"think seeing it is beneficial!
I have seen little video evidence ever that has been beneficial!
Video evidence is solely at the discretion of who is running the protest/appeal hearing!"
And its exactly this type of response that makes life difficult...... 1. The rules don't say that the source has to be neutral! 2. How can you decide that seeing it will be beneficial...until you have seen it!! 3. The reason you haven't found video evidence beneficial is because you expect it to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt and reject it if it doesn't. But the rules don't require this degree of proof - how often have you seen a video of an incident and thought "well it looks like such & such happened, but it could be misleading." Well the degree of proof required (what probably happened) would be satisfied by that. 4. Video evidence should always be viewed, in my opinion, to not do so is little short of pig ignorant in my book. If it is unhelpful for reasons such as quality, distance, viewpoint etc it doesn't have to be taken into account.
|
|