Kenngo1969 Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) I said earlier that it comes down to how define "know". And I am not really demanding for proof the LDS Church is true. I believe with all my heart that it is. But...if someone insists they "know" then they must be able to prove it. And yes...a jury can look at evidence differently. But that is only because we do not KNOW. But...if I say I KNOW the defendant committed a crime and I have DNA proof, and an eyewitness, and fingerprints...etc...then I KNOW...I do not just believe...and I can prove it...and I will not have two jurors on the fence. If all I have is circumstantial evidence, then you are exactly right. But, if all I have is circumstantial evidence, then I will not tell a jury "I know the def is guilty".Oh, come now, Counselor! Fingerprints can be left at any time, under any circumstance, not just during the commission of a crime and under incriminating circumstances. The same thing applies to DNA: it doesn't necessarily prove a crime; it may just as easily prove a consensual encounter. Two eyewitnesses can see the same thing, yet come to vastly different conclusions about what it means. Eyewitnesses can misinterpret what they see. Do they see an alleged victim being raped, or are the people they're observing merely reenacting, consensually, a scene from Fifty Shades of Grey, whereupon the alleged victim then suffers a case of "buyer's remorse" afterward and decides to claim she was raped? Bear in mind that I say all of this as someone who grew up in a law enforcement family: I'm one of the most pro-police, pro-prosecution people you will ever run across. You're privileging one type of "knowing" over another when such a conclusion isn't necessarily warranted, even in light of physical evidence. Edited June 21, 2015 by Kenngo1969 1
UtahTexan Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 Oh, come now, Counselor! Fingerprints can be left at any time, under any circumstance, not just during the commission of a crime and under incriminating circumstances. The same thing applies to DNA: it doesn't necessarily prove a crime; it may just as easily prove a consensual encounter. Two eyewitnesses can see the same thing, yet come to vastly different conclusions about what it means. Eyewitnesses can misinterpret what they see. Do they see an alleged victim being raped, or are the people they're observing merely reenacting, consensually, a scene from Fifty Shades of Grey, whereupon the alleged victim then suffers a case of "buyer's remorse" afterward and decides to claim she was raped? Bear in mind that I say all of this as someone who grew up in a law enforcement family: I'm one of the most pro-police, pro-prosecution people you will ever run across. You're privileging one type of "knowing" over another when such a conclusion isn't necessarily warranted, even in light of physical evidence. Perhaps. And perhaps any one of them by itself you are right. But...in my example, I said I had ALL of it. If I have DNA, Fingerprints, AND an eyewitness? I have gotten convictions as a prosecutor with less than that. So my example is still a good one. Having been a prosecutor, I know from whence I speak
Stone holm Posted June 21, 2015 Author Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) Perhaps. And perhaps any one of them by itself you are right. But...in my example, I said I had ALL of it. If I have DNA, Fingerprints, AND an eyewitness? I have gotten convictions as a prosecutor with less than that. So my example is still a good one. Having been a prosecutor, I know from whence I speakWell during my short stint as the Chief Deputy Prosecutor in a rural Hoosier County, I discovered most of the lies told in the Court room were told by the police. Edited June 21, 2015 by Stone holm
Calm Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 Since the police are ultimately dependent on voters to get their jobs (the police chief or whoever hires and sets the standards are eventually appointed by someone voted on), sounds like the members of your county didn't place a high value on integrity.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 Perhaps. And perhaps any one of them by itself you are right. But...in my example, I said I had ALL of it. If I have DNA, Fingerprints, AND an eyewitness? I have gotten convictions as a prosecutor with less than that. So my example is still a good one. Having been a prosecutor, I know from whence I speakI'll gladly defer to you, then. Still, I stand by my earlier posts with respect to each individual being his own trier of fact with respect to religious truth claims and so on. I bid you a very pleasant good evening.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 Well during my short stint as the Chief Deputy Prosecutor in a rural Hoosier County, I discovered most of the lies told in the Court room were told by the police. Most of them? Color me unconvinced. Since the police are ultimately dependent on voters to get their jobs (the police chief or whoever hires and sets the standards are eventually appointed by someone voted on), sounds like the members of your county didn't place a high value on integrity.At the risk of derailing the thread (note my concluding section well): https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/is-the-system-really-that-broken/
Stone holm Posted June 22, 2015 Author Posted June 22, 2015 Since the police are ultimately dependent on voters to get their jobs (the police chief or whoever hires and sets the standards are eventually appointed by someone voted on), sounds like the members of your county didn't place a high value on integrity.Yeah, actually the bigger problem was with the State Police, the local Marshall's Office and the Town Police tended to be fairly straight up....but only one out of four of State cops I dealt with were straight arrow. Not saying they were falsely arresting people they just tended to embellish things and two, who fortunately left the force to take jobs in the private sector, were pretty bad about about beating up prisoners. I would listen to their testimony about DUI's and then go down and watch the video tapes of the breathalyzer test and except for the results wonder what the heck because the descriptions of behavior did not fit the film. Some did, but a lot didn't.
Calm Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 I would listen to their testimony about DUI's and then go down and watch the video tapes of the breathalyzer test and except for the results wonder what the heck because the descriptions of behavior did not fit the film. Some did, but a lot didn't.So what would be the benefit to them to do this? I assume that the State Police do not operate on commission.
Recommended Posts