Jim675
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I'm not anti-police, even a little. I am very much pro-equality and I think the state has too much power currently.
LEO 229 wrote:
And the citizen isn't suspected? Of course they are, or why would they be in court wearing that funny jumpsuit?Are you saying that if the police observe a crime that their word should not be accepted in court and they should have toprove what they are saying by some other means?
I'm saying unless other factors are presented the officer's and the citizen's word should carry exactly equal weight.
The officer observesthe violation and he is sworn to tell the truth. The defendant on trial does not swear to anything and cannot be prosecuted for telling a lie.
And millions of people swear "'til death do us part". People are either honorable or not - an oath dosn't make a dishonest person honest or vice versa and neither does a uniform.
Having a video camera on a gun really does nothing but catch the moment just before the shot. If you go with the video alone and discount the officer's version you will still not have the complete details. The camera does not capture everything that is happening or what happened prior to drawing a gun.
Which is why I suggested a button (shoulder, helmut, whatever) cam with mic to capture the entire incident.
And as I said.... Just like if a video camera in a cruiser or public building..... if the camera ona gun failed it would AUTOMATICALLY give evidence of a police cover up. I believe thatalmost all shootings are viewed by the peopleas unnecessary and they see the cop as wrong.
Again,
The officer is not above suspicion.... he is ALWAYS suspected and scrutinized!!!
I'm not anti-police, even a little. I am very much pro-equality and I think the state has too much power currently.