pulicords has made an excellent point that will go largely overlooked in the venom pit this thread has become.

4) Recover evidence (Statements, photographs, fingerprints, DNA, other physical evidence such as clothing).

has anyone thought that the evidence preserved may well clear an individual in a justified shooting?

The police often need to preserve a scene of evidence for the BENEFIT of the innocent. Too many people conjure up their masturbatory "what ifs? " and "Couldn't they?" without being on the scene and if they were, their experience "watching a lot of cop shows on TV" or "Heard from a friend" wouldn't mean Dick.

The thought that "all cops want to convict honest citizens" is just a falsehood used by some to justify a pathalogical dislike of the Police.

quote:

The police often need to preserve a scene of evidence for the BENEFIT of the innocent. Too many people conjure up their masturbatory "what ifs? " and "Couldn't they?" without being on the scene and if they were, their experience "watching a lot of cop shows on TV" or "Heard from a friend" wouldn't mean Dick.

This is a good point, although in many places, it's not your typical patrolman or detective collecting it.

Consider many of the stories lately where convicted rapists are having their sentences over turned because modern DNA testing has proved their innocence. Had it not been for the diligent collection and preservation of evidence, this would not be possible.

quote:

The thought that "all cops want to convict honest citizens" is just a falsehood used by some to justify a pathalogical dislike of the Police.

Staying with my example above, some of these guys were convicted as a result of something. Could have been bad police work, and even if not intentional, it may have been a flaw in the system. Could have also been a bad cop wanting to stick somebody in jail just because "they deserved it".

Regardless of the reason, many of these people were convicted because the police were confident that they were involved in the crime. Just like Sendec is so confident that he has me figured out.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:....some of these guys were convicted as a result of something. Could have been bad police work, and even if not intentional, it may have been a flaw in the system. Could have also been a bad cop wanting to stick somebody in jail just because "they deserved it".

Regardless of the reason, many of these people were convicted because the police were confident that they were involved in the crime. Just like Sendec is so confident that he has me figured out.

"Could have been" bad cops? "Convicted" because the cops were "confident" they were involved? Your bias and hate are just too disgusting. I know nothing about your "case", but the "trier of fact" (a judge or jury) convicts persons accused of crimes, not the investigating or arresting officers.

If you're just going to continue spewing out this kind of nonsense (completely unassociated with the OP), I'll request that the thread be locked. You have absolutely nothing to spout by BS and I'm not going to provide you with the forum for it.

quote:

Could have been" bad cops? "Convicted" because the cops were "confident" they were involved? Your bias and hate are just too disgusting. I know nothing about your "case", but the "trier of fact" (a judge or jury) convicts persons accused of crimes, not the investigating or arresting officers.

You're right. Those who investigate do not convict. But they do sit in a witness stand and tell the jury why they believe the accused is guilty. In a typical court setting, who's testimony is more believable? That of the officers who investigated, or those of the accused (especially when they may already have a record).

Surely you jest. The police had NOTHING to do with it when an innocent person has been convicted?

quote:

You have absolutely nothing to spout by BS and I'm not going to provide you with the forum for it.

You're not providing me with anything other than quotable statements.

quote:

But they do sit in a witness stand and tell the jury why they believe the accused is guilty.

What are they supposed to do up there?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Could have been" bad cops? "Convicted" because the cops were "confident" they were involved? Your bias and hate are just too disgusting. I know nothing about your "case", but the "trier of fact" (a judge or jury) convicts persons accused of crimes, not the investigating or arresting officers.

You're right. Those who investigate do not convict. But they do sit in a witness stand and tell the jury why they believe the accused is guilty. In a typical court setting, who's testimony is more believable? That of the officers who investigated, or those of the accused (especially when they may already have a record).

Surely you jest. The police had NOTHING to do with it when an innocent person has been convicted?

quote:

You have absolutely nothing to spout by BS and I'm not going to provide you with the forum for it.

You're not providing me with anything other than quotable statements.

Please provide evidence where an "innocent person" was convicted in this case. I never said the police had "nothing" to do with the conviction, only that the case was decided by a judge or jury. As usual, you have nothing constructive to add to the topic.

You are nothing but a narcissist trolling for reactions. You'll get no additional comments from me. Obviously you aren't selling many safes, as you have so much time to devote to such childish nonsense.

quote:

As usual, you have nothing constructive to add to the topic.

I agreed with your assessment that evidence collected can and often does support the innocent, and even offered support via real life events do demonstrate why that is a good thing.

Why do you only focus on the parts you don't like? If it's a positive comment, it's OK. If it's a negative comment everybody should just shut up. I'm assuming you believe everybody should can have whatever opinion they want, so long as it's the same as yours?

quote:

You are nothing but a narcissist trolling for reactions. You'll get no additional comments from me.

You're not a man of your word. You've said that before in this very thread, but you're still talking to me.

quote:

Obviously you aren't selling many safes, as you have so much time to devote to such childish nonsense.

I haven't sold any today. But that's not really why I have so much time.

Since we're supposed to be staying on topic, perhaps you should focus a little less on my life.

Locked at the OP's request.