Quote:
Originally Posted by PG2
So if I commit a break and enter and an officer of the law does not "witness" it (by your definition, see it) I can get away with it?
Think about this even with a fence built around it. So if an officer of the law can hear tyres screeching, can see smoke and can smell the aroma of burnt rubber all coming from the same area he or she can't gain entry and take action?
|
Correct!. The cops would need to "eyewitness" & ID the driver & issue a summons. In the long run it would most likely end in a court room with a magistrate asking the prosecution (magistrate): "did you personally eye witness the incident"? The obvious answer would have to be (prosecutor): "no, the incident was witnessed indirectly your honour". (magistrate): "what do you mean by indirectly"? (prosecutor): "a fence was obscuring the view but the offence was heard your honour".(magistrate): "can you identify the alleged offender in this court room"? (prosecutor): "no your honour, a fence obscured the view".CASE DISMISSED! If a police officer see's a crime, they are the first person witness, if a police officer is informed by another individual about a crime, it is then classed as an alleged offence & it's up to police & a prosecutor to prove the offence took place & committed by the individual in question. If your house get burgled it's up to you or police to figure out who did it. If you point the finger at someone, the police can arrest them with suspicion but must still prove they were responsible. You can't charge a car for doing a burnout, you must charge the driver.