These people use false evidence to convict. They don’t investigate cops investigations because the oath that take. These pigs don’t care about any oath. These tyrants prosecute innocent people even on video footage showing it.
Man...I love this channel. I taught at our one and only police academy in South Carolina. I would do a whole sections on prosecution, testifying, cross examination and presenting evidence and more. Just like Arizona, many officers have to prosecute their own cases and go up against trained Def. Attorneys....not quite a level playing ground. Very unfair.
Thank you. Glad you are enjoying the content. Let me know if you have any requests, anything you taught at the academy that you thought was super important?
Great episode! Thank you for doing this. How would the officer/prosecutor handle the situation where the testimony (as the prosecuting officer) would be considered "expert opinion?" Could the officer move to put themselves on as an "expert?"
Thank you! The officer would follow the same procedure under the rules of evidence that any attorney would. First they would have to testify to their training, education or experience (lay foundation) then move the court to accept them as an expert in a specific field (i.e. DRE, drug investigations etc). Hope this helps.
I really enjoy your channel. I think a lot of the problems we see from policing come from officers who don't necessarily fully understand the laws they are supposed to be enforcing. One slight nitpick (not about the law) in your housebuilding analogy it would be more accurate to say after laying a foundation you build a frame, or a framework in your analogy, to support the walls and the roof. And that probably works even better as an analogy. You aren't totally fleshing out all of your argument at that stage, you are just preparing the framework which will support the claims you want to make.
Thank you much appreciated. I totally agree, the lack of quality legal education for police officers is a big problem. Your also correct kn the a analogy. That's a solid way of stating foundation.
Wooooooah... My boy went to the federal rule on hearsay to determine what it is... Slow clap👏....👏....👏....👏...👏👏👏👏👏👏 bravo sir. I heard your definition and was confused. Then i went to my blacks law and it was RIGHT there in the 2nd definition. You are 1000% right and thanks for this explanation.
@@tacticalattorney No, I get the point. I think what you are doing is of great service, teaching LEOs on how to be better informed professionals with an understanding of the Constitution and case law with an eye toward prioritizing consistently lawful and Constitutional performance, and not just aiming to get convictions at any cost. I think you do good work that is professional and ethical. I came across your channel while looking at the dumpster fire that is the "Street Cop..." channel of Bonigno with it's soaked in paranoia, hypermasculinity and suspicion of every encounter, and where leading, argumentative, repetitive, obtuse and accusatory "investigation" tactics abound as "good police work", civil rights be damned. Read my comment in light of that comparison. The irony is that you are advising ethical, professional, level-headef behavior in a profession with a subculture that has massive institutional inertia.
Your objective is to teach the cops enough law to understand the loopholes and get away with unlawful arrests. “Go out and practice some unlawfulness and use your legal talent to escape”. Instead, teach them constitution and how to uphold it. Teach them, NOT to bully people to give up their rights or I.D.
The question is how could you have seized someone else's mail that had absolutely nothing to do with dealing drugs and not be prosecuted for federal felony yourself? Answer: you're as crooked as the cops.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
You're a great teacher.
These people use false evidence to convict. They don’t investigate cops investigations because the oath that take. These pigs don’t care about any oath. These tyrants prosecute innocent people even on video footage showing it.
Man...I love this channel. I taught at our one and only police academy in South Carolina. I would do a whole sections on prosecution, testifying, cross examination and presenting evidence and more. Just like Arizona, many officers have to prosecute their own cases and go up against trained Def. Attorneys....not quite a level playing ground. Very unfair.
Thank you. Glad you are enjoying the content. Let me know if you have any requests, anything you taught at the academy that you thought was super important?
Great episode! Thank you for doing this. How would the officer/prosecutor handle the situation where the testimony (as the prosecuting officer) would be considered "expert opinion?" Could the officer move to put themselves on as an "expert?"
Thank you! The officer would follow the same procedure under the rules of evidence that any attorney would. First they would have to testify to their training, education or experience (lay foundation) then move the court to accept them as an expert in a specific field (i.e. DRE, drug investigations etc). Hope this helps.
Yep you can voir dire yourself....done it@@tacticalattorney
I really enjoy your channel. I think a lot of the problems we see from policing come from officers who don't necessarily fully understand the laws they are supposed to be enforcing. One slight nitpick (not about the law) in your housebuilding analogy it would be more accurate to say after laying a foundation you build a frame, or a framework in your analogy, to support the walls and the roof. And that probably works even better as an analogy. You aren't totally fleshing out all of your argument at that stage, you are just preparing the framework which will support the claims you want to make.
Thank you much appreciated. I totally agree, the lack of quality legal education for police officers is a big problem. Your also correct kn the a analogy. That's a solid way of stating foundation.
Wooooooah... My boy went to the federal rule on hearsay to determine what it is... Slow clap👏....👏....👏....👏...👏👏👏👏👏👏 bravo sir. I heard your definition and was confused. Then i went to my blacks law and it was RIGHT there in the 2nd definition. You are 1000% right and thanks for this explanation.
Hello, thank you for the tips. Question I tried the link for the cheat sheet but it didn’t work. Do you have an updated link.
I'm sorry about that. I will update the link in the video.
Do you teach at the Santa Fe academy or just the Hobbs.
I have not had the opportunity to teach in Santa Fe yet.
The irony of "don't be argumentative" when being argumentative is one of the main go-to tactics police use during encounters with citizens.
I believe you are missing the point of this video.
@@tacticalattorney No, I get the point. I think what you are doing is of great service, teaching LEOs on how to be better informed professionals with an understanding of the Constitution and case law with an eye toward prioritizing consistently lawful and Constitutional performance, and not just aiming to get convictions at any cost. I think you do good work that is professional and ethical.
I came across your channel while looking at the dumpster fire that is the "Street Cop..." channel of Bonigno with it's soaked in paranoia, hypermasculinity and suspicion of every encounter, and where leading, argumentative, repetitive, obtuse and accusatory "investigation" tactics abound as "good police work", civil rights be damned. Read my comment in light of that comparison.
The irony is that you are advising ethical, professional, level-headef behavior in a profession with a subculture that has massive institutional inertia.
Your objective is to teach the cops enough law to understand the loopholes and get away with unlawful arrests. “Go out and practice some unlawfulness and use your legal talent to escape”.
Instead, teach them constitution and how to uphold it.
Teach them, NOT to bully people to give up their rights or I.D.
I think you are missing the point of this video.
The question is how could you have seized someone else's mail that had absolutely nothing to do with dealing drugs and not be prosecuted for federal felony yourself? Answer: you're as crooked as the cops.