When a Cop (or Former Cop) is Put on Trial, What Should the Standard of Proof Be?

X Factor said:

But what if these cops are acquitted because the prosecution couldn't meet that high standard of proof? Isn't that why you stated you'd be completely fine with someone attacking or even killing cops for being cops? No standard of proof required.

Click to expand...

Eliminate their being police and conviction would be a certainty.

3 or 4 people jump someone on the street, assaulting that person. Tying his arms behind his back, they drag him as he howls in pain to put him in the back of a big steel tool box on the back of a truck. For over half an hour that person is driven around. After this, the person has a broken back or neck and days later dies.

Would ANYONE buy the claim that they committed no crime? Of course not. BUT they are police, so there are entirely different standards it seems. People are SO conditioned to police violence and abuse now they accept that police literally are above the law.

THAT is how extreme the double standard is. Police can literally assault and kill anyone - until it can be proven that the thoughts in their head were unquestionably to kill that person.

ANYONE BUT police absolutely would be found guilt of aggravated assault or minimally manslaughter. The only thing the police should be immune from in criminal charges because they are police is illegal imprisonment/kidnapping. Otherwise, they SHOULD be held to the same standards as everyone else - but they are not.

Summerwind said:

I don't know but I thought that the fact she's also calling it an unlawful arrest could be what she uses to show intent as well. If there was no reason to arrest him, then everything they did or didn't do from that point on is pretty much intended and criminal.

Click to expand...

Nor does arresting someone justify violently assaulting and ultimately killing the person. Unfortunately, a notable percentage of the population believe that once someone is being arrested the police become exempt from all laws.

mike2810 said:

Same standard as anyone else.

Click to expand...

One would think this would be the obvious answer, yet it's not even included as a poll option.

Goshin said:

Same as everyone else. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that depend on the crime/accusation?

joko104 said:

Nor does arresting someone justify violently assaulting and ultimately killing the person. Unfortunately, a notable percentage of the population believe that once someone is being arrested the police become exempt from all laws.

Click to expand...

True enough, but had it been a legal arrest the intent would not be so easily considered, then the whole, oops we forgot to buckle him bs has legs... but with a illegal arrest shows intent to at the very least hassle the guy... I think it will make a difference in the murder charges rather than simply negligence.

radcen said:

Wouldn't that depend on the crime/accusation?

Click to expand...

Beyond reasonable doubt is the basic principle of our criminal justice system.

Now in most states there is "affirmative defense" where the concept is you "admit" committing an act that is usually a crime (like killing someone) but claim it is justified based on XYZ (usually self-defense or defense of others, or a situation where a reasonable person would have felt seriously threatened). In many states that does change the standard of evidence somewhat... how much depends on the jurisdiction. Anti-SD states try to come as close to making you "prove it was SD" as they can without upsetting SCOTUS; some Pro-SD states only require that there is no reasonable proof that it was NOT.

So it could possibly vary in that sense.

X Factor said:

Watching one of the news networks and one of the guests was lamenting the lack of convictions when the defendant is someone who is or was a cop. I found that interesting and the implication seemed to be that conviction in the Gray case needs to be a pretty much forgone conclusion. Honestly, I'm not sure at all how you get a murder conviction based on the facts as I understand them to be (which may be far different than what's presented at trial), much less a definite conviction. I started wondering if people believed that the prosecutions burden should be something less (or perhaps more) than beyond a reasonable doubt when the person tried is a cop. I actually think a legit argument could be made than someone is a position of authority they way cops are, should not also enjoy quite the same constitutional protections as ordinary citizens although I would totally disagree with that position. What do you think?

Click to expand...

For criminal charges, in a court of law, the standards are the same for anyone else. People who abuse government powers, criminally, get the same protections and process. That's not what we have going on currently, typically the thin blue line protects its own so that charges are not brought up often and often times if charges are brought, they are woefully undercharged relative to the rest of the populace. But it should be the same as everyone else, from perp-walk to jury decision.

Goshin said:

Beyond reasonable doubt is the basic principle of our criminal justice system.

Now in most states there is "affirmative defense" where the concept is you "admit" committing an act that is usually a crime (like killing someone) but claim it is justified based on XYZ (usually self-defense or defense of others, or a situation where a reasonable person would have felt seriously threatened). In many states that does change the standard of evidence somewhat... how much depends on the jurisdiction. Anti-SD states try to come as close to making you "prove it was SD" as they can without upsetting SCOTUS; some Pro-SD states only require that there is no reasonable proof that it was NOT.

So it could possibly vary in that sense.

Click to expand...

I guess I'm thinking more about criminal vs civil, etc., which may not be pertinent to the OP's intent.

radcen said:

I guess I'm thinking more about criminal vs civil, etc., which may not be pertinent to the OP's intent.

Click to expand...

Yeah, civil suits are "preponderance of evidence". If a cop is in a civil suit, then it should be so.

Exactly the same as what it would be if the person was not a cop.

Cops are no better or worse than anyone else, so the standard of proof should be just like it is for the rest of us. No better, no worse.

Summerwind said:

Not a racist jury, a scared jury. The police will know who served on the jury. And we are already seeing how they seem to be of one mind when it comes to abusing power with the impoverished, I have no doubt that the jury worries what the defendants' cohorts will do, or not do, that will cause the jurors harm or distress.

Click to expand...

This would be more likely in lower population communities. There also is the potential of a prosecutor's retaliations.

Superfly said:

Cops are no better or worse than anyone else, so the standard of proof should be just like it is for the rest of us. No better, no worse.

Click to expand...

I think it more a question of should police be held to the same legal standards, with some specific exceptions such as exempt from illegal imprisonment due to making an arrest.

If these same actions were taken by non-police, it would be described as a particularly vicious, cruel and brutal murder - and likely no one would disagree.

By my understanding, that man had done exactly NOTHING illegal. Yet scores of people have the attitude of "oh well, these things just happen to people sometimes, nothing illegal in this."

There is something SERIOUSLY wrong if police can just assault anyone and treat anyone like that resulting in their violent death, and it's ok.

joko104 said:

I think it more a question of should police be held to the same legal standards, with some specific exceptions such as exempt from illegal imprisonment due to making an arrest.

If these same actions were taken by non-police, it would be described as a particularly vicious, cruel and brutal murder - and likely no one would disagree.

By my understanding, that man had done exactly NOTHING illegal. Yet scores of people have the attitude of "oh well, these things just happen to people sometimes, nothing illegal in this."

There is something SERIOUSLY wrong if police can just assault anyone and treat anyone like that resulting in their violent death, and it's ok.

Click to expand...

If we are talking about Freddie Gray, I agree with you.

Police officers should be held to the same judicial standard as any other member of society.

Summerwind said:

Not a racist jury, a scared jury. The police will know who served on the jury. And we are already seeing how they seem to be of one mind when it comes to abusing power with the impoverished, I have no doubt that the jury worries what the defendants' cohorts will do, or not do, that will cause the jurors harm or distress.

Click to expand...

Best summation yet of why the trial should perhaps be moved out of Baltimore, and one I hadn't even considered until I read this post.

X Factor said:

Watching one of the news networks and one of the guests was lamenting the lack of convictions when the defendant is someone who is or was a cop. I found that interesting and the implication seemed to be that conviction in the Gray case needs to be a pretty much forgone conclusion. Honestly, I'm not sure at all how you get a murder conviction based on the facts as I understand them to be (which may be far different than what's presented at trial), much less a definite conviction. I started wondering if people believed that the prosecutions burden should be something less (or perhaps more) than beyond a reasonable doubt when the person tried is a cop. I actually think a legit argument could be made than someone is a position of authority they way cops are, should not also enjoy quite the same constitutional protections as ordinary citizens although I would totally disagree with that position.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Everyone who is put on trial in the USA should have the same constitutional protections.

If you can't prove a cop or anyone else guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they should go free.

beyond a reasonable doubt like any other citizen no more no less...everyone treated the same in a court of law...but the question is...does police guidelines allows citizens to be killed easily or does the law allow citizens to be killed easily by police

They are not guilty of murder in the slightest... negligence or false arrest charges? Possibly...