Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why police lie under oath

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 130 posts

Re: Why police lie under oath

#41

Post by mattstreet »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #37

My sister in law is a public defender, she has managed to get cops that lie under oath fired. We're not talking capital crimes here, we're talking stupid traffic citations where the officer would rather lie than admit they made a bad call. Her belief is that lying is like cocaine, you use it once to get through the case because you know that even though its not strictly the truth the right thing will happen, and then…

Sadly it seems like they get treated the same as pedo priests, just shuffled around somewhere else.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#42

Post by ricardonunez »

saosebastiao wrote: post #4

Link is broken for me. But it should be obvious...the reason cops do anything that is illegal is that they are not subject to any consequences.

They are free to do what they want and rarely get any punishment. The only thing they get is Leave Without Pay for some time and that's only when they screwed up really bad.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#43

Post by forrestthewoods »

siphor wrote: post #24

The whole system is blatantly fucked up and I'm more stunned by people's non-chalant reaction or 'it's the law reaction'. I live in a small town in New Jersey where my mom works for the town.. recently there was a police 'strike' around contract negotiations, where, to prove the town should give them a raise they stopped writing tickets to show the town how much money the police department makes them. What this means…

Suggestion 1 - all on duty cops should at all times wear a chest mounted video camera recording all of their actions.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#44

Post by mst »

rdtsc wrote: post #39
mc32 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability. I agree on principle. I think it's quite corrupt and defeatist to think otherwise, but on the other hand they are just people --as fallible as anyone. Other than watchmen for the watchmen ad infinitum, I don't know that this kind of problem would ever be eradicated. (something like Google Glass for the police could work, if people allow th…

> but on the other hand they are just people -- as fallible as anyone. Responsibilities, privileges, and risks should be clearly presented to anyone applying for the position. Imagine, for example, we applied the same argument to ATC controllers. "Oh they are just human, so they let the planes collide once in a while. No biggie. Maybe 10 days paid vacation" -- No way, right? There would be talks of manslaughter charg…

Simple solution - like with legal practice, if you're thrown out (disbarred) you can't mention the job without also mentioning the having been thrown out. Then let people choose to pretend they hadn't been police at all or admit what happened, as they prefer.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#45

Post by Firehed »

Anechoic wrote: post #31
dlokshin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wholeheartedly agree with the erosion of personal freedoms in the favor of laws made by people 'who know better.' Speeding is a perfect example--any law that 80% of people on the freeway break is a terrible law.

any law that 80% of people on the freeway break is a terrible law. They are actually supposed to be set so that 80-90% of the people are obeying the limit (see MUTCD), but that often results in limits that are perceived as being too high by communities.

Why have speed limits at all then? I've heard anecdotes of professional drivers getting out of massive speeding tickets because they know how to handle a vehicle at that speed (and presumably had the good sense not to be driving way faster than traffic if there even was any) and its certainly possible to get a speeding ticket when traveling under the limit if conditions do not permit.

Seems to me that they should be treated as good-weather guidelines (legally; that's already more or less the case in practice), and focus on the people driving recklessly - weaving in and out of traffic, going 10mph+ faster than everyone else, tailgating, etc.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#46

Post by mst »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #43
siphor wrote: post #24

The whole system is blatantly fucked up and I'm more stunned by people's non-chalant reaction or 'it's the law reaction'. I live in a small town in New Jersey where my mom works for the town.. recently there was a police 'strike' around contract negotiations, where, to prove the town should give them a raise they stopped writing tickets to show the town how much money the police department makes them. What this means…

Suggestion 1 - all on duty cops should at all times wear a chest mounted video camera recording all of their actions.

How would you propose to preserve police discretion under such a system?

Re: Why police lie under oath

#47

Post by mc32 »

rdtsc wrote: post #39
mc32 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability. I agree on principle. I think it's quite corrupt and defeatist to think otherwise, but on the other hand they are just people --as fallible as anyone. Other than watchmen for the watchmen ad infinitum, I don't know that this kind of problem would ever be eradicated. (something like Google Glass for the police could work, if people allow th…

> but on the other hand they are just people -- as fallible as anyone. Responsibilities, privileges, and risks should be clearly presented to anyone applying for the position. Imagine, for example, we applied the same argument to ATC controllers. "Oh they are just human, so they let the planes collide once in a while. No biggie. Maybe 10 days paid vacation" -- No way, right? There would be talks of manslaughter charg…

>Imagine, for example, we applied the same argument to ATC controllers.

One can't honestly compare the rigor and checks for a order of magnitudes larger workforce. It's like saying the same rigor applied to space vehicles should be taken to build cars or appliances. I mean, it's possible, but not economically viable. Also, it's not the same kind of adrenalin inducing scenario (i.e you're not thinking, "is this the plane that's coming for me"? i.e. is this the guy who's going to take me down?)

>Also don't buy the "just a few bad cases" excuse.

Ok, but I never made any point about this.

I'm only saying that a system which relies on humans but does not account for their fallibility will have a weakness which needs to be acknowledged and addresed in order to be effective.

>So by this definition there are very few "good cops"

By that definition, there would be very few good people. People tend to give people they know or work with "the benefit of doubt" or even "turn a blind eye".

Re: Why police lie under oath

#48

Post by evanmoran »

politician wrote: post #34
gonehome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree with this, but it gets tricky when you factor in social services. If a society decides that it should support health or medical services with public funds then there is a line of logic that conditions based on that support (such as a seatbelt laws, drug laws, or even banning soda) should be allowed. I don't agree with this, but if I was arguing for that side that would be how I'd frame it. The seatb…

Wow, it never occurred to me that the seatbelt law is particularly weird given motorcycles.

Just because people are insane on motorcycles doesn't mean the state should pay for the health care of people in cars who could wear a seatbelt. The legality of motorcycles is a separate issue.

And lets be honest. We already have to drive regulated cars, with regulated emission, with gas that is regulated, at the speeds that are regulated, and only if we have regulated licenses. Is a seat belt really a big deal? Wearing one will probably save your life. Is that so bad?

Re: Why police lie under oath

#49

Post by mc32 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #35
mc32 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability. I agree on principle. I think it's quite corrupt and defeatist to think otherwise, but on the other hand they are just people --as fallible as anyone. Other than watchmen for the watchmen ad infinitum, I don't know that this kind of problem would ever be eradicated. (something like Google Glass for the police could work, if people allow th…

> if people allow that police work necessitate some ugliness at times The silent majority can and does realize this. Proof: http://mashable.com/2013/02/01/reddit-atlanta-mall-manager-t... I've seen this happen a number of times on reddit. Someone claims police brutality, the thread escalates to the main page, then eventually dies down with the top few posts taking a cool-headed stance. In fact, there have been times…

I suppose this might be true in general (in a world where footage is not expected) --but if footage were to become commonplace, even expected (and this evidence), then there would have to a revisit to what's allowed and what isn't and what transgresses into police brutality (taking context into account, etc.) and what does not and how that would affect lawsuits, etc.
Post reply on HN