That is the exact point at which someone should be convicted.
Okay, we’re on the same page then.
The real disagreement, as has been suggested, is over whether, in particular cases, it is not reasonable to believe anything other than that particular self defense claims are false.
Sure, if there was* absolutely no evidence of any kind* other than the statement of the accused, a hypothetical I described in post #5690 and which has no real-world analog of which I am aware.
Heck, even there is no such statement, the prosecution still has to present evidence that a murder actually took place.
Bullshit. You’re burying the distinction between innocence in the sense of “I had no involvement in the murder” and “I killed him, but here’s why it was not murder…”
And incidentally, the distinction between “innocent” and “not guilty.”
Yep. I’m pretty sure the ongoing disagreement with Steophan is just about whether particular cases meet the bar for beyond reasonable doubt, not whether the bar needs to be met.
Now you seem to be saying the prosecution has to disprove self defense, even if it hasn’t been asserted. Have I interpreted your post correctly? It’s crap like this that casts doubt on your ability to sort through various legal niceties and concepts like “affirmative defense.” (Note the American spelling, please.)
Wait, so you’re saying a claim of self defense should be a get out of jail free card? Even before a “defendant” becomes a “defendant”? How does this allow any murder whatsoever to be prosecuted, or even investigated? Because that’s what you were being asked about.
forensic evidence that would prove murder if analyzed lies on floor
“Should we test this?”
“Nah, don’t bother, guy said it was self defense. Have the cleanup crew get rid of it.”
I don’t see any excuse for tasering a six-year-old, but I don’t see why tasering the mentally ill is automatically bad. If someone is too disturbed to realize that attacking cops can get him killed, then tasering him seems better than shooting him.
Obviously, if it turns out that there was no need for it, then it’s wrong. But the quote made it sound like it’s wrong just because the taserees were mentally ill, and I don’t see that
Only in your own fetid little mind, shit for brains. The test is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” not “the police are inherently entitled to the benefit of the doubt.”
Unless he is a police sniper.
Sorry you’re not following the thread closely enough to understand what it is you’re trying to insult me over. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard for proving someone guilty of a crime; it has nothing to do with whether or not a crime has been committed. The overwhelming majority of times that the police use force against a civilian, no crime has been committed by the police; it is part of their job to use force to apprehend lawbreakers who refuse to go peacefully, and it is therefore reasonable to assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary (to give them the benefit of the doubt, if you will) that the use of force by the police is lawful.
Unless, of course, you’re throwing your chips in with the anarchist crowd here who believes every use of police force is a crime, every shooting should be prosecuted as capital murder, and the police should be expected to throw up their hands and martyr themselves in the name of some vague platitude about liberty.
That’s insane.
The answer to the question “who will watch the watchmen” is actually pretty simple; their employers must do so. Caveat emptor, more or less. In a democracy, the employer of all LEOs is the respective electorate in their zone of authority, as represented by elected government. And because law enforcement personnel are empowered and required to perform acts which would otherwise be considered breaches of the general peace, of civil rights or of property rights, we set [what society feels are] appropriate standards for the use of that authority.
Unlike some more authoritarian societies (where I assume you would be more comfortable, Smapti), democracies (including US) exert scrutiny over not just the end results of law enforcement activities, but also over the uses of those aspects of authority which would otherwise be some form of trespass against persons or property.
That means whenever a LEO confiscates property, that action must be reported and justified by statutory code, the property must be inventoried and kept safe for legal dispensation and the overall inventories of such property must be maintained and subject to checks by supervising (read: elected governmental) authority. Whenever a LEO uses force against a person in the course of their authorized and required law enforcement activities, that action must be reported, details of who, when, where and how must be included and kept for review, and the action must also be justified by citation of statute permitting that specific use of force as a lawful action. Those records must also be kept safe and be subject to review by the same supervising authority.
So, no, cops are NOT given ‘benefit of the doubt’ when using their authority. Whenever the level of scrutiny of their actions is reduced, the occurrences of abuse can be expected to rise. Anybody who believes ‘benefit of the doubt’ is or should be given to law enforcement actions must be, IMO, seriously naïve, socially deranged, imbecilic, or overly biased through investment in the consequences and contexts of law enforcement (i.e. a LEO or close associate).
Please list the posters here who believe this, along with proof that this is their opinion.
If you fail to do this I will charge your computer with “aiding stupidity” and seize it.
A good demonstration of police professionalism: - YouTube
He should be fired yesterday.
The longer version of that video is available, and I can sort of feel slight sympathy for the cop, trying to deal with these braindead hicks. It’s still grossly unprofessional, of course.
What really pisses me off about that is that the Sheriff’s Dept and the deputy, as well as the reporters, are focused on the foul language. Nobody is talking about his violation of the guy’s Fourth Amendment protections.
Seriously, what is a realistic remedy here? Is someone like this kid supposed to bring suit just to make ths point about respecting civil rights?
Once again, following instructions and shutting your mouth > throwing a tantrum about “I THOUGHT THIS WAS 'MERIKA!”
And that’s what happens, but this thread is chock full of people who aren’t happy with that - they want every shooting referred to a special prosecutor and tried as first-degree murder, they want every cop who so much as uses curt language to be fired and publicly shamed, they want every property seizure declared unconstitutional.
The proper authorities passed a law that affords citizens protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Why are you against authority?
You crazy, crazy fuck.