From a legal perspective, is the cop's unjustified INTENTIONAL use of force (the dog) against a real offender in the street (the bicyclist)
even RELEVANT for the new incident involving an ACCIDENT, where the cop grabbed a gun that he thought would not fire, but did fire, during a training exercise, aiming at a target he KNEW was not a threat, nor any sort of criminal?
Is it relevant? Relevant = assists the fact-finding body (judge, or jury) in either finding that a certain fact has been proven or has not been proven. Relevant evidence does not have to carry this burden by itself, but it has to have enough weight that the analysis goes further toward one direction or another WITH that evidence that it would without it.
*********
Next question: If it were relevant evidence, would it even be admissible?
It sounds like character evidence.
As Phaed observed above, the argument would be that this guy is a habitual rule-breaker, because he's special and the rules don't apply to him.
He is of the mindset that he can get away with anything, because he's a cop (apparently a super-cop that has the special honor of training others in police tactics).
So, is this "character evidence" ?? If so, the general rule is that evidence showing somebody's bad moral character is not admissible to help prove that the person acted in a bad way during a particular incident.
even RELEVANT for the new incident involving an ACCIDENT, where the cop grabbed a gun that he thought would not fire, but did fire, during a training exercise, aiming at a target he KNEW was not a threat, nor any sort of criminal?
Is it relevant? Relevant = assists the fact-finding body (judge, or jury) in either finding that a certain fact has been proven or has not been proven. Relevant evidence does not have to carry this burden by itself, but it has to have enough weight that the analysis goes further toward one direction or another WITH that evidence that it would without it.
*********
Next question: If it were relevant evidence, would it even be admissible?
It sounds like character evidence.
As Phaed observed above, the argument would be that this guy is a habitual rule-breaker, because he's special and the rules don't apply to him.
He is of the mindset that he can get away with anything, because he's a cop (apparently a super-cop that has the special honor of training others in police tactics).
So, is this "character evidence" ?? If so, the general rule is that evidence showing somebody's bad moral character is not admissible to help prove that the person acted in a bad way during a particular incident.
