Current Events > Cop testimony is inadmissible as evidence unless backed by actual evidence.

(+) Yeah! (+)

They clearly aren't a trustworthy witness, so if it isn't on camera it didn't happen.

---

Shut the fuck up cop hater

---

Patty_Fleur posted...

Shut the fuck up cop hater

Not a cop hater just stating facts. Think I'll keep talking.

---

Patty_Fleur posted...

Shut the fuck up cop hater

You sound like you should take your own advice.

---

Patty_Fleur posted...

Shut the fuck up cop hater

my label of boot licker for you seems fairly accurate here

---

Its a shame that police reports or testimony is treated as gospel when we tons of examples where their nonsense was contradicted by video evidence.

---

I think a pretty common jury selection question is do you trust cops more than citizens to kinda help with this.

---

BuckVanHammer posted...

I think a pretty common jury selection question is do you trust cops more than citizens to kinda help with this.

Yup, that should be outlawed too. Honestly, jury filtering in general is shady as fuck and does more harm than good.

---

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

This sounds like an opinion and not actual law/procedure.

Going by the law as it exists, this is fact. Whether judges or prosecutors would abid by that is another question entirely.

---

ThatHorrorGuy posted...

Going by the law as it exists, this is fact. Whether judges or prosecutors would abid by that is another question entirely.

What is common law.

---

Im not really sure what TC is talking about (and would be surprised if he does). It is probably a reference to the actual police reports themselves usually being considered hearsay but that doesnt mean that testimony by a police office is inadmissible.

The state can call LEOs to testify and so long as the testimony doesnt violate another rule of evidence there is nothing wrong with it. Cops are usually fact witnesses but can act as experts and their testimony can be, and is, admitted and relied upon.

As far as a police report goes, there is an exception to the general admissibility of official records to not allow police or investigative reports to be introduced if the state is trying to prove the truth of a matter asserted in the document. Instead the police officer would have to bring it up in testimony. The reports can be used to refresh his memory but they cant be used by themselves.

Its been years since evidence class and I dont practice criminal but Im pretty sure TC saw a clip of some YouTube video or something on TV and is presenting something that is half true without context. But I also could be wrong so maybe he actually has something to support his statement.

Edits from autocorrect errors.

---

Oh another octillery alt. Are you done with this gimmick yet?

---

Can't wait for tc to get banned again

---

darkprince45 posted...

Oh another octillery alt. Are you done with this gimmick yet?

Not a gimmick

MrKapowski posted...

Can't wait for tc to get banned again

Not happening.

whitelytning posted...

Im not really sure what TC is talking about (and would be surprised if he does).

I do. Evidence from an untrustworthy source isn't admissible. Police are an untrustworthy source. Their word is worth nothing.

---

Pretty sure this is the same dude saying that altering mugshots is illegal, so not sure he actually knows anything about the justice system.

---

COVxy posted...

Pretty sure this is the same dude saying that altering mugshots is illegal, so not sure he actually knows anything about the justice system.

I know more than you, that much is clear.

---

do you know more than me too?

---

The Trent posted...

do you know more than me too?

Possibly idk

---

Is part of the gimmick insisting you won't get banned, and then getting banned?

---

Patty_Fleur posted...

Shut the fuck up cop hater

Lol its not even hating on cops, decades upon decades of evidence shows how absolutely unreliable witness testimony is.

So, you shut the fuck up, reality and justice hater.

---

MrKapowski posted...

Is part of the gimmick insisting you won't get banned, and then getting banned?

Do you have anything useful to post?

---

Shablagoo posted...

Lol its not even hating on cops, decades upon decades of evidence shows how absolutely unreliable witness testimony is.

So, you shut the fuck up, reality and justice hater.

I would absolutely be in favor of removing witness testimony except as context to footage. Testimony should never be the sole basis for arrest or conviction.

---

ThatHorrorGuy posted...

Do you have anything useful to post?

I'll take that as a yes

See you on your next account lol

---

I think at some point, you gotta realize that just saying "I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't really work
---

MrKapowski posted...

I'll take that as a yes

See you on your next account lol

Mmk, bye troll.

---

ThatHorrorGuy posted...

I do. Evidence from an untrustworthy source isn't admissible. Police are an untrustworthy source. Their word is worth nothing.

The weight or credibility given to evidence is a completely different thing than whether or not its admissible. Testimony by police officers is admissible. Your title is wrong and you have no clue what you are talking about.

---

One_Day_Remains posted...

I think at some point, you gotta realize that just saying "I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't really work

You assume I'm trying to convince people, but I'm not. I really don't care about their ignorance, I'm just stating facts.

---

whitelytning posted...

The weight or credibility given to evidence is a completely different thing than whether or not its admissible. Testimony by police officers is admissible. Your title is wrong and you have no clue what you are talking about.

Enjoy being wrong.

---

So what's the point of these topics then? You're not informing people. Are you just here to get into silly spats while you're on the clock or something?
---

One_Day_Remains posted...

So what's the point of these topics then? You're not informing people. Are you just here to get into silly spats while you're on the clock or something?

Mostly to kill time, usually. It varies. But also to state things that need stating, even if I'm doing it in just about the most irrelevant space I can, lol.

---

Cops should have some kind of mini-camera on them during worktime to protect themselves and others.
Other than that, their testimony is as useful as any other witness, and it's their job to stop crime so they SHOULD be admissable as evidence when they witness it

Hating cops is dumb as fuck

---

Noraneko_Vel posted...

Cops should have some kind of mini-camera on them during worktime to protect themselves and others.

Other than that, their testimony is as useful as any other witness, and it's their job to stop crime so they SHOULD be admissable as evidence when THEY witness it

Except if they witness it but have no evidence, then they can't arrest or convict. Their testimony is simply not enough for that. Their testimony is only useful for context.

---

ThatHorrorGuy posted...

Except if they witness it but have no evidence, then they can't arrest or convict. Their testimony is simply not enough for that. Their testimony is only useful for context.

I mean, dude......

That tends to be the case as is. Good luck getting a conviction without hard evidence.

Xethuminra posted...

I mean, dude......

That tends to be the case as is. Good luck getting a conviction without hard evidence.

Iirc, the vast majority of convictions come from witness testimony alone.

---

ThatHorrorGuy posted...

Possibly idk

God i hope so

---