• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • No minimal standard. Where there's smoke.....

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Reasonable Suspicion

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Probable Cause

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Preponderance of the Evidence

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Clear and Convincing

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

    Votes: 23 85.2%

  • Beyond All Possible Doubt

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Something else

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • Total voters
    27
X Factor

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,615
Reaction score
32,224
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 
Last edited:
The same burden of proof that any another person in the justice system is judged by..
If you start with different burdens, then it might degenerate into something like the no witnesses/no rape rules that some countries have.
Do we have to have video/audio/dna evidence to prosecute the police? Do you have to have 4 witnesses?

The major problem is conflict of interest from DAs and forensics.


You can have different expectations as to behaviour. Police should be held to a higher standard of behaviour because they are supposed to know the laws. Lawyers, judges as well. This means that prosecutors will have less discretion is cases involving said people. Incentive programs for the number of tickets, arrests and/or convictions should be illegal.
 
X Factor said:
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?
Click to expand...

Have you considered the possibility that the "implication" in bold is your own fabrication and nobody actually thinks this?
 
Deuce said:
Have you considered the possibility that the "implication" in bold is your own fabrication and nobody actually thinks this?
Click to expand...

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.
 
RogueWarrior said:
The same burden of proof that any another person in the justice system is judged by..
If you start with different burdens, then it might degenerate into something like the no witnesses/no rape rules that some countries have.
Do we have to have video/audio/dna evidence to prosecute the police? Do you have to have 4 witnesses?

The major problem is conflict of interest from DAs and forensics.


You can have different expectations as to behaviour. Police should be held to a higher standard of behaviour because they are supposed to know the laws. Lawyers, judges as well. This means that prosecutors will have less discretion is cases involving said people. Incentive programs for the number of tickets, arrests and/or convictions should be illegal.
Click to expand...

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.
 
X Factor said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Same standard as anyone else.
 
pbrauer said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, and as much as I am usually pro-cop, I'm usually even more pro-prosecution (I fully supported Zimmerman being taken to trial), but what that state prosecutor did was obvious as was her subsequent grandstanding.
 
Depends on how vocal and violent the mob is.
 
X Factor said:
I agree with that, and as much as I am usually pro-cop, I'm usually even more pro-prosecution (I fully supported Zimmerman being taken to trial), but what that state prosecutor did was obvious as was her subsequent grandstanding.
Click to expand...

That's how prosecution always works - throw the book at em and coerce them into pleading to a lesser charge. That, and a 95% conviction rate, is how 90% of cases never go to trial. If not for plea bargains, within a month our courts would be backlogged so far we'd either have to spend billions upon billions adding new courts and public lawyers (plea deals is how a NYC lawyer can manage 1000 defendants), or stop prosecuting many crimes altogether

Our system isn't really adversarial, or even about justice, so much as streamlining things.
 
chromium said:
That's how prosecution always works - throw the book at em and coerce them into pleading to a lesser charge. That, and a 95% conviction rate, is how 90% of cases never go to trial. If not for plea bargains, within a month our courts would be backlogged so far we'd either have to spend billions upon billions adding new courts and public lawyers (plea deals is how a NYC lawyer can manage 1000 defendants), or stop prosecuting many crimes altogether

Our system isn't really adversarial, or even about justice, so much as streamlining things.
Click to expand...

I'll greet your cynicism with some of my own and say that the majority of people don't have a problem pleading guilty because they are, in fact, guilty and they're just hoping for the best possible deal. You're right though, system would collapse if every single person charged from a traffic ticket to murder insisted on a jury trial.
 
X Factor said:
I'll greet your cynicism with some of my own and say that the majority of people don't have a problem pleading guilty because they are, in fact, guilty and they're just hoping for the best possible deal. You're right though, system would collapse if every single person charged from a traffic ticket to murder insisted on a jury trial.
Click to expand...

If they weren't charged with 2nd degree murder, the prosecutor would have nothing to bargain with, as the public would never accept a 2nd degree manslaughter plea. That's how it goes in just about every case where someone's killed and self defense is certainly questionable

It'd be fine with me to do away with plea bargains, but that's the explanation i'm going with
 
chromium said:
If they weren't charged with 2nd degree murder, the prosecutor would have nothing to bargain with, as the public would never accept a 2nd degree manslaughter plea. That's how it goes in just about every case where someone's killed and self defense is certainly questionable

It'd be fine with me to do away with plea bargains, but that's the explanation i'm going with
Click to expand...

I'll bet you these cops don't take any plea and quite frankly, what the public accepts or wants should be irrelevant.
 
Same as everyone else. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
X Factor said:
I'll bet you these cops don't take any plea and quite frankly, what the public accepts or wants should be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

well, i do believe that the only considerations should be the facts of the case and the victim

one factor is that if the cops plea guilty to anything, they'll never get a job in public safety again. The prosecutor should've charged them with manslaughter then and gone for a guilty verdict, which seems a lot more likely to succeed. Perhaps you're right then and the murder charge was just political
 
Police on trial should be given the same standard as everyone else. The problem is that our culture likes to defer to authority and tends to support police without thinking. That's why police almost never even see trial when they commit crimes.
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's an entirely different question.

People get upset when criminals they perceive to be guilty get let off. This isn't specific to police officers.

You want to prove your assertion? Find someone who actually says the standard of evidence should be lower.
 
Personally, I think Marilyn Mosby State Atty of Maryland came out of the gates and sounded like a friggin politician to appease the blood thirsty crowd calling for these cops to be hung first and ask questions later.

Her whole statement in her press conference was so political and her words themselves had already convicted the officers before trial.

She's got a big problem with the Gray family attorney is one of her biggest political donors.

The women should recuse herself. In fact the trial should be moved from Baltimore to insure the officers get a fair trial. In her press conference her own words have tainted the jury pool.

Not only that what has been leaked to the press versus what Mosby charged the officers with isn't jiving. In any other case across this land the charges against these officers would be a long stretch to get passed a Grand Jury.

And if that happens that the Grand Jury can not find probable cause then the officer will not go to trial then what? More of the asinine behavior we have seen by those rioting in Baltimore?

From the mayor telling cops to stand down while they destroyed numerous businesses, injured dozens of officers, not to begin to mention the cost to all the taxpayers over all the mayhem, because it has been handled poorly. And when a bunch of folks have proved they are incompetent in dealing with this, the cases against the officers should be moved to another location to insure they have a fair trial.
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Either your comprehension skills are lacking or you are deliberately lying about what I said.
I said I would find it hard to care, not that I would be completely fine or even ok with it. It used to be the default was to care. They have a difficult job.

But today's police forces act more like a criminal gang. The entire justice system acts like a criminal gang. Not a fan of either at this point.
  • asset forfeiture. Carrying a large amount of cash around? Must be drug money. If you can prove it isn't you might get it back. I.e. guilty until proven innocent.
  • internal immigration check points that use drug sniffing dogs to create probable cause. Never mind that police don't even track the dog's performance. Is a positive really a positive? Or just prompting?
  • TSA rape stations
  • judges that accept 'afluenza' as an acceptable reason not jail a drunk driver that killed 4 people
  • judges that sign warrants for 8 hour medical procedures that include multiple rectal searches, and colonoscopies based on 'butt clenching'
  • stop and frisk
  • cops that don't like the 2nd amendment
  • cops that yell 'camera'
  • cops that think the absolute worst crime is to disrespect them. The usual sentence is a beating or death. Maybe all americans should meek little sheep and just bend over?
  • no-knock warrants
  • SWAT raids for 'animal cruelty'.
  • SWAT raids that kill the family dog, especially when they have the wrong fing house.
  • SWAT raids to enforce copyright law
  • SWAT raids looking for stolen koi
  • for-profit prisons
  • cash incentives for the number of arrests or convictions

America isn't the land of the free anymore.

Why should I try to hard to care about the people making it that way? Or at least not stopping their brethren from making it that way.
I would, by default, care about their families' pain.
 
RogueWarrior said:
No. Either your comprehension skills are lacking or you are deliberately lying about what I said.
I said I would find it hard to care, not that I would be completely fine or even ok with it. It used to be the default was to care. They have a difficult job.
Click to expand...

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.

But today's police forces act more like a criminal gang. The entire justice system acts like a criminal gang. Not a fan of either at this point.
  • asset forfeiture. Carrying a large amount of cash around? Must be drug money. If you can prove it isn't you might get it back. I.e. guilty until proven innocent.
  • internal immigration check points that use drug sniffing dogs to create probable cause. Never mind that police don't even track the dog's performance. Is a positive really a positive? Or just prompting?
  • TSA rape stations
  • judges that accept 'afluenza' as an acceptable reason not jail a drunk driver that killed 4 people
  • judges that sign warrants for 8 hour medical procedures that include multiple rectal searches, and colonoscopies based on 'butt clenching'
  • stop and frisk
  • cops that don't like the 2nd amendment
  • cops that yell 'camera'
  • cops that think the absolute worst crime is to disrespect them. The usual sentence is a beating or death. Maybe all americans should meek little sheep and just bend over?
  • no-knock warrants
  • SWAT raids for 'animal cruelty'.
  • SWAT raids that kill the family dog, especially when they have the wrong fing house.
  • SWAT raids to enforce copyright law
  • SWAT raids looking for stolen koi
  • for-profit prisons
  • cash incentives for the number of arrests or convictions

America isn't the land of the free anymore.

Why should I try to hard to care about the people making it that way?
Or at least not stopping their brethren from making it that way.
Click to expand...

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.


I would, by default, care about their families' pain.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pbrauer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom