Attitudes towards the police

[Cunt]

They are most certainly NOT there to help you.

Sorry I can't watch the video right now, but this is still only relevant if I've done something to get arrested.

So you think only the guilty are arrested?
I will ask you, too. What percentage of arrestees are guilty compared to the percentage who are not guilty?
(this is a VERY important question for you to understand, with that attitude)

---------------

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0198 ... false.html

[floppit]

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0198 ... false.html

As the argument is now about the argument is that a derail?

[Tigger]

They are most certainly NOT there to help you.

Sorry I can't watch the video right now, but this is still only relevant if I've done something to get arrested.

So you think only the guilty are arrested?
I will ask you, too. What percentage of arrestees are guilty compared to the percentage who are not guilty?
(this is a VERY important question for you to understand, with that attitude)

---------------

To which location do the data you want to talk about pertain? Just FMI.

[Cunt]

They are most certainly NOT there to help you.

Sorry I can't watch the video right now, but this is still only relevant if I've done something to get arrested.

So you think only the guilty are arrested?
I will ask you, too. What percentage of arrestees are guilty compared to the percentage who are not guilty?
(this is a VERY important question for you to understand, with that attitude)

---------------

To which location do the data you want to talk about pertain? Just FMI.

North America (USA and Canada)

[Coito ergo sum]

They are most certainly NOT there to help you.

Sorry I can't watch the video right now, but this is still only relevant if I've done something to get arrested.

So you think only the guilty are arrested?
I will ask you, too. What percentage of arrestees are guilty compared to the percentage who are not guilty?
(this is a VERY important question for you to understand, with that attitude)

---------------

Why don't you provide the figures?

[Cunt]

They are most certainly NOT there to help you.

Sorry I can't watch the video right now, but this is still only relevant if I've done something to get arrested.

So you think only the guilty are arrested?
I will ask you, too. What percentage of arrestees are guilty compared to the percentage who are not guilty?
(this is a VERY important question for you to understand, with that attitude)

---------------

Why don't you provide the figures?

It's too easy that way. I think Tigger understands, and is being a good sport. I hope he gets it right, but I doubt anyone will.

[Coito ergo sum]

They are most certainly NOT there to help you.

Sorry I can't watch the video right now, but this is still only relevant if I've done something to get arrested.

So you think only the guilty are arrested?
I will ask you, too. What percentage of arrestees are guilty compared to the percentage who are not guilty?
(this is a VERY important question for you to understand, with that attitude)

---------------

Why don't you provide the figures?

It's too easy that way. I think Tigger understands, and is being a good sport. I hope he gets it right, but I doubt anyone will.

I don't get it. Why is it too easy that way. I'd be interested in seeing the figures, as I'm sure most people would be.

It would be interesting to know how they are determining who is guilty and who is innocent, and if there is a clearinghouse of such knowledge one might reasonably wonder why the courts aren't using it.

[Cunt]

I don't get it. Why is it too easy that way. I'd be interested in seeing the figures, as I'm sure most people would be.

It would be interesting to know how they are determining who is guilty and who is innocent, and if there is a clearinghouse of such knowledge one might reasonably wonder why the courts aren't using it.

OK I'll give it to you.

100% are NOT GUILTY

Innocent until proven guilty is NOT just a saying - it's the law.

So that means that everyone who is arrested is every bit as innocent as you, Tigger or the Queen Mum. They should all be treated like innocent people, too.

[PsychoSerenity]

I don't get it. Why is it too easy that way. I'd be interested in seeing the figures, as I'm sure most people would be.

It would be interesting to know how they are determining who is guilty and who is innocent, and if there is a clearinghouse of such knowledge one might reasonably wonder why the courts aren't using it.

OK I'll give it to you.

100% are NOT GUILTY

Innocent until proven guilty is NOT just a saying - it's the law.

So that means that everyone who is arrested is every bit as innocent as you, Tigger or the Queen Mum. They should all be treated like innocent people, too.

Well that's disappointing. I thought you were going to have some meaningful point, - but that's got nothing to with the fact that if you don't break the law, you are unlikely to be arrested.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't get it. Why is it too easy that way. I'd be interested in seeing the figures, as I'm sure most people would be.

It would be interesting to know how they are determining who is guilty and who is innocent, and if there is a clearinghouse of such knowledge one might reasonably wonder why the courts aren't using it.

OK I'll give it to you.

100% are NOT GUILTY

Innocent until proven guilty is NOT just a saying - it's the law.

So that means that everyone who is arrested is every bit as innocent as you, Tigger or the Queen Mum. They should all be treated like innocent people, too.

Well, being arrested also means that there is at least probable cause to believe that the person arrested committed a crime.

The presumption of innocence is term used for the allocation of the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution. It doesn't mean that the person did not commit the crime. In the US, and most other countries, it is an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody — the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer — believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.

Even if a person is acquitted of the charges, it doesn't mean they aren't guilty. It could just mean that the prosecution failed to meet its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Take the OJ Simpson murder trial. He was arrested based on probable cause to believe he committed murder, and was tried. He was acquitted by the jury. However, later, he faced a civil trial for wrongful death and was found responsible for the deaths of the people he was acquitted of murdering.

[Meekychuppet]

I don't get it. Why is it too easy that way. I'd be interested in seeing the figures, as I'm sure most people would be.

It would be interesting to know how they are determining who is guilty and who is innocent, and if there is a clearinghouse of such knowledge one might reasonably wonder why the courts aren't using it.

OK I'll give it to you.

100% are NOT GUILTY

Innocent until proven guilty is NOT just a saying - it's the law.

So that means that everyone who is arrested is every bit as innocent as you, Tigger or the Queen Mum. They should all be treated like innocent people, too.

Well, being arrested also means that there is at least probable cause to believe that the person arrested committed a crime.

The presumption of innocence is term used for the allocation of the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution. It doesn't mean that the person did not commit the crime. In the US, and most other countries, it is an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody — the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer — believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.

Even if a person is acquitted of the charges, it doesn't mean they aren't guilty. It could just mean that the prosecution failed to meet its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Take the OJ Simpson murder trial. He was arrested based on probable cause to believe he committed murder, and was tried. He was acquitted by the jury. However, later, he faced a civil trial for wrongful death and was found responsible for the deaths of the people he was acquitted of murdering.

I realise you'll never apologise to me for accusing me of getting mods involved in your silliness, but you really need to learn when you are, as we say here, 'bang to rights'. He got you with your pants down. Be gracious enough to admit it.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't get it. Why is it too easy that way. I'd be interested in seeing the figures, as I'm sure most people would be.

It would be interesting to know how they are determining who is guilty and who is innocent, and if there is a clearinghouse of such knowledge one might reasonably wonder why the courts aren't using it.

OK I'll give it to you.

100% are NOT GUILTY

Innocent until proven guilty is NOT just a saying - it's the law.

So that means that everyone who is arrested is every bit as innocent as you, Tigger or the Queen Mum. They should all be treated like innocent people, too.

Well, being arrested also means that there is at least probable cause to believe that the person arrested committed a crime.

The presumption of innocence is term used for the allocation of the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution. It doesn't mean that the person did not commit the crime. In the US, and most other countries, it is an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody — the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer — believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.

Even if a person is acquitted of the charges, it doesn't mean they aren't guilty. It could just mean that the prosecution failed to meet its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Take the OJ Simpson murder trial. He was arrested based on probable cause to believe he committed murder, and was tried. He was acquitted by the jury. However, later, he faced a civil trial for wrongful death and was found responsible for the deaths of the people he was acquitted of murdering.

I realise you'll never apologise to me for accusing me of getting mods involved in your silliness, but you really need to learn when you are, as we say here, 'bang to rights'. He got you with your pants down. Be gracious enough to admit it.

Got me with my pants down? What the Sam Hill are you on about? People who get arrested are not "100% innocent." He's wrong.

Run along now. Aren't you busy mischaracterizing people's posts anyway, like Gawdzilla's above?

[Pappa]

People who get arrested are not "100% innocent." He's wrong.

Actully, they are. In law at least (and that's the acid test). They are 100% innocent until convicted of the crime they were arrested for. You may disagree with that. If so, you are wrong.

[PsychoSerenity]

I'm confused. How has 'innocent until proven guilty' got anything to do with avoiding getting arrested, by not breaking the law in the first place?