Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5058It was only on a distinct minority of situations where I did not caution - but if you look at what you typed it refers to being questioned. So what...
you either
Merely that the "committed an offence", from an arbitrary perspective, is both subjective and not absolute.
Indeed.
My point - with the greatest respect - being to counter your suggestion that the police officers' take on this was absolute, definite, and unquestionable. But it's not - that's why we still have a "justice" system, and that's why police officers can't just play accuser, judge and jury.
be
OK, so say I accept that rationale for a second - in these hypothetical circumstances, why doesn't the legal system say that the police officer can play judge and jury here - in true Judge Dredd style. Sure, I realise the FPN system sort of alludes to this, but that's only if the accused doesn't challenge it.
until
Nope.
But by the same token, I don't expect that it will be good enough just to take my word for it, either.
every
Again, no.
But I don't expect that it can merely be done without there needing something being presented to a jury to prove guilt.
Legally the shooter is innocent, until such time as the 12 good people return their verdict.
I'm not suggesting that the word of individuals or the observations of police officers isn't good enough to be used for accusing or charging, merely that it's not sufficient, comprehensively, to use as rationale to presume guilt. There is some middle ground.
caution
Are you saying that people reported or charged with an offence don't have a right to legal representation? Are you suggesting that people being questioned can be denied legal representation?
Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5054In some circumstances - absolutely. And they don't. But a police officer must make a decision, prior to reporting or arresting whether he believes an offender is guilty...
That's not all it says. It also says he she has the right to remain silent - and it then informs he she that their case may be harmed if they do stay silent, yet answer when later questioned - even if that ignores the fact that they may have subsequently had access to legal counsel.
has
I don't have difficulty grasping that.
With respect, you just seem to be making the buttumption that the caution is merely for the police officer's benefit.
What happened to right to silence? To innocence until proven guilty?
Where did all that go?
notifying include
And presumably, people are enbreastled to exercise their rights to silence, here, before having access to legal representation.
Are you suggesting that people don't have the right to legal representation or counsel, when questioned?
use worthy being suspects
I'm altogether sketchy on why they shouldn't be cautioned, or why it shouldn't be a requirement.
So why isn't it a must then?
simple
Wouldn't it have served you well to caution them, then? Wouldn't that abuse be of some use in evidence?
officer.
If you buttume it's entirely for the police officer's benefit - which if you'll forgive me, seems your flaw, and your perspective in discussing this.
innocence
Then why the recent buttault on the right to silence, then? Why should it be valid to somehow subvert this?
approach about
Isn't that the point, though? He she may not be able to clearly explain.
And surely he's she's not yet the offender until he she is convicted? ;-)
an a
I do feel your frustration, but even accepting that, I'd still rather the system be actually required to prove guilt, than buttume something from silence.
Who was it that said - better a guilty man go free, than an innocent man be convicted?
be you
Depends on how you view "strictly". That's certainly the way I believe it works in practice.
heard were the both until that
No that's not the reason I consider it to be "guilty until proven innocent".
The reason I consider it guilty until proven innocent, is because the presumption will be guilt, unless the registered keeper can somehow prove otherwise. Furthermore, the "damning" evidence merely identifies a number plate on a car, as opposed to the driver at the time.
However, the burden of proof isn't on the police, or the legal system to prove who the driver was. The burden of proof is on the registered keeper to either self-incriminate, or prove their innocence. And as I said, I expect answering "I wasn't driving and I don't know who was" doesn't get tolerated, even if it's completely honest.
