SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the New York Times:
The [Bronx] court sealed the case file, hiding from view a problem so old and persistent that the criminal justice system sometimes responds with little more than a shrug: false testimony by the police.
[...] "Behind closed doors, we call it testilying," a New York City police officer, Pedro Serrano, said in a recent interview, echoing a word that officers coined at least 25 years ago. "You take the truth and stretch it out a little bit."
[...] An investigation by The New York Times has found that on more than 25 occasions since January 2015, judges or prosecutors determined that a key aspect of a New York City police officer's testimony was probably untrue. The Times identified these cases — many of which are sealed — through interviews with lawyers, police officers and current and former judges.
In these cases, officers have lied about the whereabouts of guns, putting them in suspects' hands or waistbands when they were actually hidden out of sight. They have barged into apartments and conducted searches, only to testify otherwise later. Under oath, they have given firsthand accounts of crimes or arrests that they did not in fact witness. They have falsely claimed to have watched drug deals happen, only to later recant or be shown to have lied.
[...] Many police officials and experts express optimism that the prevalence of cameras will reduce police lying. As officers begin to accept that digital evidence of an encounter will emerge, lying will be perceived as too risky — or so the thinking goes. [...]
Yet interviews with officers suggest the prevalence of cameras alone won't end police lying. That's because even with cameras present, some officers still figure — with good reason — that a lie is unlikely to be exposed. Because plea deals are a typical outcome [...]
"There's no fear of being caught," said one Brooklyn officer who has been on the force for roughly a decade. "You're not going to go to trial and nobody is going to be cross-examined."
[...] Police lying raises the likelihood that the innocent end up in jail — and that as juries and judges come to regard the police as less credible, or as cases are dismissed when the lies are discovered, the guilty will go free. Police falsehoods also impede judges' efforts to enforce constitutional limits on police searches and seizures.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday March 24 2018, @04:01PM (25 children)
People authorized to use deadly force must be held to much higher standards than the common citizen.
If it can be proven that a cop lied to get a conviction:
1. The victim should be immediately set free, rights restored, record cleaned etc.
2. The dirty cop must pay restitution to the victim for:
A. All expenses associated with attempting to defend himself in court, and something for the mental anguish as well.
B. All losses that can be documented and quantified, such as job, house, divorce...
C. Some large amount for EACH DAY under the thumb of the system, whether imprisoned, ankle braceleted, out on bond, on probation, etc.
D. Any other costs or losses the victim can show.
3. Then, the dirty cop should be placed in the exact same cell, for the same number of days, as the victim. Let the other inmates know that this is a cop who lied to put an apparently innocent person in, and offer the dirty cop no EXTRA protection beyond what every prisoner gets.
Rinse and repeat a few times, and maybe we can start to clean up this cesspool called "justice".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Saturday March 24 2018, @04:57PM
It would be nice if things were that way, but it won't ever happen. In WA state, it's going to take a ballot initiative just to get to the point where cops don't have a total carte blanche to kill anyone at any time and face no consequences. http://projects.seattletimes.com/2015/killed-by-police/ [seattletimes.com]
Considering just how militarized and trigger happy police are in America, I find it somewhat shocking that in the gun control debate, cops are routinely exempted from the regulations.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday March 24 2018, @05:33PM (7 children)
Here in Arizona I see it all the time. People being stopped because they are brown. It is easy to boot strap reasonable suspicion into probable cause. Watching customs at the border patrol station they go by their 'gut' feeling and so called experience and training all the time, but the sad truth is they are correct quite often. Should the meth smuggler get away because there was no obvious proof he was smuggling other than it felt wrong to the officer. If a cop manufactures evidence I agree he/she should be held fully accountable. In reality if it is proved you lied, or perjured yourself to a judge you can kiss your witness value to a DA or in front of a judge goodbye. A cop who can't testify in court won't last long...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:35PM
My buddy (who is an ex-cop himself) beat a traffic ticket by tangling the ticketing cop up in his own lie in the courthouse. The details were something about running a stop sign and the location of the stop sign.
Of course, some people like to go to court and fight even for the simplest shit. Sure, there's the chance that the cop won't show up and the case will be dismissed, but unless you have a lot of vacation saved up or don't have to work for a living, the potential exists to lose more money not working during the fight than what would be lost in the ticket.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Saturday March 24 2018, @08:53PM (5 children)
It is shocking you even ask such a question -- does the Bill of Rights mean nothing to you? In particular the 4th Amendment? What do you think separates America (at least idealistically) from a police state if not limitations on police powers. Historically, citizens' own governments have proven to be the greatest danger citizens face with bodies stacking up by the millions. I for one will whole heartedly accept a few junkies causing statistically insignificant mayhem over a government that can arrest, imprison, and/or kill any citizen it wants.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:03AM (1 child)
You also might want to consider that a great deal of that mayhem is because of the law. If the drug was cheap (which it should be) and readily available (which it also should be) and there was somewhere safe for these idiots to pursue their idiot habit, they'd have many fewer motivations to commit mayhem. And of course, for those who do, it would be more easily seen and dealt with - because we have no shortage of laws dealing with mayhem, nor should we.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:27AM
agreed
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:24AM (2 children)
Do you honestly believe that at any point in history law enforcement was anything but get lucky and see the crime, or statistically profile the situation based on the police officers gut feeling. They watch and react to things that don't feel right. The nervous twitch, the likeness of some half assed off base witnesses remembrance of the way the criminal looked ? He was a black guy, no he was Mexican, no way he was a mickey for sure, driving a red/blue ford/dodge pickup/station wagon.
I watched a George Lopez comedy show once. He was complaining about a white chick asking him to help her unlock the door to her car at home depot. He said he was just about to get really pissed off because she was assuming the Mexican could unlock her door, when he realized he DID have a slim Jim, and could unlock her door.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:28AM (1 child)
What does that have to do with tyranny?
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @08:11AM
What is the abuse of justice and power but tyranny ?
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:13PM (6 children)
>If it can be proven that a cop lied to get a conviction:
>1. The victim should be immediately set free, rights restored, record cleaned etc.
this would be abused by sufficiently powerful criminals, all they need is a cop whom they have corrupted to arrest them irregularly.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:05AM (5 children)
Cop lies: loses the job, and any ability ever get the job back, anywhere.
A very good use for a "Violation of Public Trust" registry.
With great power comes great responsibility. Or should.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:36AM (4 children)
Then step up and do the job rather than sit back and biatch. Those that can't, teach, those that can't teach, criticize. As a former deputy sheriff any officer who knowingly or willingly lies, whether to get the bad guy or cover up evidence of a crime should get what's coming to them. A lie of omission is a slightly different thing, as any defense attorney who is defending a criminal he KNOWS did the crime will attest to. I never understood the get out of jail free card idea either and I can say I've never worked anywhere that 'officially' acknowledged such a quid pro quo policy like they apparently do on the east coast.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @01:04AM
Anyone who quotes that tired bullshit about teachers is a moron. Then we find out you were accepted into law enforcement where they negatively select for intelligence. Things aren't looking good for you here.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:54AM (2 children)
I can't do the job (if we're talking about police work.) I do help with our local legislation. And I am teaching. But I can't make anyone learn. Some people refuse, others are incapable, yet others are bewildered beyond recovery. And the context... the entire system is corrupt and/or broken: legislation, enforcement, both the judicial process and the judiciary, and most of the punishment mechanisms. That's one serious hill to climb. I do try, but just as we see here in our little Soylent microcosm, there's a huge amount of toxic thinking throwing sand in the gears.
What do you mean by this? Given that you were a deputy sheriff, if you were good at it, I would expect you to have a very nuanced grasp on why things are supposed to work along the lines of holding the entire process to a very high standard (but usually don't, and I'd expect you to understand that end of it as well.) Care to elaborate?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @08:26AM (1 child)
Perhaps I was unclear, In stating that I don't understand the idea of institutionalizing systemic abuse of power I was expressing my disgust at the local group that supported such. As for my skill I was very good at it, if I hadn't turned my back on a crack whore who was being beaten by her husband and called for aid to help my partner subdue said husband and then decided the cops were at fault and hit me in the head with an iron skillet I might still be at the job. I get headaches to this day and oddly enough a joint seems to help more than anything. The world is a strange place...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:57PM
Nothing odd about it. Pot's usually a lovely thing. Almost all the ugly comes from idiot legislation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @07:03PM (5 children)
We ought to run the trial without the tainted testimony. The difference in the amount of punishment is the amount of harm.
Suppose the person has been in prison for 7 years, and the sentence is 20 years. If that gets reduced to a 10-year sentence, no harm has yet been done. If it is reduced to a 5-year sentence, then there have been 2 years of harm. Compensation for harm should be generous, making optimistic assumptions about the sort of life that the person could have lived.
Punishment for the cop ought to depend mostly on the degree of malice. By our typical standards, the punishment ought to be severe.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:43AM (4 children)
What about the thousands of criminals in jail based on eye witness testimony ? DNA testing is throwing new light on just how unreliable so-called eye witness testimony is. There has to a be a good faith line drawn in there some where. I agree and hope that the continued adoption of officer cameras and the prevalence of public cctv will help out. For that matter what happens when a jury of so called peers declares someone guilty based on their prejudices and ignorance and is later proved to be incorrect ?
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:04AM (2 children)
The following would bring responsibility to the process:
The problem with this is that because it actually puts responsibility on the people who make up the system to actually get things right, the system will tend to corrupt itself in such a way as to prevent re-examination of cases that need it. We already see this to some extent, but it would be worse if any of these malefactor's feet were held to the fire.
I think it likely that at some point in the future, invasive scanning techniques will definitively determine guilt or innocence, and this particular aspect of the problem will succumb to technology. That'll be one down, many more - most in the form of corrupt law - to go.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @07:41AM (1 child)
What about those that honestly think they are doing right and act as they 'think' correct ? Your solutions would work but the world is NOT black and white. What happens to those who in good faith make a bad judgement call, or are honestly mistaken ? As long as the system is run by and about humans there will be human error, but to remove humanity from the system doesn't seem the correct thing to do either. The best we can do is strive to move forward with compassion and intent to do what is right, and hope for the best. I for one am waiting for R.A Heinlein's fair witness to arrive on the scene...
https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/google-glass-scifi-robert-heinlein-the-fair-witness-effect [macobserver.com]
Someday we will all Grok goodness, until then we make due...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @01:11PM
I don't think anyone should be making "judgement calls" in determining someone's guilt. The consequences are too severe for handwaving. Either you have absolutely unimpeachable witnesses and evidence, or you don't have sufficient information to ruin someone's life. Come to that, the whole "ruin someone's life" thing is way out of hand.
Well, it does to me, considering that the typical handwaving is so bloody error-prone and the consequences of arrest and conviction both being so severe. I'm a lot more okay with the guilty going free than I am with the innocent having their lives ruined.
Yes, well, it's the rather profound lack of "striving to move forward" that tweaks me so badly.
(Score: 2) by tekk on Sunday March 25 2018, @05:54PM
>What about the thousands of criminals in jail based on eye witness testimony ?
Maybe make eyewitness testimony inadmissible or at the very least considered circumstantial?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by unauthorized on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:07AM (2 children)
That's a bit extreme. It is certainly a case for immediate retrial but the fact that the cop lied does not mean that the conviction was wrongful. I'm not willing to accept the immediate release of a serial child rapist because this one cop lied about something pertinent to the case.
No, they shouldn't. "An eye for an eye" is a terrible principle to use in a legal framework for more reasons than I care to list. But to appeal to your "tough on crime" sentiment, if a cop lied in order to get someone convinced over allegations of a very light offense, they might get a very light sentence for what is otherwise a much more serious crime.
Talk about cruel and unusual punishment. Nobody should ever be put in a situation where they could be harmed, regardless of the gravity of their crime. One injustice does not legitimize another.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @07:46AM
An eye for an eye is as much a call for moderation as it is heinous justice. Robert Heinlein wrote of a place that used exact justice. They called it evening I think, and suggested that a man who ran over someone be himself run over and wait for help just as long as the victim did. If you follow that thought process to the end it is horribly chilling. I am not nor would I want to be the ultimate judge, I am not qualified, nor do I believe anyone but God is and we aren't wise enough to interpret his will in simple things let alone life or death.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:30PM
We may have common ground here. But are you saying nobody should ever be imprisoned? What do we do with those who have established a long pattern of inability to control their violent impulses?
For those who aren't likely to continue harming others, I'd prefer a system where the criminal reimburses victims to one that just locks people away for arbitrarily long slices of their lives.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Saturday March 24 2018, @05:35PM (5 children)
Perjury is the right word from the subject line. There are penalties for it. Why are they not enforced? I know why, and it has been explained. High court / Low court. Or law enforcement is above the law. Or they "are the law".
What that really means is that police and prosecutor culture accept that this is how it is. It has become part of the culture to allow police to brazenly willfully lie and walk away free.
If you or I lied to the court resulting such a serious miscarriage of justice, what do you think would happen?
It's not just law enforcement.
Also, another form of perjury goes by the euphemism: Parallel Construction.
Parallel Construction, is a euphemism for conspiracy between law enforcement and prosecution to commit perjury upon the court and the defense, concealing discoverable information.
Maybe there should be an entirely different prosecutor's office to prosecute the police. An office that does not need to maintain a good relationship with the police.
Lawyers don't want justice, because then they would be out of a job.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @11:09PM
Exactly this.
Kamala Harris, currently US Senator for California, was previously Attorney General of California.
She wouldn't appoint a special prosecutor in cases of cop-related badness and wouldn't take over the prosecutions herself when there were county DAs who routinely let these cases slide.
There are rumblings of her being a presidential candidate.
I wouldn't vote for her even if she was only running for dog catcher.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Sunday March 25 2018, @04:06AM (3 children)
Perjury is actually a hard case to convict as it means someone intentionally lied rather then just being mistaken or such. We had the Robert Dziekański affair here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident [wikipedia.org] some years back where the RCMP tasered some poor Polish guy to death at the airport. Luckily a bystander videoed it. Lots of evidence of bad practices, lots of evidence of the cops conspiring to lie, various charges dropped and finally one cop was convicted of perjury and one got off. There was quite a bit of talk about how hard it is to actually convict someone of perjury, eg no reasonable doubt. Along the same lines, the corporal involved in that case ran someone over in a separate incident while probably drunk. He claimed to have ran home, had a few shots of vodka IIRC, and returned to the scene. All they could get him on was obstruction of justice, a much more minor charge then causing death while DOI.
As for investigating the police, we (BC) now have the Independent Investigations Office, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Investigations_Office [wikipedia.org] the fourth in the country. Civilians who investigate any death or serious injury caused by a law enforcement officer while on or off duty. It's better but still depends on the Crown to actually lay charges and it has failed in at least one obvious case, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_shooting_of_Merhdad_Bayrami [wikipedia.org] where charges were laid and then stayed.
The shitty thing is after the charges were stayed, the Chief of the Police was going on about how great it was and how you couldn't have the police being judged, even for excessive use of weapons.
The whole culture is one of the Police are always right, from the top down. Back to the Robert Dziekański affair. The Polish government was quite upset about one of its citizens being killed and tried to investigate. Our government of the day, right wing at the time, unilaterally suspended the mutual legal assistance treaty with Poland and refused to cooperate.
Considering how hard it is to hold the cops responsible here in Canada, it seems like it would be next to impossible down there.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 26 2018, @04:50PM (2 children)
Yes. There are shades of gray in the world.
At the extreme ends of that gradient is black and white.
Some cases of "perjury" are obviously black, even though it is still technically a shade of gray.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday March 28 2018, @12:20AM (1 child)
The problem is the no reasonable doubt thing and the fact that cops are experts at throwing out a reasonable doubt when they're on trial or witnessing for a fellow cop.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 28 2018, @01:20PM
Cops are also excellent at making "reasonable doubt" work the other way when they want to shoot someone because of hate, or maybe just out of spite, or simply for sport.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @05:37PM
The police represent the govt and power.
Power doesn't face consequences for its actions. That's pretty much what power is.
For the cops to face consequences, the govt would have to put limits on its own power. This basically never happens--not unless one set of politicians gains some new power by reducing the cops' power. Since the cops are the govt's enforcement mechanism (and UNIONIZED), this is unlikely to occur.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @05:39PM (12 children)
What does "Police" mean? All of them? Most of them? A small percentage of them? Very click-baity if you ask me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:15PM (6 children)
Too many of them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:55PM (2 children)
No, it's not "a percentage" of them nor "many of them" nor in any way a measurement of individuals.
It's a group, they act as a group, the group protects its members, the group puts pressure on its members to behave a certain way, and part of that certain way is to act without ethics in the effort to strengthen a case or to protect other group members against accusations of (and therefore in many cases exposure of) wrongdoing.
"Police" means the cohesive fraternity of law enforcement officers, for good or bad, often bad.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @11:34PM
the group puts pressure on its members to behave a certain way
That is learned behavior after training and some time on the job.
Radio/TV presenter and author Thom Hartmann was a private investigator for a couple of years.
In order to do that, he had to take training at the police academy (in Georgia, if it makes a difference).
In the academy, he said that he found that about a third of the guys were really jazzed about the notion of serving society; about a third liked the notion of steady work with a nice pension; about a third were abusive jerks.
As the saying goes: One rotten apple spoils the whole bunch.
A 45 year old movie explains how it happens:
If you're a cop and you turn in a bad cop, subsequently, when you get in a jam and call for backup, no one comes.
Undercover officer Frank Serpico gets shot in the face [youtube.com] (Video now DMCA'd)
More clips [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @08:29AM
What about the shop keeper who didn't see nothing, or the several witnesses who refuse to testify or involve themselves in anyway. There is plenty of blame to go around
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:50AM (2 children)
Any is too many, but in reality there are more than 700,000 cops in the US and 99% of them mean well and do their jobs to the best of their ability. Hopefully as Dave Chappelle put it the era of just sprinkle some crack on the guy and call it a day will come to a close.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @01:10AM (1 child)
99%srems a bit generous. I'd follow the 90% rule established by the guy who started an honor system corporate bagel program. 10% of people will cheat the system when there is no oversight.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @07:51AM
I subscribe to the standard bell curve. 20 % will go out of their way to actively do good. 20% will go out of their way to screw you, and 60% are cruising around on automatic trying to avoid getting involved, but the sentiment is the same.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:51PM (4 children)
Only "click-baity" if you're an authoritarian pig apologist with a tongue coated with boot polish.
0.1% of cops are the truly rotten asshole pigs. These are the pieces of shit you see on YouTube videos and read about in the local news. These are the pigs shooting unarmed citizens and trying to hide evidence of wrongdoing and manufacturing "probable cause" after the fact.
0.9% of cops are the good cops. These are the cops that are trying to stop the rotten cops. You never read about them, and sadly they don't last long once the police unions get done with them. Once a cop decides to become a good cop, his/her days on the force are numbered.
That leaves the remaining 99% of cops that don't do the shit the rotten pigs do but also turn a blind eye to it. These are the bad cops. They are bad for allowing the rotten pigs to continue. Most of them won't turn into rotten pigs themselves, but a small handful will. Hope to whatever supreme force you believe in they don't decide to cross that line while involved in an encounter with you.
So, when you encounter a police officer on the street, you have a less than 1% chance of encountering a good cop. 99.1% of them are either bad or rotten. The "It's just one bad apple!" argument? Yeah, the pig apologist assholes who say that conveniently leave off the last part: "...spoils the whole bunch."
Think of it this way: you are handed a jar containing 1000 M&Ms. 990 of them are old, stale, tasteless, and have a very slight chance of giving you a mild case of food poisoning. Nine of them are normal. One has been laced with enough potassium cyanide to kill you. Care to eat an M&M?
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:56AM (1 child)
Care to support your numbers with any sort of 'facts' ?? By my experience 99% of those posting as AC's are retarded inbred assholes with personal axes to grind. Think of it this way, if you are handed a jar containing 1000 M&M, who stole the jar and why are you accepting stolen property ?
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @01:13AM
You don't pay much attention to logged in users then eh?
(Score: 2, Funny) by minegoat on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:32AM
Why are you giving out poisoned M&Ms? What the hell is wrong with you?
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday March 25 2018, @07:04AM
Remember Trayvon Martin, the guy with the Skittles? My son Donald Jr. -- very innocent guy -- says the so-called Syrian refugees are like a bowl of Skittles. Because some of them will kill you, but you don't know which ones. Very hard to find out about those people because Syria is such a mess. They might be bad or sick guys, maybe not even from Syria. There's no way to tell.
But our Police, we know who they are. And they're great guys. Very nice, a lot of times they're too nice. I tell them, don't be too nice. We've got MS-13 on our streets, they're animals. They've transformed peaceful parks and beautiful quiet neighborhoods into blood-stained killing fields. So don't worry about nice. Like when they put somebody in the car and they’re protecting his head, you know, the way they put their hand over, like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody, don’t hit their head, I said, "You can take the hand away, OK?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 24 2018, @05:51PM
It's disappointing that, over a matter as small as 50mph in a 30mph zone, an officer will fabricate an observation of something that did not happen "Observed the defendant passing five cars," write that in their notebook, then recite the fabrication in a court of law just to win the case. If the real evidence you have in hand isn't enough to stand up in court, just make some up to close the case solidly. They know who is guilty and who needs punishment, that's why they went into law enforcement in the first place.
If they're doing that for a speeding ticket, what are they doing for serious crimes?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Troll) by takyon on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:27PM
Rules for body cameras are left to local police departments as lawmakers struggle to pass statewide regulations [latimes.com]
Police Body-Worn Camera Legislation Tracker [urban.org]
Baltimore County officials seek state privacy protections for police body camera footage [baltimoresun.com]
etc.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:49PM
Chances of a police officer lying while testifying are much higher than that of a random individual doing so.
The police officer has a conflict of interest that he actually takes pride in: He is trying to support his case and make himself and his profession "look good," by securing convictions regardless of innocence or guilt, an endeavor which has no special tendency to align with the truth.
Even the lying lowlife who occasionally is also referred to as "the accused" is less likely to lie because he doesn't have a "brotherhood of badge-protected liars" standing behind him and, unlike the cop, might face consequences for lying.
No, the innocent will go free.
See, if there is no compelling evidence that someone did a bad thing, except for evidence manufactured by a conspiracy of lying cops, then we call the person who did not do the bad thing in question "not guilty." This is by design.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @07:16PM (8 children)
When the constraints of a framework built to restrain the power of a legal system are removed or ignored, abhorrent behavior by those working in said system is an expected result.
What are the constraining limits for cops in New York and elsewhere around the USA? They are no more complex than "consent and delegation", in light of the US Constitution's creation details at the Philadelphia Convention. Free people can only be governed via consent or delegation; consent can be revoked at any time and for any reason, leaving delegation as the only justifiable means left to authorize the use of force against unwilling victims. Delegation can only be used with what one already possesses, and delegation of authority (the justification to use force) does not increase in scope when the number of delegates increases. (One kidnapper or 5 million kidnappers: they're still all criminal kidnappers.)
The maximum non-consensual authority a cop (or any US government official) has is therefore no greater than that of a random, typical US person.
Any action outside of those bounds is literally criminal, and any defense against such criminal behavior is justified.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 24 2018, @08:50PM (7 children)
Try that on a cop. Preferably while livestreaming. Please. I wanna see this.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @09:16PM (1 child)
You'd like to see him shoot a cop in self-defense? Me too.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @10:16PM
It wouldn't [americanheritage.com] be [cornell.edu] the [thefreethoughtproject.com] first [washingtonpost.com] time [triblive.com].
Even recently-passed laws [bloomberg.com] support the claim that government law enforcers acting criminally while on-duty and under color of law may be resisted (and even killed, if necessary).
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @09:55PM (4 children)
I note you have not identified errors in my assertions.
Does the lack of argument in your comment merely denote the frustrated emotional outburst of a cowardly slave who cannot stand to read anything but justification for her continued submission to her (criminal) owners?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:14AM (3 children)
No, it means I wanna see if, when you get shot in the head, any brains fly out, or if it's just cheetos dust and dried jizz like I suspect...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @06:45AM (2 children)
Right - you cannot argue against the assertion. Got it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @09:00PM (1 child)
In that case you should add in some disclaimer like "the system SHOULD work like this." You try and apply your assertion and it is more likely than not you'll end up dead, hence Azuma's mocking of your idealism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @04:24AM
I did not offer an opinion; I made an assertion.
I did not opine about how things could be done differently; I claimed as fact that the legal limitations on government and its agents are so constraining that almost every single action taken by said agents nowadays is literally criminal.
Mocking truth does not change it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mendax on Saturday March 24 2018, @08:42PM (3 children)
This happens in other areas of law enforcement as well. A friend of mine did some time in federal prison. He's tried to get off federal supervised release on two occasions and on both of these occasions his probation officer committed perjury, and got away with it. Judges have an automatic assumption that law enforcement is being truthful and that's just wrong, in my opinion. There is more and more evidence coming out that indicates that cops tell lies far more than is widely believed. However, nothing will change in this area until the judges change their bias and give both sides an equal hearing.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @07:58AM (2 children)
Not disputing you or your facts, but it should not be possible to get off parole or probation 'early'. You're already out early. If you don't like the conditions of that release go back and serve the full time you were sentenced to...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by mendax on Sunday March 25 2018, @11:48PM (1 child)
Most people on federal supervised release can petition the court for early discharge after one year so long as they have followed the rules. Quite often the requests are granted. And all people who have served time in federal prison must serve some time on supervised release. If you don't follow the rules, you can be sent back to prison and the judge can extend the amount of time you spend on supervised release and/or in prison. Your facts are wrong, my friend.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday March 26 2018, @04:59AM
Those weren't facts but my opinion. Probation or Parole is already a lesser version of the original sentence. I don't believe in lifetime registry or such, do your time and the crime should be paid for and you should be left alone to live your live lesson learned hopefully. If you can't be trusted amongst the public you should not be let out. That applies to registered sex offenders and such. If you are considered a lifetime risk then you should be hospitalized and not let out until a shrink seems to think you can exist without danger to other children or such.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:04AM (3 children)
I was recently driving around with another AC at two in the morning smoking a cigar and listening to an audiobook. Evidently a cop pulled me over. Guy got flustered when he noticed it was a cigar and not pot and told me I was driving eratically, over the line on two occasions, and following a car too close but "gonna let me off with a warning". Was obviously bullshit because he did not even ask my passengar for his ID. I pulled over into the next parking lot I could and reviewed my dashcam, none of the three things he had said occured.
I don't care that I was pulled over but don't make shit up about it, just say you thought I was smokin pot and send me on my way.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @08:09AM (2 children)
I've had similar issue but you sound like you are complaining that he did not ask your passenger for an ID, which he had no grounds for in the first place. It also sounds like you had a good case to ask for a supervisor/watch commander on scene and registered a complaint. He 'maybe' had the grounds to ask you for ID in the form of an operating permit for the privilege to drive on the roads. But following through on the complaint would have been more effort than you were willing to invest ??
I worked mid-shift at a large company and was pulled over while getting lunch at 02:15 two days running by the same fsck'n officer, so I do feel your pain. The second night I requested a supervisor call and complained. As a result I got a detention slip explaining my delay which was of no practical use but did record the officers failure to follow procedure and was surely added to his *permanent* record.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday March 25 2018, @10:08AM (1 child)
I have the event recorded in my dashcam (at least my lack of any wrongdoing while driving) and I intend to complain about the lack of a straightforward reason for pulling me over when I get the chance. It happened last weekend and I have been busy all week preparing for my third kids birth yesterday. I am uncertain which agency pulled me over but im sure I can tell from the dash. I was mostly annoyed at the lie not the fact I was pulled over, with the amount of smoke rolling out my windows and the amount of drug use in my area I feel he had reasonable suspicion.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday March 26 2018, @04:48AM
Wish kid happy birthday from a total stranger, and follow through with the complaint. It may seem like it doesn't matter but it does in the long run, and citizen participation/input has a great effect on pay reviews and promotions.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge