Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
That's the unfortunate thing Wes: a preponderance of evidence means that they don't need to prove it was him beyond a reasonable doubt, they just need to prove that the evidence shows it is more likely true than not. A police officer's testimony and no other evidence to point to makes it pretty likely they would rule against him.
I'm no lawyer though, so I reserve the right to be entirely wrong.
|
See that just seems like extortion to me. Neighbor gets a hair up his ass, finds somebody to blame, lazy cop thinks it looks "bad" and suddenly he's responsible for something he had nothing to do with. Again I'm no lawyer either but it seems like there has to be some recourse for the accused besides what amounts to proving he didn't do it. The whole thing sounds very unfair and kind of crooked.
I'm not disagreeing with you because I don't really know either just opining I suppose.