Testifying An Officer's Argument Of Not Guilty

“Testimonials during court hearings are performed under oath, hence the statements of an individual being examined are assumed to be true and no other statement should be falsified or forged. When the officer does not pronounce the truth in court, he or she is still capable of providing a reason for his deception, based on a substitute arrangement, such as when he or she is operating as a witness to the prosecution and is not considered as the defendant in a court case. However, it is also required that the officer is conscious of the rules of the court system that he or she has sworn to tell the truth during examination” (Chevigny , 1969).

As a veteran police officer, I would give my rookie officers some valuable informational tips about Sovereign Citizens, and how to approach them with precaution before exiting the patrol vehicle. Since my rookie is in training, I will advise that he/she back me up and pay close attention while I perform the traffic stop because Sovereign Citizens are anti-government extremists. I do not want to aggravate the defendant driver because from

This Case Study is about a police officer from Pleasanton Police force by the name of Lorena. Lorena was highly respected by the Merchants and people in the area that she patrolled. Her jurisdiction/patrol area was safe and safety rating was excellent with only few crimes or robberies per year. Last year Lorena was assigned to a different patrol area due to an Officer retired. Her assignment was changed from foot patrol to a car patrol. She spent half a day introducing the new Officer, Derek to the Merchants and to ensuring he know the area she was patrolling. Everything was going fine with Lorena until after six month Lorena’s Sergeant reported an increase in robberies and criminal activity in the area Lorena use to patrol. He wanted

In the primary "wrongdoing", the officer was in full uniform when non-military personnel drew him nearer. The casualty had a serious cut on her head and her lip and the blood was splashed into her shirt. She told the officer that she had been looted and beaten. She gave the officer a depiction of the culprit that purported burglarized and beat her. The depiction was to some degree dubious. She let him know that the culprit was wearing a red shirt and white jeans. She said that she did not see the culprit 's face in light of the ski veil so in this way she did not know the sexual orientation or ethnicity of the culprit. She could tell the officer that the culprit was 5 '8" and had a firearm. She additionally told the officer that the

After the Crown’s cross examination of the witness, the accused was called to the stand. He has no previous criminal record and was in the Navy for 3 year. He said, that he did not know that he did not have a choice in taking a breath test until the cop had dropped him off. He testified to having asked for a lawyer multiple times. He also said that the cop was frustrated and so he was yelling and slammed the door of the cop car after the accused had gotten in the backseat. After the direct examination, was the cross-examination by the Crown. During the

So you have broken the law, whether or not you had a warrant for your arrest, or not, and now you have to stand trial. During this time, you may be wondering what’s ahead on your journey to being found innocent or guilty. There are many different things that you will have to endure, and it may be a long process. Today, I will be writing about the steps from the time you have your initial appearance until the time the judge gives the verdict on whether or not you are found guilty.

It is the rookie prosecutor who will most likely say, “in my heart I feel like police officers do a good job, … [so] when they arrest somebody they are usually guilty of what they are arrested for.”vii Rookie prosecutors can have such profound faith in police and take everything the police say “as holy writ,” that one rookie prosecutor even referred to himself as a “holster sniffer” and they predicted that they would be “crushed” if they ever learned that a police officer had lied about a defendant's guilt.viii The biases of the police would then add pressures on the prosecutor and once the police make an arrest it would make it harder for him to refuse to file the charges after the arrest had occurred.ix The loyalty to police can transfer the police bias into the decision of whether to press charges, and can led to prosecutors proceeding with a case even if the evidence is

In the past couple of decades till now, there have been countless numbers of hate speech cases on college campuses across the country. Due to hate speech taking on many forms such as written, spoken, and symbolic, the number of incidents have skyrocketed. While many colleges have attempted to regulate hate speech on campus, other colleges have found that they have limited too much speech and that their regulations are starting to go against the first amendment. Three incidents of hate speech on college campuses in the years 1993-1995 occurred in the college campuses of Penn, UCR, and Caltech respectively.

involving civilians will provide efficient evidence. Interactions between an officer and a civilian often occur. Often, we find videos of those interactions on the Internet. Bystanders record videos with cell phones, video cameras, or other devices then upload them to the Internet. The videos that usually draw the most

In view of his onerous role, it is essential that his conduct should be entirely fair and above board. An Officer discharging judicial functions must be impartial. He must not have the slightest interest in the result or outcome of the case. He should not be biased in favour of the prosecution more than the defence. His attitude towards the case should be indifferent and unprejudiced. Freedom from bias on his part should be clearly discernable. Such a person should extend to the accused the humane presumptions of the law and keep his mind in such condition with reference to the accused that guilt must be affirmatively and conclusively shown before he is willing to convict.

When officers are composing reports, they should focus solely on stating the facts, the basic facts. Often time officers may input something in the report that could have been avoided, such as “another car was passing by as I was having a conversation with the complainant that is irrelevant and should be left out the report (Hart, 2000). Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges are not worried about whether or not a car was passing by as the office was conversing with the compliant. They; prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges; are more concerned on whether a crime took place and if so the details concerning the alleged incident. Once officers focus exclusively on the facts relating to the particular case, it makes the report flow more easily and does not disturb the genuine issue (Hart, 2000). Another issue that officers often due in reports is

If an officer has a previous instance of falsifying testimony, any testimony he gives in the future could be thrown out of court, letting an offender go free.

The Ontological Argument In Anselm's ontological argument he is trying to prove the existence of God, his argument is an argument purely based on the mind and does not require the moral agent to venture into the real of the senses. Ontology is to do with being, or what something is. Anselm's ontological argument concerns existence and whether it is an attribute of God in the same way omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence are believed to be. The argument is an a priori argument. It does not rest on proving God's existence by relying on experimental knowledge but on showing that God must exist logically, or that God's non-existence is illogical.

As a Crown Prosecutor in a case when a conviction is sought for a defendant who consciously delays or prevents a person from saving their own life or the life of another; to reach a guilty verdict there has to be evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence must prove that there has been an obstruction of justice resulting in injury or death caused by the defendant to the victim(s) wellbeing. If convicted the defendant will be found guilty of an indictable offence and imprisonment up to 10 years (Criminal Code, 1985, s

The wide discretion that is conferred upon the Court is to be used after due application of mind. In order to see if the witness has indeed turned hostile, statements made to the police officer can be relied on by virtue of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.