Unless I'm misunderstanding (and I might be, I cant read them words good) we don't actually disagree. You're deliberately misconstruing what I said somewhat, and your hyperbolic example is so absurd as to be offensive but the meat of it is there.
We may be misunderstanding each other. The hyperbolic example was to try to clear that up, not to state that the example was realistic (hence my use of the term hyperbolic). And the example wasn't meant to be representative of what I thought your stance to be. Rather, I was trying to show you a clear situation in which it would be more prejudicial than probative to admit into evidence the victim's history, despite the fact that it could have been considered by the officer.
As I understood you, you were claiming that the history of the victim would always be admissible in a use of force determination because it's "not a normal trial," and because the courts have previously stated that the victim's history is something that the cop is supposed to consider.
If so, that's not the case. The court still has to determine whether what the cop considered will have a prejudicial effect, and whether that effect is greater than its probative value. That determination is often made in light of all of the evidence, so the victim's history is not always going to make it into evidence.
If we do disagree I would appreciate it if you notify FLETC as well as all other schools and training academies.
FLETC and the schools and academies are irrelevant here. I'm not telling you that the cops are not supposed to consider the victim's history when approaching. In fact, I've stated multiple times that a cop can and should consider that.
However, what we've been discussing since your first post is whether all of the cop's considerations are admissible in a court of law:
The only thing I would like to interject about your informative discussion on court room procedure . . .
I was just pointing out that in use of force cases, if an officer knows about the suspect's prior acts, it is admissible because it is contained within the "totality". Your argument that the prior acts would be objected to because they might prejudice the jury against the defendant, in this case, don't really fit because he will not be on trial at all, he is deceased.
592 Replies
141354 Views