View Poll Results: When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • No minimal standard. Where there's smoke.....

    0 0%
  • Reasonable Suspicion

    0 0%
  • Probable Cause

    0 0%
  • Preponderance of the Evidence

    1 3.70%
  • Clear and Convincing

    1 3.70%
  • Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

    23 85.19%
  • Beyond All Possible Doubt

    0 0%
  • Something else

    2 7.41%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

  1. #21
    Guru
    RogueWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Atheist Utopia aka Reality
    Last Seen
    05-24-17 @ 02:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,592

    Re: When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    If you don't give a **** that it happened, that means you're fine with it. I didn't really care who won the Super Bowl so I was completly fine with the result no matter what the result actually was. Not sure who you think you're fooling.



    You shouldn't and if I was a cop or a family member of a cop I would want exactly zero from you. I'd sure as hell know not to expect anything from you. Of course, I'd be hard pressed to give a damn if you suddenly needed a cop and they were busy somewhere else doing something good for someone who didn't regard the idea of cop killing with a giant, "I don't have any problem with it", but I also know that most cops are better than that.




    Sure you would as you'd let them know just how much they deserved it and/or just how little you give a ****. You also made it clear you'd be fine with it regardless of the circumstances of a cop's injury/death. It doesn't matter. Your concern or lack of it would be pretty damn useless anyway.

    I do like how you put "animal cruelty" in quotes like it's not a real crime.
    Now I understand other posters' problems with you. You twist and distort to suit your perception.

    Does a suspicion of animal cruelty merit paramilitary intervention? If so, I saw you hitting your dog the other day, sleep lightly.

    Again the misrepresentation! I have never, ever said I wouldn't have a problem with it. I have never said I didn't give a **** it happened. I said I would find it hard to care, NOT that I couldn't care. FFS it is like arguing with a religious theist.
    Everyone is born a homo sapiens sapiens but not everyone is a human. -RW
    Trumplethinskin! 4 handicap and getting better every weekend!

  2. #22
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    03-30-17 @ 03:14 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

    The OP is asserting police are found not guilty because the prosecutor put on the best case the prosecutor could - and the judge or jury considered the case as it would for anyone else.

    THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THOSE ASSUMPTIONS:
    1. Often there are millions of budget dollars at stake if the officer is found guilty.
    2. One only has to look at this forum to see there are many people who believe police can essentially do anything, that other people cannot. There is a double standard favoring police.
    3. Most judges and prosecutors are elected and police tend to be highly influential in elections.
    4. Police do not like to testify against other police.
    5. Police are generally allowed lower bail so are not sitting in jail, thus less incentive to plea bargain even if innocent
    6. On average, police get much better lawyers. I've never seen a case of a police officer having to rely on a public defender.

  3. #23
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,079

    Re: When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

    The burden of proof in a case involving a cop should be the same as it is in any other case.

    And honestly, lack of convictions when cops go to trial isn't really the issue, or at least it's not the main issue. The far bigger issue is how few of them go to trial in the first place, or face any sort of accountability for their actions at all when they abuse their power.

    I do agree that a murder charge is very unlikely to stick in the Freddie Gray case, but the officers involved are guilty at the very least of negligent homicide.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  4. #24
    Hot Flash Mama
    Summerwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    01-23-17 @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,010

    Re: When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    Nobody? You feel confident that if those cops are acquitted, it will be calmly accepted? It won't be because a lot of people think these cops should be convicted, like, right now and not doing so will be a failure of the racist jury (it won't matter that 3 of the cops are black and the one with the highest charge is a black woman) or the corrupt system etc.
    Not a racist jury, a scared jury. The police will know who served on the jury. And we are already seeing how they seem to be of one mind when it comes to abusing power with the impoverished, I have no doubt that the jury worries what the defendants' cohorts will do, or not do, that will cause the jurors harm or distress.
    jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "

  5. #25
    Hot Flash Mama
    Summerwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    01-23-17 @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,010

    Re: When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    I don't believe anyone of them will be convicted of murder, but I do believe they are culpable for his death and should be punished in some way. I think the second degree charge is nothing more than a way to appease the protestors. In the end, the cops will walk.
    I don't know but I thought that the fact she's also calling it an unlawful arrest could be what she uses to show intent as well. If there was no reason to arrest him, then everything they did or didn't do from that point on is pretty much intended and criminal.
    jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "

  6. #26
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    03-30-17 @ 03:14 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    But what if these cops are acquitted because the prosecution couldn't meet that high standard of proof? Isn't that why you stated you'd be completely fine with someone attacking or even killing cops for being cops? No standard of proof required.
    Eliminate their being police and conviction would be a certainty.

    3 or 4 people jump someone on the street, assaulting that person. Tying his arms behind his back, they drag him as he howls in pain to put him in the back of a big steel tool box on the back of a truck. For over half an hour that person is driven around. After this, the person has a broken back or neck and days later dies.

    Would ANYONE buy the claim that they committed no crime? Of course not. BUT they are police, so there are entirely different standards it seems. People are SO conditioned to police violence and abuse now they accept that police literally are above the law.

    THAT is how extreme the double standard is. Police can literally assault and kill anyone - until it can be proven that the thoughts in their head were unquestionably to kill that person.

    ANYONE BUT police absolutely would be found guilt of aggravated assault or minimally manslaughter. The only thing the police should be immune from in criminal charges because they are police is illegal imprisonment/kidnapping. Otherwise, they SHOULD be held to the same standards as everyone else - but they are not.

  7. #27
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    03-30-17 @ 03:14 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    I don't know but I thought that the fact she's also calling it an unlawful arrest could be what she uses to show intent as well. If there was no reason to arrest him, then everything they did or didn't do from that point on is pretty much intended and criminal.
    Nor does arresting someone justify violently assaulting and ultimately killing the person. Unfortunately, a notable percentage of the population believe that once someone is being arrested the police become exempt from all laws.

  8. #28
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:07 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,199

    Re: When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    Same standard as anyone else.
    One would think this would be the obvious answer, yet it's not even included as a poll option.
    Old saying: Any child can grow up to be President.
    New saying: Any child can be President.

  9. #29
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:07 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,199

    Re: When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Same as everyone else. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Wouldn't that depend on the crime/accusation?
    Old saying: Any child can grow up to be President.
    New saying: Any child can be President.

  10. #30
    Hot Flash Mama
    Summerwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    01-23-17 @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,010

    Re: When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Nor does arresting someone justify violently assaulting and ultimately killing the person. Unfortunately, a notable percentage of the population believe that once someone is being arrested the police become exempt from all laws.
    True enough, but had it been a legal arrest the intent would not be so easily considered, then the whole, oops we forgot to buckle him bs has legs... but with a illegal arrest shows intent to at the very least hassle the guy... I think it will make a difference in the murder charges rather than simply negligence.
    jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •