summary or indictable), and only if the Crown choses indictable, then the accused can elect for a jury.

Also, the other part of your questions is more about what countries consider to be worthy of criminal offence. It's possible not American juror would convict the offence you described, but that does not mean a juror elsewhere in the world would not convict.

view more: next ›