Ohio SC Says Trained Cops Don't Need Radar Gun

[buffalobillsrul2002]

Um... there's this thing called evidence and you kind of need it. I don't care if it's a cop or the Pope, nobody's word alone is enough to convict somebody of a crime.

You watch too much CSI. I actually read an article a little while ago that shows like CSI have made it much harder for prosecutors to convince a jury of somebody's guilt. Nowadays everybody wants a gun with matching bullet signature and bloody fingerprints and/or semen connecting a person directly to the weapon. Most of the time it doesn't work out that conveniently.

And this is really how it should be (unless you have many unrelated witnesses saying the same thing). It's been proven scientifically that what you see may not be what is happening, especially in high-stress situations...

[pjalst]

How do you know when a police offer is watching a CSI show?



He's rolling on the floor laughing his @ss off.

If you want to see real police work and forensics, watch Forensic Files on Tru TV

[jfg]

It's speeding not solving a homicide. Witnesses are fine but in this case it's a police officer vs. citizen. No other witnesses. I can't imagine that even cops feel comfortable having their word against another with no evidence other than their trained eye. Any cop would want a radar to prove that the ticket they wrote was just. It's a cost cutting technique that nobody wants except the ones trying to balance the budget. Maybe the trained officer will be right most of the time, but human error doesn't belong in the same sentence as justice even if it's just a hundred dollar ticket for a minor infraction.

[acsguitar]

United Police States of America