Easy solution:  Put me on the jury.  
A police officer testifies and right
away I assume he&#x27;s lying, because he
can get away with it, because he likes
the ego boost, because he has given up
his personal integrity, because of the
&quot;blue code&quot; of whatever, because he
gets his jollies sticking people, whatever.<p>A police officer has less credibility than
the defendant.  Similarly for prosecutor
expert witnesses, police forensics, police
crime lab work, etc.<p>In front of me, super tough, nearly impossible,
for a public prosecutor with just police
evidence to convict anyone of anything.
The prosecutor would be wise never to
use any evidence that in any way had
anything to do with the police.<p>Get some other, solid, clearly objective
evidence or the defendant goes free.<p>And for <i>statistical</i> evidence, I know
some statistics, at an advanced level,
and doubt that there is a single 
prosecutor in the country who could
even once put on statistical evidence
that I would find less than just
fraudulent.  E.g., lie detectors, finger
prints, and much more -- garbage.
DNA?  Not from a crime lab.<p>As soon as the prosecutor or one of
their witnesses mentions prior
police record of the defendant,
the defendant goes free.  Why?
Constitutional protection against
two convictions, or or even two trials,
for the same event.  The issue
is what the defendant did as charged
this time -- whatever they did in
the past is just irrelevant.  
A second trial for an earlier event
is unconstitutional and an attempt
at what I call <i>fraud</i> and, thus,
no more reason to listen to the
prosecutor.  I call it <i>fraud</i>:
On a jury, I get to call <i>fraud</i>
anyway I want, and I don&#x27;t have
to explain.<p>Have the defendant locked up
for more than a week without trial?
Violates the constitutional guarantee
of a speedy trial.  Defendant
goes free.<p>Defendant injured while in police
custody, whether from the police,
other people in the jail,
or just a brick falling out of the
sky, violation of the constitutional
guarantee against cruel and
unusual punishment and 
taking the freedom of a person
without due process,
and the defendant goes free
and wins a civil case against the
city, etc.<p>Can&#x27;t take a person&#x27;s freedom,
not even for a day, without
taking care of them, e.g.,
having a social worker
inform all their family,
make sure their house is secure
and their kitty cat fed, etc.
Fail to do that, and that
violates the constitutional
guarantee against cruel and
unusual punishment and also
punishment without due process --
defendant goes free.<p>There is an easy solution -- put me on
the jury.<p>Then when the defendant goes free and
brings a civil case against the prosecutor
and police, tough for the former defendant
to lose that case.  Have the city, whatever,
pay them the $5 million or whatever.<p>Net, in front of me, the police, prosecutors,
etc. have to clean up their act, scrub
100% clean, at least as in the Constitution,
or the defendants will go free, just as
the founding fathers intended.<p>The police stopped the car because the
driver failed to use a turn signal?  
BS. Likely the police are lying, and in
that case the stop was a case
of unconstitutional &quot;unreasonable search&quot;.
That&#x27;s my view, and on the jury I get
to vote that way for any reason or no
reason and don&#x27;t have to explain my reason.<p>A police officer killed an unarmed person?
Deliberate, unprovoked, unexcusable murder.
Life or the chair.<p>The police have tracked mud all over our
Constitution, and it&#x27;s long time
since that was way too much.<p>Defending our Constitution is much
of why we want police.