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 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

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

  1. #41
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe



    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    30,542

    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
    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.
    Best summation yet of why the trial should perhaps be moved out of Baltimore, and one I hadn't even considered until I read this post.

  2. #42
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,939
    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
    Watching one of the news networks and one of the guests was lamenting the lack of convictions when the defendant is someone who is or was a cop. I found that interesting and the implication seemed to be that conviction in the Gray case needs to be a pretty much forgone conclusion. Honestly, I'm not sure at all how you get a murder conviction based on the facts as I understand them to be (which may be far different than what's presented at trial), much less a definite conviction. I started wondering if people believed that the prosecutions burden should be something less (or perhaps more) than beyond a reasonable doubt when the person tried is a cop. I actually think a legit argument could be made than someone is a position of authority they way cops are, should not also enjoy quite the same constitutional protections as ordinary citizens although I would totally disagree with that position.
    What do you think?


    Everyone who is put on trial in the USA should have the same constitutional protections.

    If you can't prove a cop or anyone else guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they should go free.

  3. #43
    Advisor plutonium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    05-18-17 @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    545

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

    beyond a reasonable doubt like any other citizen no more no less...everyone treated the same in a court of law...but the question is...does police guidelines allows citizens to be killed easily or does the law allow citizens to be killed easily by police
    I find the lack of logic in humans most disturbing...

  4. #44
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The South Pacific
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:15 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    57,025

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

    They are not guilty of murder in the slightest... negligence or false arrest charges? Possibly...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

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