• octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Yep. Police testimony without video corroboration carries no weight for me. Fight me. (not you personally)

    Edit: Removed the word “hearsay” because I was using it wrong.

    • Xtallll@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’ll fight, police testimony without video corroboration isn’t hearsay, it’s perjury until proven otherwise!

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I was using it to mean “not any more reliable than a statement from any person I don’t intrinsically trust” - but I see your point and accept your correction if such is the case.

        Police testimony means nothing to me without some form of corroboration, and if it’s their description of how or why they killed someone, that corroboration should be video or very convincing non-police witnesses.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yep. Police testimony without video corroboration is hearsay. Fight me. (not you personally)

      IIRC technically the video would be more likely to be hearsay than the cop testifying.

      Hearsay is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

      Video and audio recordings are sometimes hearsay evidence by definition, statements made outside the court. But there are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule and often recordings are admissible.

      Note, I am not a lawyer and am basing most of this on LegalEagle videos like this oneand some reading I’ve done on the subject.