165
submitted 2 years ago by GhostEye@lemmy.l0l.city to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 71 points 2 years ago

This is one of a handful of police procedures that are ripe for abuse. Any officer wishing to justify a suspicion can claim that they "smell marijuana" and search a vehicle, home, etc. There is basically no way to contradict them. It's not like we have smell recordings.

Another good example is field sobriety tests (walk on this line, count a number of steps, etc.), which have been shown to be highly subjective and inaccurate even when done correctly. Policing is maybe the last modern discipline that ignores evidence-based best practices.

[-] willsenior@lemm.ee 34 points 2 years ago

If I'm ever on a jury for a case that relies on police testimony as its lynchpin, I'll hang it single handedly if I have to. Show me some evidence.

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yep. Police testimony without video corroboration carries no weight for me. Fight me. (not you personally)

Edit: Removed the word "hearsay" because I was using it wrong.

[-] Xtallll@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

I'll fight, police testimony without video corroboration isn't hearsay, it's perjury until proven otherwise!

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yep. Police testimony without video corroboration is hearsay. Fight me. (not you personally)

IIRC technically the video would be more likely to be hearsay than the cop testifying.

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Video and audio recordings are sometimes hearsay evidence by definition, statements made outside the court. But there are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule and often recordings are admissible.

Note, I am not a lawyer and am basing most of this on LegalEagle videos like this oneand some reading I’ve done on the subject.

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Yeah it seems I used the word wrong. I accept your correction, but I hope the point I was trying to make is still clear. 🙂

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Oh totally. I’m just being pedantic. 😅

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I thought hearsay is anything that is not testimony. So video is technically hearsay

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

I was using it to mean "not any more reliable than a statement from any person I don't intrinsically trust" - but I see your point and accept your correction if such is the case.

Police testimony means nothing to me without some form of corroboration, and if it's their description of how or why they killed someone, that corroboration should be video or very convincing non-police witnesses.

this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
165 points (98.8% liked)

News

36251 readers
671 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS