Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Donut Shop
Accident fault from brake checking someone?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="sc98cbra" data-source="post: 15673254" data-attributes="member: 73814"><p>My point exactly. There are many risks that logically follow from this. Memories fade, people lie, and people disappear, so please explain to me why you wouldn't want to involve an independent third party (authorities) to document a collision. I can state plenty of reasons why you would want to involve authorities for 99.9% of collisions. Point is, the OP should have involved authorities for this collision.</p><p></p><p>Telling people to refrain from calling authorities following certain collisions is terrible advice.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You have a very black and white view of the law. A conversation between two or more parties is not a "public conversation," as you put it, simply because it occurs in a public setting. There are many cases in which it is illegal to record conversations, regardless of the setting of their occurrence, without the knowledge of all parties. The OP and another poster, in addition to yourself, seem to believe that it is always legal to record conversations (see below) merely because they occur in public, and that is not entirely accurate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="sc98cbra, post: 15673254, member: 73814"] My point exactly. There are many risks that logically follow from this. Memories fade, people lie, and people disappear, so please explain to me why you wouldn't want to involve an independent third party (authorities) to document a collision. I can state plenty of reasons why you would want to involve authorities for 99.9% of collisions. Point is, the OP should have involved authorities for this collision. Telling people to refrain from calling authorities following certain collisions is terrible advice. You have a very black and white view of the law. A conversation between two or more parties is not a "public conversation," as you put it, simply because it occurs in a public setting. There are many cases in which it is illegal to record conversations, regardless of the setting of their occurrence, without the knowledge of all parties. The OP and another poster, in addition to yourself, seem to believe that it is always legal to record conversations (see below) merely because they occur in public, and that is not entirely accurate. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Donut Shop
Accident fault from brake checking someone?
Top