SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ars Technica brings us an update to an earlier story in which a court case was thrown out when a police officer's body cam showed him planting drugs before 'finding' them immediately after. Now prosecutors in Maryland are reviewing other body-cam footage and have already thrown out 34 criminal cases with many more under review:
The Baltimore Police Department's body cams, like many across the nation, capture footage 30 seconds before an officer presses the record button. The footage was turned over to defense attorneys as part of a drug prosecution - and that's when the misdeed was uncovered.
[...] "We are dismissing those cases which relied exclusively on the credibility of these officers," Mosby told a news conference Friday. She said the dismissed cases, some of which have already been prosecuted, involved weapons and drugs.
Lesson learned cops - plant drugs, wait 30 seconds, then turn on the camera!
(Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Monday July 31 2017, @07:06PM (9 children)
I suspect those words is a oxymoron. There is a documentary by Michael Moore that proved that if you were smart. It would disqualify you from becoming a cop.
So expect a lot more cases being thrown out.
Instead expect some policy makers to become uneasy and act accordingly!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday July 31 2017, @09:03PM (3 children)
I was thinking along similar lines, but more to the effect of: when an officer's body cam footage shows him planting drugs or other evidence, that should automatically disqualify ALL evidence "found" by this officer in ALL previous searches and arrests he has conducted.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday July 31 2017, @09:10PM (2 children)
Better to let a thousand innocent men be punished unfairly, than allow a single guilty man who was caught purely by coincidence free.
But you're right, that should absolutely be grounds for a retrial for literally every single person this officer had any connection to the investigation of.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday July 31 2017, @09:37PM
Better, and more profitable for the private prison system and lawyers.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 01 2017, @12:00AM
They're all guilty of something! Why else would they have gotten the cops attention?! Life is fair! The world is just! Kill them all!
We need to handle this problem the way the Philippines does! Kill them all!
Trump! Trump! Trump!
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday July 31 2017, @09:07PM (4 children)
I'm not sure what documentary you're referring to, but I'm not a Moore Officianado.
If I had to guess, he probably cites the court case [aele.org] where they're allowed to reject high-IQ cop candidates. The conclusion in that particular case was that A. It didn't violate the 14th amendment because it wasn't targeted at any group in particular, and B. They had any reason at all for it, which is that they thought high-IQ cops would get bored and leave.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday August 01 2017, @01:01AM
Michael Moore's "The awful truth". Here's an article [thefreethoughtproject.com] about it.
I think this video clip [youtube.com] is from that section (not viewed it).
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday August 01 2017, @09:21AM
I am thinking more down the line that a thinking person will be far more susceptible to insubordination should he feel his boss is in error.
Stanley Milgram brought this up in his Yale study titled "Obedience to Authority".
Remember the engineer that refused to obey the orders to electrocute the guy in the chair? He knew what the voltages claimed would do, and refused to obey. Business types don't want someone like that on their team. They need people who value the paycheck more than anything else. Order-takers that obey unconditionally.
They don't want them thinking or considering the ramifications of what they are doing. "Yes Sir!" is the expected response.
The stress I personally get when my moral compass is at odds with my orders has led to a lot of crap in my life.
I am at the point I feel a thinking moral person has no business being employed. Once they reach the awareness of morality, I believe its almost imperative they become self-employed, as morality will foment insubordination if the order-giver is not of like mindset.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 01 2017, @11:59AM (1 child)
High IQ is not a group? Or just not a protected group under anti-discrimination law?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 01 2017, @01:40PM
The laws laying out what groups are protected from discrimination are fairly explicit:
Gender, race, national origin, religion, disability, and creed, with some local and state versions of the equal employment law adding a couple more like sexual orientation and genetic testing results.
The case I linked above was seeking remedy under the "equal protection under law" clause of the 14th amendment, but given that the police department had a reason for making that decision, it was ruled to be a valid distinction to draw. Also worth noting is that they cited previous precedent establishing it was okay to reject officers for having too low an IQ too.