|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb
#8652663 - 07/18/08 08:01 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
From an appellate case I was looking up, I found this gem.
Some kid was charged with discharging a dangerous ordinance in school.
He mixed some drain cleaner with aluminum foil and made a pop by placing it in a plastic drink and closing it- throwing in trash at lunch.
Dangerous Ordnance of the type he was charged with, stat. def.:
Quote:
"any device designed or specially adapted to cause physical harm to persons or property by means of an explosion, and consisting of an explosive substance or agency and a means to detonate it. 'Explosive device' includes without limitation any bomb, any explosive demolition device, any blasting cap or detonator containing an explosive charge, and any pressure vessel which had been knowingly tampered with or arranged so as to explode."
Irregardless of whether the drain cleaner and foil is as in the above, the cops testimony at the kids trial was bullshit.
Standard for expert opinion testimony:
Quote:
Testimony by Experts" provides that a witness may testify as an expert only where all of the following apply:
[*P49] "(A) The witness' testimony either relates to matters beyond the knowledge or experience possessed by lay persons or dispels a misconception common among lay persons;
[*P50] "(B) The witness is qualified as an expert by specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education regarding the subject matter of the testimony;
[*P51] "(C) The witness' testimony is based on reliable scientific, technical, or other specialized information."
Here's what the cop actually said:
Quote:
"Usually, it's some type of metal, and the liquid it's some type of acid-form liquid. And if the metal comes in contact with it - it takes a little bit of time. It doesn't go off right away. By the - whatever the item is, if it's airtight it doesn't have any way to get any oxygen, that's why it creates it's - it's strength, this heat, and it's got to go somewhere, so it just goes out anywhere it can. And that's what makes your pop sound, but usually is not a flame. Like I said it's usually a pop and all you see is a little smoke."
Wow.... This is exactly why you don't have expert testimony by someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. Anyone care to point out the errors in the above?
BTW, here's the appeals court analysis of the above. They basically said he could say this shit despite it being wrong and him not being qualified cuz you could cross examine him. Apparently the prosecution doesn't have to pay for an expert, but the defense does, just to refute the above bullshit:
Quote:
Appellant's counsel objected to this testimony and argued that the deputy was not properly qualified to testify as to the materials used in such a device. In overruling appellant's objection, the court explained as follows:
[*P56] "Obviously, his testimony is subject to cross-examination. But my understanding - unless I'm missing something - is that the State is eliciting this testimony based upon the deputy's experience."
[*P57] On cross-examination, [**20] appellant's counsel made further inquiry into Deputy Highfield's knowledge and experience with "bottle bomb" devices and the materials and chemicals required to make them. Highfield testified as follows:
[*P58] "I don't know about that. I know that - the only thing I know is like mailboxes and stuff we've had in the past, and people said that we went to, or went to their house and actually taken a report from they've heard where the - like a little pop sound. They think that maybe somebody had a little cap gun outside, but they didn't see anything until the next morning. And then when they go to retrieve their mail, their - inside the mailbox was melted."
[*P59] We find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court's decision to admit Deputy Highfield's testimony. Deputy Highfield's testimony was not offered by the state as an expert witness and his testimony was limited to his personal experience and information gathered in the process of investigating prior similar incidents. As the court explained in its decision to allow the testimony, the deputy was subject to cross-examination regarding his experience. The court's decision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable and was therefore [**21] not an abuse of evidentiary discretion. Accordingly, appellant's fifth assignment of error is overruled.
Wow again.
The testimony was limited to personal experience? He knew that oxygen would quench the reaction from experience? He knew the liquid was an "acid-form" liquid from experience? He knew that heat caused it to "go off" and not pressure? (btw, I'm sure this expert in chemistry/physics was refering to temperature and not heat, which further demonstrates his bullshiting and failure to understand fundamental physical terms.) He knew there was smoke, not condensing water vapor, from experience?
I wonder what kinda lab he had, considering all that shit was wrong... must be a funky lab to have experienced all of that.
Here's the actual reaction. The sodium hydroxide is apparently the "acid-type" liquid this guy was refering to, I suppose 
2 Al + 6 H2O > 2 Al(OH)3 + 3 H2
Al(OH)3 + NaOH > Na+ + [Al(OH)4]-
BTW, I think this kid was innocent based on the definition in the above, what do you guys think?
Citation:
IN THE MATTER OF: P.G.
CASE NO. CA2006-05-009
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, BROWN COUNTY
2007 Ohio 3716; 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 3399
|
Chemy
Jesus is Lord

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 6,276
Loc: A Church
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: johnm214]
#8652738 - 07/18/08 08:26 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I could discredit that "expert" and make him look like a moron in front of the whole courtroom. And I'm nobody
Obviously, if there was .5M ratio of oxygen to hydrogen generated, and heat to initiate the reaction, you would have a much better result than just bursting of the vessel through pressure of hydrogen generation.
There should be a "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" deal in that courtroom, because that "expert" would lose to a 5th grader
-------------------- Alcoholics Anonymous Narcotics Anonymous Get help, help is free and available 24/7/365. God bless you all and I hope you receive the help you need to turn away from your lives of sin. Mushrooms and drugs make you gay, you can reverse this homosexual condition with rehab, get help! Stop being gay!
|
Allak
Stranger

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 86
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: johnm214]
#8653238 - 07/18/08 10:38 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I think he deserves some punishment. Probably not jail, and maybe not in a court, but the kid did set off what amounts to a (small) bomb in a public place. I don't know exactly the results of small bottle-bombs like that, but I'm sure someone could have gotten hurt pretty easily, no?
I'm just saying the fellow needs to keep his chemistry out of the trash bin I'm going to be leaning over. I enjoy my eyes...
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: johnm214]
#8654111 - 07/19/08 05:05 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I've testified in US court as an expert witness and it was rough to prove that I was an expert. I had publications on the topic, and a lot of experience in the field, but the prosecution really seemed to belittle me over not having a phd. (I was a defense witness.) A very smart judge read them the riot act after a while. (Rather amusing watching a prosecutor squirm trying to explain to a judge why a phd is necessary to be an expert in this case.) I now have a little black book with one entry in it for the time I testified, though I think this was long enough ago that I no longer have to keep the book.
The point of the above is that the defense was asleep if they let the cop testify about something as an expert when he wasn't an expert. The second the cop started talking about chemistry, the defense should have objected asking for proof that the cop, who is certainly an expert in police matters, is also an expert in chemistry.
Quote:
"Usually, it's some type of metal, and the liquid it's some type of acid-form liquid. And if the metal comes in contact with it - it takes a little bit of time. It doesn't go off right away. By the - whatever the item is, if it's airtight it doesn't have any way to get any oxygen, that's why it creates it's - it's strength, this heat, and it's got to go somewhere, so it just goes out anywhere it can. And that's what makes your pop sound, but usually is not a flame. Like I said it's usually a pop and all you see is a little smoke."
1) Drain cleaner is typically a base, not an acid. 2) Drain cleaner (NaOH) + aluminum releases hydrogen gas, not oxygen gas 3) The hydrogen does not ignite in this instance 4) The pop is like a balloon popping, not dynamite exploding 5) The reason there is no flame is because there is no fire 6) There is also no smoke, but there is water condensation that will look like smoke (from the temperature change due to pressure change... pv=nrt) (Though I suspect the 'expert' is confusing CO2 initiated devices here.) 7) Chemical reactions aren't intelligent and don't have the ability to create something when they sense the need for it 8) Heat isn't strength
What happens on appeal if you can discredit an 'expert' witness and show that they are not an expert? Obviously the quasi-expert's testimony was heard by the jury and given consideration. Assuming that the experts testimony is successfully discredited, will this get the kid a new trial? I would hope so.
Edited by Seuss (07/19/08 05:30 AM)
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: Seuss]
#8657346 - 07/20/08 01:15 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Seuss, I agree with your criticisms of the cops's testimony.
Problem was, this case was affirmed on appeal. The defense did object, and the judge ruled that he was testifying from personal experience, and the judge let it go, as did the appeals court.
Quote:
Appellant's counsel objected to this testimony and argued that the deputy was not properly qualified to testify as to the materials used in such a device. In overruling appellant's objection, the court explained as follows:
[*P56] "Obviously, his testimony is subject to cross-examination. But my understanding - unless I'm missing something - is that the State is eliciting this testimony based upon the deputy's experience."
[*P57] On cross-examination, [**20] appellant's counsel made further inquiry into Deputy Highfield's knowledge and experience with "bottle bomb" devices and the materials and chemicals required to make them. Highfield testified as follows:
[*P58] "I don't know about that. I know that - the only thing I know is like mailboxes and stuff we've had in the past, and people said that we went to, or went to their house and actually taken a report from they've heard where the - like a little pop sound. They think that maybe somebody had a little cap gun outside, but they didn't see anything until the next morning. And then when they go to retrieve their mail, their - inside the mailbox was melted."
[*P59] We find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court's decision to admit Deputy Highfield's testimony. Deputy Highfield's testimony was not offered by the state as an expert witness and his testimony was limited to his personal experience and information gathered in the process of investigating prior similar incidents. As the court explained in its decision to allow the testimony, the deputy was subject to cross-examination regarding his experience. The court's decision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable and was therefore [**21] not an abuse of evidentiary discretion. Accordingly, appellant's fifth assignment of error is overruled.
The cop knew from experience all those things he said. The "acid-form" liquid, heat, seeking oxygen, and all 
The appeals court recognized that the cop 'knew' all those things from his prior investigations....
|
Teratism
Stranger

Registered: 08/21/08
Posts: 19
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: Seuss]
#8819105 - 08/24/08 07:23 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: I've testified in US court as an expert witness and it was rough to prove that I was an expert. I had publications on the topic, and a lot of experience in the field, but the prosecution really seemed to belittle me over not having a phd. (I was a defense witness.) A very smart judge read them the riot act after a while. (Rather amusing watching a prosecutor squirm trying to explain to a judge why a phd is necessary to be an expert in this case.) I now have a little black book with one entry in it for the time I testified, though I think this was long enough ago that I no longer have to keep the book.
The point of the above is that the defense was asleep if they let the cop testify about something as an expert when he wasn't an expert. The second the cop started talking about chemistry, the defense should have objected asking for proof that the cop, who is certainly an expert in police matters, is also an expert in chemistry.
Quote:
"Usually, it's some type of metal, and the liquid it's some type of acid-form liquid. And if the metal comes in contact with it - it takes a little bit of time. It doesn't go off right away. By the - whatever the item is, if it's airtight it doesn't have any way to get any oxygen, that's why it creates it's - it's strength, this heat, and it's got to go somewhere, so it just goes out anywhere it can. And that's what makes your pop sound, but usually is not a flame. Like I said it's usually a pop and all you see is a little smoke."
1) Drain cleaner is typically a base, not an acid. 2) Drain cleaner (NaOH) + aluminum releases hydrogen gas, not oxygen gas 3) The hydrogen does not ignite in this instance 4) The pop is like a balloon popping, not dynamite exploding 5) The reason there is no flame is because there is no fire 6) There is also no smoke, but there is water condensation that will look like smoke (from the temperature change due to pressure change... pv=nrt) (Though I suspect the 'expert' is confusing CO2 initiated devices here.) 7) Chemical reactions aren't intelligent and don't have the ability to create something when they sense the need for it 8) Heat isn't strength
What happens on appeal if you can discredit an 'expert' witness and show that they are not an expert? Obviously the quasi-expert's testimony was heard by the jury and given consideration. Assuming that the experts testimony is successfully discredited, will this get the kid a new trial? I would hope so.
Most drain cleaners use acids. The drain cleaner used for those 'The Works' bombs use the reaction of hydrochloric acid and aluminum to make pressure. If you say it's not loud, you're never done it before. It sounds like a shotgun blast.
'The Works' bombs are pretty dangerous though, especially inside.
-------------------- "Infesting swarms devour, hollowing almost seems to animate, colonizing the decomposed remains, orgies within the dead."
|
Chemy
Jesus is Lord

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 6,276
Loc: A Church
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: Teratism]
#8819124 - 08/24/08 07:38 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Teratism said:
Most drain cleaners use acids. The drain cleaner used for those 'The Works' bombs use the reaction of hydrochloric acid and aluminum to make pressure. If you say it's not loud, you're never done it before. It sounds like a shotgun blast.
'The Works' bombs are pretty dangerous though, especially inside.
Any strong base or acid can react with aluminum to produce hydrogen gas and can be used in those pressure devices.
Quote:
Most drain cleaners use acids
Really? I was certain most drain cleaners and the best selling drain cleaners are bases, I'm still sure actually.
-------------------- Alcoholics Anonymous Narcotics Anonymous Get help, help is free and available 24/7/365. God bless you all and I hope you receive the help you need to turn away from your lives of sin. Mushrooms and drugs make you gay, you can reverse this homosexual condition with rehab, get help! Stop being gay!
|
Teratism
Stranger

Registered: 08/21/08
Posts: 19
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: Chemy]
#8819209 - 08/24/08 08:22 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I was most likely wrong in saying "most." Sorry, no sleep forthe past 20 hours.
I know the hydrochloric acid that is in toilet bowl cleaners is what's preferred(at least it was when i was a teen blowing shit up).
-------------------- "Infesting swarms devour, hollowing almost seems to animate, colonizing the decomposed remains, orgies within the dead."
|
PowerOfTheCoir
Newbie Sympathizer



Registered: 07/02/08
Posts: 421
Last seen: 13 years, 4 months
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: Teratism]
#8819239 - 08/24/08 08:35 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
HCl is used in bowl cleaners to clean porcelain, but that's different than busting a clog. Lye (NaOH, strong base) is used for most drain openers.
-------------------- Check out my first ever TEK! Shroom capsules with the Cap-M-Quik (pics)
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: PowerOfTheCoir]
#8819786 - 08/24/08 11:45 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
yeppers.
You'll definatly find both, but I've seen NaOH/bleach be common along with something to stifle hydrogen evolution- forget at the moment. Definatly the cop was full of shit anyways though, and the "acid form liquid" was only the begining of the bullshit.
(How was this specially designed to harm humans? Seems to me it was specially designed to make a pop)
Moral: Cops are fucking idiots and should not be able to testify about chemistry when it is relevant to the case's outcome, and the judge is an even bigger idiot if he didn't know anything about this guy's obvious idiocy.
I can't believe the cop and courts decided the cop had experience that told him all this shit that was so obviously wrong a middle-schooler would know it.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: johnm214]
#8820608 - 08/24/08 03:12 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I am still amazed that the courts accepted the cop as an expert witness with respect to explosives. I've been through the expert witness wringer, and it wasn't easy to prove that I was an expert in my field. Lacking a phd, I think it was my job experience and various journal publications that got me through. It amazes me that they accepted the cop as an expert in explosives because he has experience as a cop. The defense could have easily discredited the cop, as an explosives expert, in this case. The judge should be ashamed for allowing the cops 'expert' testimony. It's crap like this that allow cops to grow big egos thinking they are above the law and should be allowed to get away with anything. Vigilante taser justice, anybody? 
Edit: I'm not advocating tasering cops, but claiming this is why cops think they can get away with using their tasers as cattle prods to herd the sheep... and if somebody dies, oh well, they probably deserved it.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
ClammyJoe
Azurescen Head



Registered: 11/03/05
Posts: 3,691
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: Seuss]
#8820697 - 08/24/08 03:36 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Another example of one of the many ways this country's judicial system fails.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: ClammyJoe]
#8820866 - 08/24/08 04:11 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> Another example of one of the many ways this country's judicial system fails.
I would take it over any other in the world, but it certainly has problems from time to time.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: ClammyJoe]
#8840316 - 08/28/08 07:29 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ClammyJoe said: Another example of one of the many ways this country's judicial system fails.
often times that failure is on the part of the defense, just as with this case, the council for the defendant should have objected the minute the officer was called to the stand as an expert, I know of many people that specialize in the field of explosives that dont qualify as experts, they certainly know their shit but they'd never pass muster
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: Prisoner#1]
#8840323 - 08/28/08 07:32 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
ClammyJoe said: Another example of one of the many ways this country's judicial system fails.
often times that failure is on the part of the defense, just as with this case, the council for the defendant should have objected the minute the officer was called to the stand as an expert, I know of many people that specialize in the field of explosives that dont qualify as experts, they certainly know their shit but they'd never pass muster
They did object. Otherwise the case never would have been considered on its merits at the appeals court and we never would have had this ridiculous ruling.
The only one at fault here is the cop, prosecutor, and trial and appellate judges.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: johnm214]
#8840350 - 08/28/08 07:41 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I just went back and reread the first post, in this instance they certainly did object, is there any information on whether they defense brough in any witnesses of their own to discredit the testimony given by the officer
certainly the stammering in his testimony would have shown he's got little to no knowledge regarding the materials he's talking abuot
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: Prisoner#1]
#8840507 - 08/28/08 08:32 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think they had any rebuttal witnesses.
But really if the guy is a proper witness you shouldn't need to pay for an expert of your own in the same area. Course people are good at lying subtley for their own side.
Had the prosecutor had a real expert on the topic, or even me- I could explain this very simple chemical reaction a lot better, their wouldn't have needed to be an expert for the defense.
This isn't complicated stuff. I am truely at a loss for words how everyone was so ignorant they believed what the cop was saying.
Aluminum foil and drain cleaner in a water bottle (or something I forget) somehow is an explosive device specially manufactured to cause human injury?
What rubbish. The guy didn't even know the chemical reaction he was testifying about, nor could he explain the "acid form liquid" and what went on broadly.
The guy is an ass and should have been laughed out of the courtroom.
I don't know why the defense would pay for an expert when they knew the prosecution, through discovery probably, had non for themselves and it is they who bears the burden.
|
Chemy
Jesus is Lord

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 6,276
Loc: A Church
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: johnm214]
#8840552 - 08/28/08 08:44 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Professionals are either too busy, refuse to help a defendant or want lots of $$ before they will take the time to prepare a statement or testify at depositions and trial IME.
-------------------- Alcoholics Anonymous Narcotics Anonymous Get help, help is free and available 24/7/365. God bless you all and I hope you receive the help you need to turn away from your lives of sin. Mushrooms and drugs make you gay, you can reverse this homosexual condition with rehab, get help! Stop being gay!
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: johnm214]
#8840559 - 08/28/08 08:47 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Had the prosecutor had a real expert on the topic, or even me-
or any 14yo kid that reads the TOTSE forums, they certainly seem to be less misinformed than that court/cop
Quote:
they knew the prosecution bears the burden.
I had a court official inform me that I had to prove my innocence
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why cops shouldn't be allowed to testify about shit they're ignorant of... or Cops=dumb [Re: Chemy]
#8840562 - 08/28/08 08:48 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chemy said: Professionals want lots of $$
leave nothing to chance
|
|