Should the burden of proof shift after cops drink?

Yes they were under the influence that changes everything

i don’t think so. the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt stays with the prosecution. i would think that the defendant doesn’t even have to open his/her mouth…

Ben, you’re not answering the question. You described what the case is, my question is should it be that way? (Descriptive vs. Normative). Burdens frequently shift in law, why not here? When a civilian is charged with homicide and mounts a justifiable homicide defense, isn’t the burden with them to show that it was justified? Why could we not have the same in this case (after an officer has been drinking)? As far as “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, proof of what? There is no question that they killed the man. The question is whether it should be presumed justified or not.

A cop can’t arrest someone if he is a drunk low-life…Can he?

Influence hurts it badly.

Zaid, you didn’t answer the question either, you merely described to Benjamin what the question was grammar-wise.

zack, my answer is implied. Questioning whether the presumption of justification should continue to rest with the defendant after the cops have been drinking implies that perhaps, it should not. (definitely should not). And a cop can arrest anyone so long has he or she has probable cause. Whether or not probable cause exists when an officer is under the influence is a different question. IMO, the burden of showing PC should increase dramatically if the arresting officer is under the influence.

Duh, a cop should be fired if he were caught drunk while on the clock. Why would he even attempt to arrest someone?

i agree with you but see above (cops were drinking, killed a man (50 shots), and not tested).

To me it sounds like cops trying to have fun in a sick way (trigger happy twisted men). They should either be arrested or at least discharged. The last thing New York needs to go back to is more crooked cops

Ew, I hate reading descriptions the size of todays newspaper.

i’m with you connor. 31 shots?! in seconds?! that’s not who i want patrolling my neighborhood. How many stray shots is that? If I were to do that, I’d prolly get charged with reckless endangerment. Why should we protect these clowns when they step outside what is reasonable behavior.

Because they’ll sue us if we don’t. =O

I think it’s possible they were at the strip-club to have a night of fun. Not for undercover work. Probably a couple of crooked cops that have something going with the judge. When hearing stories like this you remember why you ALWAYS suck up to cops. You never know who you’re dealing with. And if they do decide to break the rules just for you than they may easily get away with it.

zack, wait, the cops will sue us? on what theory?

It’s a joke, people sue everyone nowadays just for the money. No matter how rediculous the case is.
Dang a hot pickle!

sorry zaid…i misread. i’d say it shouldn’t; i don’t see the need. generally, it’s good policy to presume that state action is justifiable. that’s not to say that proof of drinking/drunkenness shouldn’t serve as VERY strong evidence tending to negate justifiability.

The pride of most western civilisations is that the judicial system operates on a ‘innocent till proven guilty’ basis and I don’t think this should be flexible. At any time, if the state or civil party decides to bring charges/allegations against someone, they should have to prove their case. The defendant never chose to be put in that position and did not prepare the case to be presented for the court, therefore burden of proof should remain on the party that brought the case forward. That’s my view on it.

Flower, normally i agree with you. However, these cases is different. The cops clearly killed the dude, so they have to mount a defense. The defense is ‘justifiable homicide’ (or something like it). Normally the def. has a the burden to so that a homicide was justified. Here, we assume that it was because they are cops. Maybe that’s right, maybe not (reasonable people can disagree). My point, however, is that if cops are under the influence, the burden should, as a rule, shift to them to prove that they were justified. As far as “innocent til proven guilty”, I agree with you that it’s a good presumption. However, you still have to answer the question of what is the standard of proof and who bears the burden of meeting that standard. In some cases different parties bare the burden proving certain elements. The same would be true here.

If it’s a clear case of criminal intent and action, it shouldn’t be that hard for the prosecution to prove their case. And on the opposite side, it should be very difficult for the defense to discredit the proof presented by the prosecution.
I don’t think you can shift the structure to ‘guilty till proven innocent’ based on the nature or circumstance of the case.

The Sean Bell case has almost nothing to do with drinking, and I think the questioner’s characterization of the officers as “under the influence” is somewhat misleading.

These were on-duty, undercover officers. They are allowed to drink two drinks. And while two drinks may slow a person’s reaction time, but it’s not enough alcohol to make someone intoxicated. The officers would still have been able to drive, for example.

We should continue to allow undercover officers to drink (in moderation, when it helps them maintain their cover). If they fire a weapon while intoxicated, they should be held accountable. But there’s no evidence that the officers in the Bell case were intoxicated, so they should be treated like any other police officers who fire their weapons on duty.

Flower: You misunderstand. It’s not a question of changing the presumption of innocence. It’s a question of shifting the burden of proof when a defense is asserted.

Bob: (1) You say that the officers would still have be able to drive. How do we know if they were not tested? If you are right that they should be allowed to drink in moderation, that should be kept in check with routine testing. (2) Also, the question is not limited to the Sean Bell killing but rather is a larger policy question that came to mind when I learned that they had been drinking. (3) You say that there is no evidence that they were intoxicated. If they admit to having been drinking, the burden should be on them to prove that they were not “intoxicated”. If I get pulled over and I admit to drinking, I have the burden of proving that I am within acceptable limits. The police should be held to the same standard. (4) Finally, I disagree that an officer who has been drinking and fires a weapon should be treated like any other – that would not happen in any other profession. You make a good point about maintaining undercover status but that should be very carefully monitored.

@Zaid: As the article you link to points out, NYC’s new policy (implemented after the Sean Bell incident) is to use a breathalyzer if an officer who has been drinking fires his weapon. I think that covers points one through four.

It might answer 1, 3, and 4 (which were responses to your post – and it sounds like the answers support my contention) but not 2 (which is the original normative question).