Was doing some case law research on the subjects of police negligence and misconduct, and learned a new latin phrase: mens rea.
Here's the definition from www.nolo.com
The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.
The intent!
By the way, who was it that said it was unethical for an officer of the court (lawyer) to question another officer of the court (police officer)? From reading case law, I can see that police officers get ripped to shreds all of the time in the courts.
There are cases where the police are accused of negligence, assault, maliscious prosecution, use of excessive force, unreasonable search and seizure, you name it. I was just looking at one case where the police were accused of conspiracy to traffic narcotics. Unethical to accuse and question the police in court? My ass!
Here's the definition from www.nolo.com
The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.
The intent!
By the way, who was it that said it was unethical for an officer of the court (lawyer) to question another officer of the court (police officer)? From reading case law, I can see that police officers get ripped to shreds all of the time in the courts.
There are cases where the police are accused of negligence, assault, maliscious prosecution, use of excessive force, unreasonable search and seizure, you name it. I was just looking at one case where the police were accused of conspiracy to traffic narcotics. Unethical to accuse and question the police in court? My ass!