• ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    26 days ago

    So if a police officer doesn’t witness a murder they’re unable to use evidence that’s introduced by somebody else at court? Give me a break. They just don’t want to do the deposition and affidavit legwork and hope the non police officer witness shows up in court to introduce evidence if challenged. It’s a more pain in the ass case that has more ways to fall apart (identification, the witness or the officer just not showing up) but it’s just laziness.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      26 days ago

      that, and, ideologically the cops don’t care about victims, especially if the perp is one of them. the car cult is not going to police itself.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      A murder typically leaves physical evidence. A murder that leaves no physical evidence is very hard or impossible to prosecute. Although I bet if the only evidence was a video feed and the victims persistent non-presence, it would be considered.

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 days ago

        Physical evidence must also be introduced by witnesses, often non police officer experts in that case. All evidence must be introduced by whoever can establish a chain of custody at the least. My point is you can’t plop evidence on the bench and ever expect it to testify but the cops complaining that they themselves aren’t the witness to introduce it is horseshit because evidentiary rules don’t require them to be.