Why is an Officers word considered "evidence" ?

[HertsBiker]

..when anyone elses word is hearsay or not valid?

Taking some training & swearing allegiance & all that doesn't make an officer a "better" person, just one who has done the rigmarole. So why then, should they be trusted more than Joe Public, especially as there are plenty (none here obviously!) of dodgy cops around. We're all only mere human beings subject to temptation / corruption after all. How do we know a police man is always being truthful / lawful ?

cheers


(please note this is not intended as a wind up or to annoy any serving officers who post here. I just wanna know! )

[vonhosen]

Your account is evidence too.

[HertsBiker]

ok so why is an officer trusted more than a MOP who also swears on a bible in court?
(will be back on ph later. Gotta rush, thanks)

[vonhosen]

HertsBiker said:

ok so why is an officer trusted more than a MOP who also swears on a bible in court?
(will be back on ph later. Gotta rush, thanks)

They aren't 'trusted' more. The evidence is put before the court & the court will consider all the circumstances. They may lend more weight to one persons testimony than another's based on a number of things, but the officers evidence doesn't automatically trump the evidence of someone who isn't.

[randlemarcus]

Was pondering the same thing myself the other day. In the end, I suspect its mostly because he is seen to be disinterested , whereas you have an obvious interest stemming from your evidence, and that's about it.
As Von rightly points out, if the jury choose to believe you rather than him, thats the benefit of our justice system being ever so slightly arbitrary. I would have thought that going through their minds would be the amount you have to lose from committing perjury, as well.

[tigger1]

randlemarcus said:

arbitrary. I would have thought that going through their minds would be the amount you have to lose from committing perjury, as well.

As an aside - two people can give radically different accounts of an event while both are telling the truth. The "actual" events are quite likely to be a mix of the two tales.

[tomuch]

This remind me of the robin reliant , where the judge advice that the officer he had over cooked the pudding.

[outlaw...]

because they all lie so often if they did not pretend too belive em then everyone would walk.
jurys dont all ways belive em but magistratis will pretent to if they stand in the box and claim the sky is green with pink spots.

Edited by outlaw... on Wednesday 22 August 15:18

[MilnerR]

Are there not situations where a BiB is considered to be an expert witness in some situations? For example if 2 officers are of the opinion your are driving in excess of the speed limit the, because they are experts, their opinion in court is all the evidence needed to get a conviction.

[Fidgits]

MilnerR said:

Are there not situations where a BiB is considered to be an expert witness in some situations? For example if 2 officers are of the opinion your are driving in excess of the speed limit the, because they are experts, their opinion in court is all the evidence needed to get a conviction.

But i think in those cases it is where the officier has been 'specially trained' in certain areas (such as traffic or RTA) where they can be considered an 'expert witness'.

[vonhosen]

Fidgits said:

MilnerR said:

Are there not situations where a BiB is considered to be an expert witness in some situations? For example if 2 officers are of the opinion your are driving in excess of the speed limit the, because they are experts, their opinion in court is all the evidence needed to get a conviction.

But i think in those cases it is where the officier has been 'specially trained' in certain areas (such as traffic or RTA) where they can be considered an 'expert witness'.

They don't have to be traffic officers for opinion on speed, any Police officer can.
You can of course challenge their evidence in an attempt to introduce reasonable doubt.
Two officers satisfies the requirement for independent primary & secondary sources of evidence for speeding. It doesn't mean that the evidence is unchallengeable & that it is impossible to be found not guilty.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 22 August 15:36

[Davi]

vonhosen said:

Fidgits said:

MilnerR said:

Are there not situations where a BiB is considered to be an expert witness in some situations? For example if 2 officers are of the opinion your are driving in excess of the speed limit the, because they are experts, their opinion in court is all the evidence needed to get a conviction.

But i think in those cases it is where the officier has been 'specially trained' in certain areas (such as traffic or RTA) where they can be considered an 'expert witness'.

They don't have to be traffic officers for opinion on speed, any Police officer can.
You can of course challenge their evidence in an attempt to introduce reasonable doubt.

which IMO makes a total farce of the system. Police Officers are humans, pinning a badge on their tin hat does NOT make them any less susceptible to the standard lack of abilities.

in order to form opinion I think they should have been tested and certified only after achieving a certain standard, in other words, being correct a certain %age of the time.

[vonhosen]

Davi said:

vonhosen said:

Fidgits said:

MilnerR said:

Are there not situations where a BiB is considered to be an expert witness in some situations? For example if 2 officers are of the opinion your are driving in excess of the speed limit the, because they are experts, their opinion in court is all the evidence needed to get a conviction.

But i think in those cases it is where the officier has been 'specially trained' in certain areas (such as traffic or RTA) where they can be considered an 'expert witness'.

They don't have to be traffic officers for opinion on speed, any Police officer can.
You can of course challenge their evidence in an attempt to introduce reasonable doubt.

which IMO makes a total farce of the system. Police Officers are humans, pinning a badge on their tin hat does NOT make them any less susceptible to the standard lack of abilities.

in order to form opinion I think they should have been tested and certified only after achieving a certain standard, in other words, being correct a certain %age of the time.

Why ?
Test me & I'll get 100% success rate on someone being over the limit when I say they are. Being a traffic officer doesn't automatically mean you are better at judging speed.

Because they are human & it's opinion, that's why it requires two independent sources.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 22 August 15:42

[tigger1]

tomuch said:

This remind me of the robin reliant , where the judge advice that the officer he had over cooked the pudding.

Could have been worse - they might have over-egged it too

[Davi]

vonhosen said:

Why ?
Test me & I'll get 100% success rate on someone being over the limit when I say they are. Being a traffic officer doesn't automatically mean you are better at judging speed.

Then a test would confirm that and allow US the peace of mind that you were most likely correct.
Being an officer of ANY description doesn't mean you are better at judging speed, which is why I said they should be tested if you want to allow this as evidence.

I know personally at least one police officer that I can absolutely guarantee could not tell if a car was over or under a limit unless the margin were ludicrous. They are just utterly incapable of judging speed.

Edited by Davi on Wednesday 22 August 15:48

[vonhosen]

Davi said:

vonhosen said:

Why ?
Test me & I'll get 100% success rate on someone being over the limit when I say they are. Being a traffic officer doesn't automatically mean you are better at judging speed.

Then a test would confirm that and allow US the peace of mind that you were most likely correct.
Being an officer of ANY description doesn't mean you are better at judging speed, which is why I said they should be tested if you want to allow this as evidence.

I know personally at least one police officer that I can absolutely guarantee could not tell if a car was over or under a limit unless the margin were ludicrous. They are just utterly incapable of judging speed.

Edited by Davi on Wednesday 22 August 15:48

Provided they only say it is over the limit when it is over the limit (even if it is big margins), your friend would still pass the test, so how does that get you further forward ?

Opinion is opinion, not fact.

[Davi]

vonhosen said:

Provided they only say it is over the limit when it is over the limit (even if it is big margins), your friend would still pass the test, so how does that get you further forward ?

Opinion is opinion, not fact.

An acceptable margin would obviously be needed in any test, i.e. if they couldn't tell the difference between a car going 45 and a car going 30, then they are not fit to create an opinion submisable in court.

I was under the impression that 2 officers could effectively get a conviction without any further evidence - which means it is no longer opinion, it is being treated as fact.

[Chrispy Porker]

No.
It is being treated as one officers opinion being corroborated by another officers opinion.
Any evidence, from any source, that is corroborated is likely to be given more weight than that which is not.( think in terms of sexual offences - an allegation without corroboration will not get very far)

Personally I have had several occasions when a jury has chosen not to believe my evidence.
That is all part of the game. ( and I chose the word deliberately).
I used to let it worry me, but not any more.
We always win in the end

[fluffnik]

HertsBiker said:

ok so why is an officer trusted more than a MOP who also swears on a bible in court?
(will be back on ph later. Gotta rush, thanks)

...and why is the word of someone who swears on a bible valued more than one who does not?

[Chrispy Porker]

fluffnik said:

HertsBiker said:

ok so why is an officer trusted more than a MOP who also swears on a bible in court?
(will be back on ph later. Gotta rush, thanks)

...and why is the word of someone who swears on a bible valued more than one who does not?

Is it.? I don't think so.
The courts are well used to hearing evidence from all faiths, and none.