03 January 2009

Saturday Satire - The case for the prosecution

A policeman was being cross-examined by a defence lawyer during a trial. The lawyer was desperately trying to undermine the policeman's credibility....

Q: "Officer -- did you see my client fleeing the scene?"

A: "No sir. But another officer subsequently observed a person matching the description of the offender, running several blocks away."

Q: "Officer -- who provided this description?"

A: "The officer who responded to the scene."

Q: "A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers?"

A: "Yes, sir. With my life."

Q: "With your life? You trust your fellow officers with your LIFE? That is one hell of a claim to make. One hell of a claim. You really trust your fellow officers that much?"

A: "Yes sir. I do."

Q: "Let me ask you this then officer. Do you have a room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties?"

A: "Yes sir, we do."

Q: "And do you personally have a locker in the room?"

A: "Yes sir, I do."

Q: "And do you personally have a lock on your locker?"

A: "Yes sir."

Q: "Now then, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your LIFE, why is it that you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you that share with these very same officers?"

A: "Well, you see, sir -- we share the building with the court complex, and sometimes it has been known for lawyers to walk through the locker room."

5 comments:

Annette said...

Excellent.
Very quick witted.

Rach said...

Lol I wasn't expecting that..xx

Hogday said...

Very funny Sage! I served in a central London station in the early `70's and in those days we took home about £20 a week. I eventually had to put a lock on my locker but only because there was a rumour going around that American tourists would pay 20 quid for a genuine bobbies helmet! Well a lot of my mates had kids to feed lol.

Hogday said...

PS: Your tale has jogged my memory of this story, allegedly true, from Willesden Magistrates Court in my aforementioned era. A wise old PC was giving evidence of his arrest for `threatening abusive and insulting behaviour` under S.54(13) of The Metropolitan Police Act, a much used and clearly sorely missed piece of legislation.
The officer stated that the accused was threatening people and shouting out "The F word" (the officer would have used it in full). The Bench retired to think on the evidence then returned a not guilty verdict, stating that under the circumstances they didn't consider the language was abusive or insulting. Slightly miffed, the officer took his seat in the back of the court as he had another case to prove. Half an hour later and he was giving evidence of a summons he'd instigated for a motorist with a noisy, defective exhaust. He treated the Bench to an accurate description of the faulty silencer, with measurements. He was then asked, `but how bad was this particular defect in the silencer`? To the same Bench that had rejected his earlier case, he replied, "Well it was a big hole and therefore F`ing noisy, your worship". Legend has it that the silence thereafter was deafening.

The W.O.W. factor said...

LOL! 'tis truly an "honorable" tribute to lawyers! ..*wink..
Have a safe trip home Sage.
~hugs~
Barb