...I'm referring to your thinking that someone in a position of power or higher perceived social status (such as a police officer or politician) automatically is more credible and justified in their actions than others (a homeless kid, or perhaps a random black person who futilely insists he has committed no crime).
At this point though I'm not sure you are trying to debate the topic in good faith. You appear to have taken a strong side on this issue, to the point where you now demand everyone else acknowledge your take on the situation as factually correct. It's not going to happen. Your side has a good argument, but it was better before you went down this recent line of thinking.
You ever fight a traffic ticket? The judge starts out with the assumption the Cop has no motive to lie about you speeding. Unless he knew you prior to the stop, there was no reason for him to single you out inappropriately, and he (she) therefore has no motive to lie.
On top of that, the Cop probably testifies in court many more times than you will. His credibility is at stake in all future court appearances. More motivation for him to tell the truth.
The judge doesn't have this predisposition because one's a Cop and one is not. There is much more to it than that. People try to make situations much simpler than they are in reality and argue individual points in a vacuum.
In contrast, you, being the accused, have EVERY motive to lie. You are trying to beat or reduce the cost of a traffic ticket.
So, before either of you says one word, the judge already knows which of you has the higher likelihood of telling the truth, and which has the higher likelihood of lying to the judge.
Long story short, the judge dismissed the speeding ticket with nothing more than "he said, she said". The judge even prefaced his ruling with, "While I don't believe the officer knowingly lied, it is possible he confused this traffic stop with another on the same night during his testimony."
