What are the standards for evidence?

[DavidFirth]

Two cops, one validates the other, or camera evidence. A single cop would now have a very hard time in court, a good lawyer would rip him/her to pieces.

Not in Georgia. Cop says you ran the stop sign you're paying the fine.

 

[ChristineM]

Not in Georgia. Cop says you ran the stop sign you're paying the fine.

You need a decent lawyer. Or perhaps you did run the stop light and prefer to be honest honest rather than lie by contesting it

 

[DavidFirth]

You need a decent lawyer. Or perhaps you did run the stop light and prefer to be honest honest rather than lie by contesting it

You're one of those people who are never wrong, aren't you? It must be nice to be so stuck up, er, smart.

 

[ChristineM]

You're one of those people who are never wrong, aren't you? It must be nice to be so stuck up, er, smart.

Oh i have been known to be wrong and hold my hands up to admit it when proven wrong. That's proof, not incredulity.

Its called honesty, but you have a god you have to lie for which makes it difficult i suppose.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please go back and tread my posts, my statement was the eyewitness testimony is rarely accepted in court without additional evidence.

Not when it's your word against a cop's. Especially concerning whether or not you're guilty of a traffic offense.

I hope that changes soon. The police have been repeatedly shown to take advantage of being given the benefit of the doubt, and to be willing to lie and to plant evidence. It didn't begin or end in the 90's with Furman:

Baltimore police officers accidentally filmed themselves seemingly planting evidence — again

Former Des Moines Police Officer Charged with Felonies for Planting Evidence in Drug Case

At this point, I simply wouldn't believe a cop's account if he or she were wearing a camera and didn't have it turned on from the beginning of the encounter until the end, and even then, I'm not believing the cop, but the recording. There would always be reasonable doubt without it.

 

[ChristineM]

I hope that changes soon. The police have been repeatedly shown to take advantage of being given the benefit of the doubt, and to be willing to lie and to plant evidence. It didn't begin or end in the 90's with Furman:

Baltimore police officers accidentally filmed themselves seemingly planting evidence — again

Former Des Moines Police Officer Charged with Felonies for Planting Evidence in Drug Case

At this point, I simply wouldn't believe a cop's account if he or she were wearing a camera and didn't have it turned on from the beginning of the encounter until the end, and even then, I'm not believing the cop, but the recording. There would always be reasonable doubt without it.

I find it very interesting that those claiming the validity of eyewitness testimony are all of a religious bent. Its almost as though they have a vested interest in having hearsay seen as Gospel.

 

[Indagator]

Evidence must come form an atheistic scientist, otherwise they are not valid.

 

[Curious George]

Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Logic has nothing to do with eyewitnesses testimony.

Still i have provided evidence, You claim to be able to provide evidence, I'll wait to see if it is valid contention to the multiple lines of evidence i have supplied

Yes logic has everything to do with it. I am not moving the goal posts, i happily contend that eye witness testimony is accepted and necessary for trials. I am willing to provide you evidence of how a court system works. Tell me where you are confused.

 

[Curious George]

I find it very interesting that those claiming the validity of eyewitness testimony are all of a religious bent. Its almost as though they have a vested interest in having hearsay seen as Gospel.

Except i am not religiously bent. I am what is referred to as a strong atheist.

The court system is what the court system is. You can't change it.

Cheers

 

[Mister Silver]

Except i am not religiously bent. I am what is referred to as a strong atheist.

The court system is what the court system is. You can't change it.

Cheers

Atheism has no merit on the court system. Why you included that is ridiculous.

It is a fact that eyewitness testimony is not reliable.

 

[Curious George]

Atheism has no merit on the court system. Why you included that is ridiculous.

It is a fact that eyewitness testimony is not reliable.

It was in reference to what the poster said:

"I find it very interesting that those claiming the validity of eyewitness testimony are all of a religious bent."

I am not religiously bent.
I am claimimg that eye witness testimony has a degree of validity.
Therefore all people claiming validity of eye witness testimony are not all religiously bent.

Simple logic

 

[Mister Silver]

It was in reference to what the poster said:

"I find it very interesting that those claiming the validity of eyewitness testimony are all of a religious bent."

I am not religiously bent.
I am claimimg that eye witness testimony has a degree of validity.
Therefore all people claiming validity of eye witness testimony are not all religiously bent.

Simple logic

Well, if that's your idea of logic, who am I to argue?

 

[Curious George]

Well, if that's your idea of logic, who am I to argue?

You are unfamiliar with the form?

It is two premises and then a conclusion.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes logic has everything to do with it. I am not moving the goal posts, i happily contend that eye witness testimony is accepted and necessary for trials. I am willing to provide you evidence of how a court system works. Tell me where you are confused.

Why then cite expert witness testimony? The discussion is not about expert witness testimony but eye witness testimony. Which can be seen by my links, is falling aoartat the seams

Yes you keep telling me you can provide evidence, im still waiting

 

[ChristineM]

Except i am not religiously bent. I am what is referred to as a strong atheist.

The court system is what the court system is. You can't change it.

Cheers

But most others are. And i have seen you defending religion often enough to doubt the "strong" appellation

I would not want to change it, however the courts are changing themselves by reviewing and rejecting eye witness testimony

 

[Curious George]

But most others are. And i have seen you defending religion often enough to doubt the "strong" appellation

I would not want to change it, however the courts are changing themselves by reviewing and rejecting eye witness testimony

Lol, it is not a war. Religion or people who are religious are not the other side. It is merely a different belief than mine and people with a different belief. I think you should read the butter battle book sometime. I make the claim god does not exist. If that is how you define strong atheist, then i am by your definition a strong atheist.

Except courts still rely on eye-witness testimony. Are you not familiar with the u.s. court system? What would you like to see? Rules of evidence? Pick a state. Or we could just use federal.

 

[Curious George]

Why then cite expert witness testimony? The discussion is not about expert witness testimony but eye witness testimony. Which can be seen by my links, is falling aoartat the seams

Yes you keep telling me you can provide evidence, im still waiting

Because theoretically expert testimony is non eye witness testimony that does not rely on eye witness testimony, everything else does.

 

[ChristineM]

Lol, it is not a war. Religion or people who are religious are not the other side. It is merely a different belief than mine and people with a different belief. I think you should read the butter battle book sometime. I make the claim god does not exist. If that is how you define strong atheist, then i am by your definition a strong atheist.

Except courts still rely on eye-witness testimony. Are you not familiar with the u.s. court system? What would you like to see? Rules of evidence? Pick a state. Or we could just use federal.

Actually your definition, my statement was that i doubted you are a strong atheist [ as you claimed ]

I have already said, the us anything only includes 5% of the world population. Why are you basing you claim on such a small sample?

And still, my multiple links show that eye witness testimony cannot be trusted and is being repealed in every case of conviction on eye witness testimony alone.

 

[ChristineM]

Because theoretically expert testimony is non eye witness testimony that does not rely on eye witness testimony, everything else does.

Then why introduce it in your discussion? I still consider you were confusing expert and eye witness testimony but it could have been a straw man

 

[Curious George]

Then why introduce it in your discussion? I still consider you were confusing expert and eye witness testimony but it could have been a straw man

Because it is the only exception that doesn't rely on eye-witness testimony and it is still testimony, subject to the most of the same problems as eye-witness testimony. Ultimately, it is the only evidence that is not reliant on eye-witness testimony.