3 ms·

> There is no chemical test evidence. There is plenty of behavioural evidence, evidence that warrants a reckless driving test. The only 'evidence' is the uncor

> There is no chemical test evidence. There is plenty of behavioural evidence, evidence that warrants a reckless driving test. The only 'evidence' is the uncorroborated word of an officer. Yes, that counts, but no it's not evidence in any way. And more and more we're having officer testimony proved to be a lie on the evening news. > That's a huge assumption to make. What are they "fishing" for? Charges that will stick. The same as when they say they see erratic driving and demand to search your car. Something that will justify the cop-rage that resulted in the guy being pulled over. > There is no chemical test evidence. Oh no, in fact there's plenty of test evidence that he wasn't intoxicated. And all else being equal, a citizen who had a clean test is less likely to have been driving erratically than one who hasn't. It's a logic error to assign weight to the accusation in absence of any positive evidence, and then use that weight to suggest that the negative evidence now doesn't apply. > The system is very able to "prove" that he was driving poorly and he will be punished accordingly. The system is able to punish him despite the lack of evidence. The word prove doesn't apply in any way. And in fact in proper terminology the system merely "finds" him guilty, it doesn't claim to prove guilt.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> Yes, that counts, but no it's not evidence in any way. So it counts as evidence, but it's not really evidence? The word of an officer holds weight in court. Heck, the word of any eyewitness is evidence. > Something that will justify the cop-rage Instead of projecting feelings on the officer, how about the driver was driving so erratically that the officer felt as though the lives of bystanders were in danger? > Oh no, in fact there's plenty of test evidence that he wasn't intoxicated. No. There is no test you can take to prove that you weren't intoxicated. He was not intoxicated on any of the substances he was tested on. > It's a logic error to assign weight to the accusation in absence of any positive evidence The evidence in this case the the observation of the witness, an officer, which is evidence whether you see it that way or not. We're not talking about chemical tests here. > The system is able to punish him despite the lack of evidence. It seems like you're saying the word of an officer is somehow less than the word of a non-officer. If anybody gives eyewitness testimony to erratic driving, that's evidence. I don't see why you're talking around that.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > So it counts as evidence, but it's not really evidence? No amount of eye-witnesses to recklessness amount to proof of intoxication. Let alone one uncorroborated, counter-factual, claim. > Instead of projecting feelings on the officer, If there was credible evidence of recklessness they'd have charged him with it. The fishing expedition is because the pretext is barely credible. It's possible that the officer alone witnessed this behavior, and there also isn't any corroborating evidence, but it's more likely just a false allegation. How handy that an off-duty officer, whose camera wasn't running, noticed him instead of the myriad of on-duty officers on the same road. > how about the driver was driving so erratically that the officer felt as though the lives of bystanders were in danger? Right, and in other news the officer felt their life was in danger so they shot the person. We've seen how these are lies so I don't know why you would give the police witness any more credibility than anyone else's, which is to say essentially zero. But yes, it's not physically impossible just improbable. > No. There is no test you can take to prove that you weren't intoxicated. He was not intoxicated on any of the substances he was tested on. Right, but wrong. He was selected without knowledge of his state of intoxication, but because of suspicion, and with no prior association with the officer or other reason for being picked. If he's clean of all tested substances (which are of course the primary intoxicants which is why we test for them) he's likelier than a control person to actually be clean for all tested substances. We've established that he's not in the group of drinkers, tokers, snorters, etc. He may be in the group of obscure tweakers on drug X that we can't detect, but he's much more likely just clean. > The evidence in this case the the observation of the witness, an officer, which is evidence whether you see it that way or not. We're not talking about chemical tests here. Right. But we gave the chemical tests weight, had they been positive he'd have been convicted on that evidence, because of the officer's testimony. He must have been on something... And now we dismiss the tests similarly because they contradict the officer's testimony. He must have been on something the tests don't catch... The test is being given undue weight based on its ability to prove or contest the officer's story. For rigor, the test and the weight placed on it must be part of the proposition, not the conclusion. If the tests could provide evidence to convict for intoxication they must also provide substantial evidence of non-intoxication. (In randomly selected individuals. We could stack the deck by supplying just Drug X users, but he wasn't selected from a population likely to be high in Drug X usage.) > It seems like you're saying the word of an officer is somehow less than the word of a non-officer. Yes, absolutely. As long as an officer's word is given extra weight in court, I as a citizen and a logician must discount it and all evidence based on it proportionally. > If anybody gives eyewitness testimony to erratic driving, that's evidence. Some evidentiary weight, yes. Enough to get someone breathalyzed, maybe, but not enough for the charges to stick despite that. This example has the eyewitness testimony being proof enough for the DA who laments the failure of the tests, instead of recognizing the proper findings from them. > I don't see why you're talking around that. I'm not trying to talk around it, I'm addressing it directly. Police testimony has an incredibly low bar and we've seen 1) a tremendous number of lies that contradict recorded fact, and 2) an almost total cover-up and complete defense of lying officers. It's an ad-hominem to say that someone is a liar and therefore dismiss their conclusion, but it's perfectly reasonable to say they're a known liar so it's likely they're lying, and discount appropriately.

jimmywanger 10y ago

> Yes, that counts, but no it's not evidence in any way. So it counts as evidence, but it's not really evidence? The word of an officer holds weight in court. Heck, the word of any eyewitness is evidence. > Something that will justify the cop-rage Instead of projecting feelings on the officer, how about the driver was driving so erratically that the officer felt as though the lives of bystanders were in danger? > Oh no, in fact there's plenty of test evidence that he wasn't intoxicated. No. There is no test you can take to prove that you weren't intoxicated. He was not intoxicated on any of the substances he was tested on. > It's a logic error to assign weight to the accusation in absence of any positive evidence The evidence in this case the the observation of the witness, an officer, which is evidence whether you see it that way or not. We're not talking about chemical tests here. > The system is able to punish him despite the lack of evidence. It seems like you're saying the word of an officer is somehow less than the word of a non-officer. If anybody gives eyewitness testimony to erratic driving, that's evidence. I don't see why you're talking around that.

EdHominem 10y ago
> So it counts as evidence, but it's not really evidence? No amount of eye-witnesses to recklessness amount to proof of intoxication. Let alone one uncorroborated, counter-factual, claim. > Instead of projecting feelings on the officer, If there was credible evidence of recklessness they'd have charged him with it. The fishing expedition is because the pretext is barely credible. It's possible that the officer alone witnessed this behavior, and there also isn't any corroborating evidence, but it's more likely just a false allegation. How handy that an off-duty officer, whose camera wasn't running, noticed him instead of the myriad of on-duty officers on the same road. > how about the driver was driving so erratically that the officer felt as though the lives of bystanders were in danger? Right, and in other news the officer felt their life was in danger so they shot the person. We've seen how these are lies so I don't know why you would give the police witness any more credibility than anyone else's, which is to say essentially zero. But yes, it's not physically impossible just improbable. > No. There is no test you can take to prove that you weren't intoxicated. He was not intoxicated on any of the substances he was tested on. Right, but wrong. He was selected without knowledge of his state of intoxication, but because of suspicion, and with no prior association with the officer or other reason for being picked. If he's clean of all tested substances (which are of course the primary intoxicants which is why we test for them) he's likelier than a control person to actually be clean for all tested substances. We've established that he's not in the group of drinkers, tokers, snorters, etc. He may be in the group of obscure tweakers on drug X that we can't detect, but he's much more likely just clean. > The evidence in this case the the observation of the witness, an officer, which is evidence whether you see it that way or not. We're not talking about chemical tests here. Right. But we gave the chemical tests weight, had they been positive he'd have been convicted on that evidence, because of the officer's testimony. He must have been on something... And now we dismiss the tests similarly because they contradict the officer's testimony. He must have been on something the tests don't catch... The test is being given undue weight based on its ability to prove or contest the officer's story. For rigor, the test and the weight placed on it must be part of the proposition, not the conclusion. If the tests could provide evidence to convict for intoxication they must also provide substantial evidence of non-intoxication. (In randomly selected individuals. We could stack the deck by supplying just Drug X users, but he wasn't selected from a population likely to be high in Drug X usage.) > It seems like you're saying the word of an officer is somehow less than the word of a non-officer. Yes, absolutely. As long as an officer's word is given extra weight in court, I as a citizen and a logician must discount it and all evidence based on it proportionally. > If anybody gives eyewitness testimony to erratic driving, that's evidence. Some evidentiary weight, yes. Enough to get someone breathalyzed, maybe, but not enough for the charges to stick despite that. This example has the eyewitness testimony being proof enough for the DA who laments the failure of the tests, instead of recognizing the proper findings from them. > I don't see why you're talking around that. I'm not trying to talk around it, I'm addressing it directly. Police testimony has an incredibly low bar and we've seen 1) a tremendous number of lies that contradict recorded fact, and 2) an almost total cover-up and complete defense of lying officers. It's an ad-hominem to say that someone is a liar and therefore dismiss their conclusion, but it's perfectly reasonable to say they're a known liar so it's likely they're lying, and discount appropriately.