And what if that witness is lying? Do you really think the cops should be able to issue citations based on the mere unsubstantiated testimony of a single witness, to be sorted out by the courts later?
Sure there is always that possibility. But this isn't a case of what ifs but a trained investiagtor being able to spot the liar and the victim based upon other tangible and not so tangible evidence. Ie Body language, physical evidence, other witness testimony, etc
And it happens all the time, especially for domestic violence cases where someone is going away. Just a matter of who in the field offers the LEO a better case.
This is NOT an attack on LEOs! It is a simple statement of fact. If, by chance, they actually DO get there in time to protect, hey that's great good for them. And because that is a chance, they should be trained in what to do in that situation. But it should not be expected, by us, the public.
I think the confusion is that I am coming across as if they have to be there and be there like yesterday or act as a defacto body guard. Not my argument at all. All I am saying is that if they arrive in the commission of a crime against a person thier upholding the law defaults to protecting the individual. The two are inseperable. I wholly believe without reservation that the protection of the individual IS the individuals responsibility and laws of the land should NOT interfere. But when discharging his official duties he fails to uphold the law and the individual suffers then they are liable.
Sure there is always that possibility. But this isn't a case of what ifs but a trained investiagtor being able to spot the liar and the victim based upon other tangible and not so tangible evidence. Ie Body language, physical evidence, other witness testimony, etc
And it happens all the time, especially for domestic violence cases where someone is going away. Just a matter of who in the field offers the LEO a better case.
This is NOT an attack on LEOs! It is a simple statement of fact. If, by chance, they actually DO get there in time to protect, hey that's great good for them. And because that is a chance, they should be trained in what to do in that situation. But it should not be expected, by us, the public.
I think the confusion is that I am coming across as if they have to be there and be there like yesterday or act as a defacto body guard. Not my argument at all. All I am saying is that if they arrive in the commission of a crime against a person thier upholding the law defaults to protecting the individual. The two are inseperable. I wholly believe without reservation that the protection of the individual IS the individuals responsibility and laws of the land should NOT interfere. But when discharging his official duties he fails to uphold the law and the individual suffers then they are liable.
Last edited:
(is it ok to call you that now?). The primary purpose of the police is to investigate crimes after the fact, determine the suspect or suspects through good detective work, then track them down, arrest them, and turn them over to the courts to be tried. Just like the LAW ITS SELF, the police cannot protect, they can only punish.
