is there any way to check if a LEO is really on duty even though he is not in uniform

[phylodog]

I couldn't agree more. I'd rather a thousand murderers and rapists walk free than just one innocent man have to spend any unnecessary time behind bars.

You'll make a great defense attorney

It seems to me that he not only dislikes lawyers and our system, but doesn't believe in the presumption of innocence, either.


And herein lies most of the problem. Those tasked with enforcing the law seem to forget that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt--not the other way around.

Those tasked with enforcing the law don't need to ponder the presumption of innocence. They are tasked with considering the evidence at hand at the time, deciding if there is probable cause for an arrest and taking appropriate action. Being in law school I'd have thought you knew that already.

What the lawyers do to twist the truth in the courtroom is up to them. It's not I who hates the system but many of you who would like to hold the LE responsible for a false arrest if someone isn't convicted. There is a huge difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If there weren't there would be many thousands of lawsuits filed and won by those who were arrested without cause. Doesn't happen much.

 

[UncleMike]

I couldn't agree more. I'd rather a thousand murderers and rapists walk free than just one innocent man have to spend any unnecessary time behind bars.

It seems to me that he not only dislikes lawyers and our system, but doesn't believe in the presumption of innocence, either.

And herein lies most of the problem. Those tasked with enforcing the law seem to forget that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt--not the other way around.

Actually you're innocent, but suspect, until the Trier Of Fact determines guilt or innocence
Those who defend the guilty like to forget that we have Probable Cause to detain, and arrest, Criminal Suspects so that they no longer pose a threat to the Law Abiding Public.
The term "To Protect and Serve" is an accurate description of Police work.
Mike

 

[UncleMike]

Now that's funny!! I'll take care of my own "Safety", thanks. If I'm not breaking any laws, just stay out of my face.

I think someone is just frustrated because he's not "the man" anymore. lol

Sorry to disappoint you, but I still carry a badge.
I just don't have to drive around in a Squad car all day and deal with the Criminal Element.
Retired Officers in Indiana are NOT relieved of their oath upon retirement.
It's called "Inactive Duty Status".
They are still subject to Active Duty recall during an emergency.
Since you can "take care of your own safety" why don't you do the local PD a favor and let them know that they never have to respond to a call for assistance from you.
That way they can concentrate on people who appreciate their sacrifice and dedication.
Mike

 

[downzero]

Those tasked with enforcing the law don't need to ponder the presumption of innocence. They are tasked with considering the evidence at hand at the time, deciding if there is probable cause for an arrest and taking appropriate action. Being in law school I'd have thought you knew that already.

What the lawyers do to twist the truth in the courtroom is up to them. It's not I who hates the system but many of you who would like to hold the LE responsible for a false arrest if someone isn't convicted. There is a huge difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If there weren't there would be many thousands of lawsuits filed and won by those who were arrested without cause. Doesn't happen much.

Actually, I mostly agree with you this time. You're an administrator. Your job is to document facts and let the trier of fact decide. It doesn't seem to cloud your view that most defendants should be convicted, however, and it's pretty obvious to me that you don't actually believe very strongly in the trier of fact's determinations.

Those lawsuits don't happen much for a number of reasons. The most important is that most criminal defendants do not have access to effective counsel.

And for the record, I'm not actually in law school, unless an admission letter and a seat deposit counts. I have, however, performed plenty of legal research, and if you type my name into a database like google scholar, it'll probably come up (In fact, it does. I just typed it in just to see).

 

[phylodog]

Make no mistake, there is no shortage of lawyers who would be chomping at the bit to sue police officers who were making false arrests. The fact is that it happens very rarely as probably cause is not difficult to establish at the scene of the crime and if it isn't present a detailed report will allow a Detective to investigate further. There is no reason to accept the risk of a bad arrest.

I believe in the trier of facts determination. What I don't believe in and am continuously amazed by is the willingness of all involved to play the games they play in the courtroom. There is little concern for what actually happened once a trial begins. It's a big game to see if the defense can come up with an excuse not to allow evidence into trial while the prosecutors have to find a better reason to allow it. Everything in the courtroom favors the defense which is the way it is supposed to be but the games that go on are nothing to be proud of. Victims of a crime typically feel more victimized after being subjected to a trial.

I have never heard a defense attorney present any sort of evidence which proved their client was innocent of the charges. All they do is try to discredit anyone who may testify, convince the judge or jury that their client is actually the victim or use the increasingly common tactic of playing on the public's inability to differentiate between television and real life. For example:

Could you collect DNA from a booger that an armed robber dropped on the counter of the 7-11 when they robbed it? Sure you could but is it practical to do so? No but what is practical doesn't matter. Disregard the video with the suspect's face on it, disregard the pistol he dropped at the scene with his prints on it, don't listen to his mother who was working behind the register at the time and testified that it was her son who robbed the place. Pay no attention to any of that. The fact that the police didn't do a DNA test on that booger clearly demonstrates that they are trying to frame my client for something he didn't do and he should be found not guilty.

That is the kind of crap that has polluted the system and why I find everything that happens in a courtroom disgusting. I stopped caring about what happens in the courtroom once I learned that it has nothing to do with my actions. I do my job properly and to the best of my ability and what happens happens.

 

[downzero]

I stopped caring about what happens in the courtroom once I learned that it has nothing to do with my actions. I do my job properly and to the best of my ability and what happens happens.

As you should, sir.

 

[level.eleven]

You're partially correct. In general I don't like defense attorneys with few exceptions and believe that most willingly sell their soul for the almighty dollar. Most public defenders are so liberal they make Obama look like Rush Limbaugh.

I do believe in our justice system as it was intended. Unfortunately, like every aspect of the laws of our land it has been perverted for the past couple hundred years, primarily by lawyers and politicians who bend it to fit their needs.


To put it plainly, 99% of the time the truth wins convictions for the prosecution while deception wins acquittals for the defense.

Is that right? Really? So because a murderer is not convicted of his crime, maybe never caught then he is innocent?

Yes. That is how our justice system works. If a jury of your peers finds you innocent, you are free to go. OJ was found to be innocent by a jury of his peers in a completely legal, by the book, murder trial. Saying other wise would undermine the justice system. Our system is so great, the state can't continually file the same charges against him hoping another jury will convict.

If our justice system were based on truth I wouldn't have a problem with it. Perhaps you have more experience in our system of justice than I do but in my 12 years I have yet to be involved in a case where an innocent person was put on trial. I've seen many who weren't convicted as a direct result of the defense attorneys pulling on the heart strings of the jurors and convincing them that they shouldn't convict their client because he had a rough childhood, his mommy didn't kiss him or the police officer failed to cross a T on the arrest slip. Perhaps in your world that sits well but it doesn't in mine. Maybe if it happened to a drunk driver who smashed your car or a burglar who stole all of your guns you'd feel differently.

This is the system you voted for. Don't like it? Vote for a different judge, sheriff, prosecutor, etc. And honestly, this is appeal to emotion drivel, and not even very good at that. I did a rape case last year and never once did the defense say "my client wasn't kissed enough by his mother". The prosecutor must be awful if he can't get a conviction on the theft of all my guns. The officer filing the accident report for the drunk that smashed my car must have really botched if we can't get a conviction.

Again though, we see politics injected into law enforcement with the prosecutor comment. Do you feel that you are not only fighting bad guys, but "liberals" as well? Honestly, I find your entire post rather scary and wonder exactly how it fits in to the system. If I would have said these things about my company and how they do business, I would be in trouble.

 

[JBusch8899]

In Indiana police cannot make a traffic stop unless they are IN uniform OR driving a distinctivley marked vehicle. Looking for the IC code now.

Its important to note that this applies strictly to Indiana LE only, not all LE within the borders of Indiana.

 

[JBusch8899]

Actually you're innocent,but suspect, until the Trier Of Fact determines guilt or innocence

It may sound as semantic, but the Trier of Fact of a criminal matter does not determine innocence. The verdict is based upon the prosecution's ability to present evidence for the Trier of Fact to solely determine guilt beyond the "shadow of a reasonable doubt."

Thus the verdict of "not guilty."

 

[Bill of Rights]

People who believe this should expect the same in return and stop getting their panties in a wad when it happens.

As an adult, in this country, you should show respect to anyone until they give you reason not to.

For some people, just the fact that you chose that line of work and pin that badge on when you get dressed is reason not to.

And they wonder why they have less than positive interactions, which, of course, are never their fault...

 

[phylodog]

Is that right? Really? So because a murderer is not convicted of his crime, maybe never caught then he is innocent?

Yes. That is how our justice system works. If a jury of your peers finds you innocent, you are free to go. OJ was found to be innocent by a jury of his peers in a completely legal, by the book, murder trial. Saying other wise would undermine the justice system. Our system is so great, the state can't continually file the same charges against him hoping another jury will convict.

If our justice system were based on truth I wouldn't have a problem with it. Perhaps you have more experience in our system of justice than I do but in my 12 years I have yet to be involved in a case where an innocent person was put on trial. I've seen many who weren't convicted as a direct result of the defense attorneys pulling on the heart strings of the jurors and convincing them that they shouldn't convict their client because he had a rough childhood, his mommy didn't kiss him or the police officer failed to cross a T on the arrest slip. Perhaps in your world that sits well but it doesn't in mine. Maybe if it happened to a drunk driver who smashed your car or a burglar who stole all of your guns you'd feel differently.

This is the system you voted for. Don't like it? Vote for a different judge, sheriff, prosecutor, etc. And honestly, this is appeal to emotion drivel, and not even very good at that. I did a rape case last year and never once did the defense say "my client wasn't kissed enough by his mother". The prosecutor must be awful if he can't get a conviction on the theft of all my guns. The officer filing the accident report for the drunk that smashed my car must have really botched if we can't get a conviction.

Again though, we see politics injected into law enforcement with the prosecutor comment. Do you feel that you are not only fighting bad guys, but "liberals" as well? Honestly, I find your entire post rather scary and wonder exactly how it fits in to the system. If I would have said these things about my company and how they do business, I would be in trouble.

What type of company is that? What is involved in "doing" a rape case?

I find it amusing that you accuse me of introducing "emotional drivel" into this topic which quite obviously stirs emotions on every front. Oh wait, I forgot, everyone wants an emotionless robot for a police officer until it's time to show some pitty on themselves for speeding, smoking dope, drunk driving or beating their wife. Then, and only then are we supposed to show emotion at any level.

This isn't the system I voted for. It isn't a problem with a specific Sheriff, judge or prosecutor. The entire system has been perverted for the past hundred years and I feel strongly that the men who put this system in place would be quite disgusted by it's current state.

This particular statement "The prosecutor must be awful if he can't get a conviction on the theft of all my guns. The officer filing the accident report for the drunk that smashed my car must have really botched if we can't get a conviction." demonstrates clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about and have very little experience in a criminal courtroom. As I said earlier, it's quite different from what you see on CSI.

I do feel as if I'm "fighting" liberals in a sense but not when I'm at work. Liberals are largely responsible for the ridiculous state of our society and I do what I can to "convert" them to sensibility whenever I have an opportunity.

Like I've always said, nothing converts a liberal to conservatism faster than becoming the victim of a violent crime. That's when the rose colored glasses come off and reality sets in. Enjoy your glasses, hopefully you'll get to keep them.

 

[JBusch8899]

For some people, just the fact that you chose that line of work and pin that badge on when you get dressed is reason not to.

And they wonder why they have less than positive interactions, which, of course, are never their fault...

Based upon their postings, a number on this very board are example of this.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It may sound as semantic, but the Trier of Fact of a criminal matter does not determine innocence. The verdict is based upon the prosecution's ability to present evidence for the Trier of Fact to solely determine guilt beyond the "shadow of a reasonable doubt."

Thus the verdict of "not guilty."

Is the "shadow of" part correct? I'm not poking sticks, but I always heard that as the counterpoint: The prosecution must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Was that a typo?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jsgolfman]

When I was a child, my father provided me with a bit of wisdom that I still try to follow today. He said, "Treat everyone the way you would like to be treated, regardless of how they treat you. It helps you sleep better at night and the Lord appreciates it."

 

[Bill of Rights]

Based upon their postings, a number on this very board are example of this.

I wasn't going to say that, but since you did, I will not argue the point.

 

[JBusch8899]

Is the "shadow of" part correct? I'm not poking sticks, but I always heard that as the counterpoint: The prosecution must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Was that a typo?

Blessings,
Bill

"Beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt" and "Beyond a reasonable doubt", are differing phrases with similar distinctions, and entirely dependent upon the jurisprudence.

East coasters are just a bit different than the folks in the midwest.

 

[Bill of Rights]

"Beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt" and "Beyond a reasonable doubt", are differing phrases with similar distinctions, and entirely dependent upon the jurisprudence.

East coasters are just a bit different than the folks in the midwest.

Ahhhhh, OK, I get it. East coasters are what, growing up, we called "yamdankees".

Blessings,
Bill

 

[UncleMike]

It may sound as semantic, but the Trier of Fact of a criminal matter does not determine innocence. The verdict is based upon the prosecution's ability to present evidence for the Trier of Fact to solely determine guilt beyond the "shadow of a reasonable doubt."

Thus the verdict of "not guilty."

Yup. You're right!
It's semantic.
It depends on who your Law Professor was.
Mine was an FBI agent who instilled the Prosecution point of view in us.
I'm sure that a Defense Lawyer would change the wording to suit his/her view of the Law.
Mike

 

[downzero]

It's actually not semantic. It's a very important analytical distinction between "not guilty" and "innocent." It is not the duty of the trier of fact to determine innocence. Your "FBI agent" teacher was wrong.

 

[JBusch8899]

Yup. You're right!
It's semantic.
It depends on who your Law Professor was.
Mine was an FBI agent who instilled the Prosecution point of view in us.
I'm sure that a Defense Lawyer would change the wording to suit his/her view of the Law.
Mike

Wise *ss.

Actually, my LE instructor was an actual prosecutor. An ADA and bureau chief to crimes of arson.

I can demonstrate that my point is valid, and you'll even admit to it: We both know that the failure of the prosecution to prove guilt is a far cry from one being "innocent".