2006-12-07 05:59:26 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
In most places it is considered that the police have no ax to grind and that the "perp" has a natural built in conflict of interest about the truth.
Except when the "perp" is innocent, and the police are only covering up their own corruption.
Even the plea bargaining is forced on the innocent so that those who protest and demand a trial, get worse sentences than those who are guilty and plea bargain.
2006-12-07 06:11:14 · answer #1 · answered by No Bushrons 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's what happens 99.9% of the time -- unless the accused can produce evidence to refute the police officer's testimony. We all know there are crooked cops out there, but police officers are considered worthy of the public trust by virtue of the fact that they passed the initial background check and made it through the police academy, so a judge is automatically inclined to find the testimony of a police officer credible.
2006-12-07 14:09:26 · answer #2 · answered by sarge927 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe in Vermont. Don't forget, that's the State that spawned Holin' Howard so anything's possible.
2006-12-07 14:02:14 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure that it happens, but sometimes they don't. Especially if the cop had been with that judge for some other case, and they had ruined their creditability.
2006-12-07 14:19:23 · answer #4 · answered by Katie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
pretty much - they will usually find a reason that you are guilty - i went thru something once and my big mouth blew it for me - so my advice is that the state is required to prove that you are guilty... so make them do that - just deny everything, dont admit to anything and stay polite - but firm that you are right...good luck
2006-12-07 14:08:56 · answer #5 · answered by beachnut222000 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋