Originally Posted by
neil
This is police-speak for "I don't give a flying ****." Video submitted while at the scene should be legitimate evidence. Yes, if you go home and send it in later, this would create reasonable doubt in criminal matters, but - and I'm not an expert - I would expect would still be useful for prosecuting a fine or for suing his ass.
Photos can be* edited, too, and these are used in court all the time. A photograph itself isn't evidence in a complete sense. It's a view into something, and, coupled with the sworn testimony of the person who created the photo, that it isn't doctored in some important way*, they're pretty effective in court. I would be shocked if the same wasn't true for video. The main difference is that while Stalin can have his buddy taken out of a photo, it's a lot more difficult to do this at 24 frames per second.
* Actually, photos can't be shown without some kind of editing. When you take a roll of film to Walgreens, their machine adjusts the contrast, does some sharpening, etc. Some people clone dust and scratches away. As long as this doesn't change the fact that you have a shot of Norman Bates with the knife in his hand, pulling the shower curtain back, it's immaterial. So I'm pretty sure "Video can be edited" means "This is a good doughnut."
The OP should probably go to the emergency room, and see if they can find any evidence of his having been assaulted. A punch in the face is certain to at least break some capillaries.
Originally Posted by
neil
I always find it odd the number of angry drivers posters here encounter. I've had the odd moron slow down to shout something at me, and the very occasional honking, but nothing physical, and nothing that approaches the anger that some of you get, and it's pretty uncommon.
It shouldn't be. I must pass and be passed by a thousand cars every day while commuting. But for the most part, these encounters aren't salient enough to start a thread over.