The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[crazy canuck]

Experts provide opinion evidence based on facts they are asked to assume are true.

Police provide evidence as to what is true.

A distinction that can get lost to a lay person.

[grumbler]

Civilians can provide opinion evidence based on facts they are asked to assume are true.

Civilians can provide evidence as to what is true.

A distinction that can get lost to one engaged in special pleading.

[Barrister]

BB:  when do you "list" witnesses as civilian or police?  Why is it necessary to distinguish them in such a way?  Aren't expert witnesses also paid, also usually experienced in court appearances, known for being on-time for appearances, and also required to provide written support for their testimony (i.e. notes")? Are they then police, civilians, or some other, new category?  If the latter, how many categories are there?

You are kind of correct - we have 3 categories: police, civilian and expert (and an expert can be either a police expert, or a civilian expert, so that's why they have their own category).

Civilians can provide opinion evidence based on facts they are asked to assume are true.

Well, no.

As I noted, a civilian can also be an expert.  But not all civilians are experts - and ONLY a qualified expert can give opinion evidence.

For everyone else it's straight "just the facts, ma'am".


Why do we use these categories?  It's just a kind of shorthand.  I mean yes in longhand you name every witness and their expected area of testimony.  But as shorthand at the start of a trial I'll tell the judge "good morning your Honour.  Barrister, initial B, for the Crown.  I'm here on the Jones matter.  The Crown has 2 police and 3 civilian witnesses today, and we're ready to proceed."

[grumbler]

You are kind of correct - we have 3 categories: police, civilian and expert (and an expert can be either a police expert, or a civilian expert, so that's why they have their own category).

Civilians can provide opinion evidence based on facts they are asked to assume are true.

Well, no.

As I noted, a civilian can also be an expert.  But not all civilians are experts - and ONLY a qualified expert can give opinion evidence.

For everyone else it's straight "just the facts, ma'am".


Why do we use these categories?  It's just a kind of shorthand.  I mean yes in longhand you name every witness and their expected area of testimony.  But as shorthand at the start of a trial I'll tell the judge "good morning your Honour.  Barrister, initial B, for the Crown.  I'm here on the Jones matter.  The Crown has 2 police and 3 civilian witnesses today, and we're ready to proceed."

So are experts still not civilians when they are outside of the courthouse?  Are the police?

I appreciate you explaining this terminology, but the more you explain, the less significant it seems to be to the question of whether or not police are civilians in any sense other than courthouse shorthand.

[Barrister]

Unlike the civilian / police divide, an expert witness have very special rules in court.  They have to file an expert report and CV 30 days in advance.  The judge or justice has to qualify them before they can give evidence.  And of course, once they are qualified as an expert they are the only type of witness who is allowed to give  opinion evidence.  e.g. 'in my opinion the cause of death was blunt force trauma'.

Like I mentioned, an expert can be either police or civilian.  Typically police forces have experts in things like fingerprints, or perhaps dog tracks.  A civilian expert could be just about anything else.

Oh, this brings me to another and separate use of the police / civilian terminology: civilian police employees.  Most police forces employ people who are not sworn, uniformed officers.  They haven't received specialized training, they are not "peace officers" as defined in law - but their employer is the police force.  Maybe they answer phones, or they might work as some kind of expert (our toxicologists work for the RCMP).  We call these people civilian employees.

There's a very big distinction between sworn police officers and non-sworn, non-uniformed police employees.  The easiest term for these people is "civilian".

[Razgovory]

When a soldier testifies what category does she go in?

[Barrister]

When a soldier testifies what category does she go in?

I've mentioned that before.  When I prosecuted in Cold Lake or Wainwright both those towns had nearby Canadian Forces bases.  For me the important distinction is between police and non-police.  So a file investigated by the Military Police (who God bless 'em, but they weren't well trained in criminal investigations) I would treat like police.  If it's just Corporal Joe who saw something while he was off-duty I would treat like a civilian.  And if it was something that happened while military soldiers were on-duty it would go to a military court.

Obviously Corporal Joe is not a civilian in other contexts, being a uniformed soldier and all.  But he is in this one.

[Berkut]

So we have figured out that in a court, people who are clearly civilians are not civilians, and people who are clearly military are civilians.

I think we can safely assume that Beebs court is an excellent example of why his example should definitely not be considered as relevant to the overall debate.

[crazy canuck]

lol,

Berkut:  my clearly correct view is clearly correct.

[The Minsky Moment]

I've never heard this civilian witness distinction used in a US (non-military) court, although my experience is limited to federal criminal cases where FBI agents are witnesses not usually police.  it may be that US attorney's office use such terminology internally.  From the perspective of court rules and trial practice, a law enforcement witness is like any other fact witness.

[jimmy olsen]

No deselection attempt at all and could have easily shot the other people involved.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=472451740761727&ref=watch_permalink

[Solmyr]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1384688301962141697

Aparently, Tucker Carlson is the Joker.

[crazy canuck]

I've never heard this civilian witness distinction used in a US (non-military) court, although my experience is limited to federal criminal cases where FBI agents are witnesses not usually police.  it may be that US attorney's office use such terminology internally.  From the perspective of court rules and trial practice, a law enforcement witness is like any other fact witness.

As BB mentioned, referring to people who are not police as civilians is not limited to court rooms.  Police departments in Canada generally refer to their non police employees as civilians as well. For example here is the RCMP describing the "civilian" job opportunities available within the RCMP.  https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/civilian-employee-careers

I checked and the police in New York use the same terminology https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/civilians/civilians-landing.page

It may be that our US languish contributors should reevaluate their position that civilian can only mean non military.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Eh, having worked in a Federal agency with sworn law enforcement officers in the agency, the delineation I often see is "sworn" employee and "civilian" employee. So I don't actually think it's that uncommon in police orgs in the U.S. I think a big city municipal police department also usually will talk of its "sworn officers" and "civilian employees." What may be different is the courts here it seems like from other posters haven't standardized this language or codified it.

[Berkut]

I"ve certainly heard people within the policing community refer to non-police as "civilians". Is that what is up for debate?