Scum caught keying Aston on dashcam
Discussion
Centurion07 said:
I've watched it again and you definitely do not see the key make contact with the car, but please feel free to post the exact frame where you claim you can.
It's a physical impossibilty for the camera to see down the side of the car.
As I said, we all know what happened, but I would imagine a solicitor would argue the point that you don't see any contact.
That on the same day, whilst parked in the location where the video evidence was recorded, that the car sustained damage to the paintwork along its near side, commensurate with that associated with the deliberate action known as 'keying', the conclusion "Beyond reasonable doubt" is that they have indeed arrested the culprit. It's a physical impossibilty for the camera to see down the side of the car.
As I said, we all know what happened, but I would imagine a solicitor would argue the point that you don't see any contact.
Centurion07 said:
Borgoking said:
Burwood said:
No disrespect but you're blind. Slow the video frame by frame it is crystal clear..
Absolutely, in my eye's you can clearly see the key touch the car. To back this up andeven more distinct, you hear the noise as he runs it down the side of the car, no brainer,open and shut case!!!!!
It's a physical impossibilty for the camera to see down the side of the car.
As I said, we all know what happened, but I would imagine a solicitor would argue the point that you don't see any contact.
ked. The real question is, will he plead guilty and get a proper punishment. I would put money on it he has a long list of priors incl drugsBurwood said:
The video blurs when you try and stop it to screen print. Im probably wasting my time here but you can see the keys clearly in his hand and whilst you can not see the point of the key, you see him holding the top of the key (there is no doubt he is holding a key down towards the car), reaching far left, point down and 'something; is heard impacting the car associated with what sounds like a scraping along the side. Luckily the burden of proof is such that he is fked. The real question is, will he plead guilty and get a proper punishment. I would put money on it he has a long list of priors incl drugs
As I said, we all "know" what happened, I was just making the point that as you don't actually see anything make contact with the car, it wouldn't surprise me to find out his solicitor was trying to use that as "reasonable doubt". Not being a solicitor I wouldn't know if that was enough to bother arguing in court, or if the video as it stands is enough to convict.In a similar vein....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIX4LW6BZCU
WTF is going on.
Guys ignoring the Police and driving off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIX4LW6BZCU
WTF is going on.
Guys ignoring the Police and driving off.
Centurion07 said:
Burwood said:
The video blurs when you try and stop it to screen print. Im probably wasting my time here but you can see the keys clearly in his hand and whilst you can not see the point of the key, you see him holding the top of the key (there is no doubt he is holding a key down towards the car), reaching far left, point down and 'something; is heard impacting the car associated with what sounds like a scraping along the side. Luckily the burden of proof is such that he is fked. The real question is, will he plead guilty and get a proper punishment. I would put money on it he has a long list of priors incl drugs
As I said, we all "know" what happened, I was just making the point that as you don't actually see anything make contact with the car, it wouldn't surprise me to find out his solicitor was trying to use that as "reasonable doubt". Not being a solicitor I wouldn't know if that was enough to bother arguing in court, or if the video as it stands is enough to convict.
Circumstantial evidence that weighs very heavily against the scrote.
Could they really argue that you don't actually see the point of impact with car and key and therefore no proof? A video showing someone pulling the trigger on a gun but you don't see the impact of the bullet? Would that be the same? There is absolutely no doubt in any sane persons mind that that guy keyed that car, you see him withdraw the key, walk to the car, aim the key towards the car the key then the noise. If our law lets this guy off then it's just another example that it is seriously flawed.
marknash99 said:
Could they really argue that you don't actually see the point of impact with car and key and therefore no proof? A video showing someone pulling the trigger on a gun but you don't see the impact of the bullet? Would that be the same? There is absolutely no doubt in any sane persons mind that that guy keyed that car, you see him withdraw the key, walk to the car, aim the key towards the car the key then the noise. If our law lets this guy off then it's just another example that it is seriously flawed.
[Devil's Advocate]Did you see the car beforehand? Did you see the car after this video was recorded? When exactly was this video recorded? Did you see the scratch being made? What was the object that scratched the car? What is the provenance of the video? What has been the chain of custody of the video? ... [/Devil's Advocate]It's circumstantial evidence. The video doesn't show the car beforehand. It doesn't show the scratch. It doesn't show what the car was like after the scrote walked past it. This evidence, strong as it is, requires other evidence to prove guilt Albeit circumstantial, this evidence is so strong that the scrote will hopefully confess, but if it goes to trial then hopefully the jury of sane people will find sense.
Edited by V8LM on Friday 28th August 12:04
V8LM said:
[Devil's Advocate]Did you see the car beforehand? Did you see the car after this video was recorded? When exactly was this video recorded? Did you see the scratch being made? What was the object that scratched the car? What is the provenance of the video? What has been the chain of custody of the video? ... [/Devil's Advocate]
It's circumstantial evidence. The video doesn't show the car beforehand. It doesn't show the scratch. It doesn't show what the car was like after the scrote walked past it. This evidence, strong as it is, requires other evidence to prove guilt Albeit circumstantial, this evidence is so strong that the scrote will hopefully confess, but if it goes to trial then hopefully the jury of sane people will find sense.
If indeed the extent of damage is above the £5k threshold, then there will have to be a trial, and the case will be heard before a jury, I'm Just hoping that the owner has a half decent lawyer and the scumbag just has a legal aid lawyer...(not that there is anything wrong with one) and that the scrote is banged to rights.It's circumstantial evidence. The video doesn't show the car beforehand. It doesn't show the scratch. It doesn't show what the car was like after the scrote walked past it. This evidence, strong as it is, requires other evidence to prove guilt Albeit circumstantial, this evidence is so strong that the scrote will hopefully confess, but if it goes to trial then hopefully the jury of sane people will find sense.
Edited by V8LM on Friday 28th August 12:04
To some it may seem an open shut case, but unfortunately as pointed out above there is likely to be an arguing of the evidence unfortunately - defendant deserves a short stay at her majesty custom, and to pay in full - assuming that he hands over all bank details to show his financial status.
mattf93 said:
If indeed the extent of damage is above the £5k threshold, then there will have to be a trial, and the case will be heard before a jury, I'm Just hoping that the owner has a half decent lawyer and the scumbag just has a legal aid lawyer...(not that there is anything wrong with one) and that the scrote is banged to rights.
To some it may seem an open shut case, but unfortunately as pointed out above there is likely to be an arguing of the evidence unfortunately - defendant deserves a short stay at her majesty custom, and to pay in full - assuming that he hands over all bank details to show his financial status.
Why would the owner need a lawyer? If criminal damage is done, doesn't the state prosecute?To some it may seem an open shut case, but unfortunately as pointed out above there is likely to be an arguing of the evidence unfortunately - defendant deserves a short stay at her majesty custom, and to pay in full - assuming that he hands over all bank details to show his financial status.
The owners insurance company will pay for the damage and they might take civil proceeding for recovery which even if they win will amount to bugger all.
Dromedary66 said:
A single father? Is he hell going down. I'd settle for him picking st up from roundabouts for a few months and full recompense to the owner. 
xjay1337 said:
It's completely horrible what this guy did
But £8k of damage?
Aston or not it's just paint.
A full bare metal respray, glass out job is like £5-6k at most.
So assuming it's front wing, door and rear wing how is that £8k?
Things get expensive when you involve fibreglass and ally. Also gets more expensive when you're paying for a job that will leave zero evidence behind. But £8k of damage?
Aston or not it's just paint.
A full bare metal respray, glass out job is like £5-6k at most.
So assuming it's front wing, door and rear wing how is that £8k?
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff