Well, as soon as the first commandment goes down the drain, all other commandments are quick to follow: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Exodus 20:12. It is the general public who is to blame, because they are not willing to enforce this. Police officers caught using force on behalf of the politicians or their servants to transgress on Exodus 20:12 must be served a final extermination order without trial, procedure or ceremony, executable by whoever happens to available and/or willing, because such is the will of the supreme being.
Why police lie under oath
61–70 of 130 posts
Re: Why police lie under oath
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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? Wear…
| Is that so bad?
Please, I wasn't making a value judgement, but one of consistency. We all know that laws are inconsistent and applied inconsistently, but I was surprised that I'd never considered that particular inconsistency in the seat belt debate. Now I'm curious, do you have to wear a seat belt on an ATV? If the desire is maximum safety, then why a lap belt and not a 4-point harness? Why not a motorcycle helmet!
| The legality of motorcycles is a separate issue.
Motorcycles aren't that cleanly separated: the relevant definitions of a "motor vehicle" cover cars, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, farm vehicles, powered scooters, and, in some cases, Segways. Also see DUI laws and bicycles.
| Just because people are insane on motorcycles...
Although accidents are more brutal, it's not necessarily insane to ride a motorcycle considering their fuel economy. People do insane things in cars as well (eat, text, read, apply makeup).
Re: Why police lie under oath
#63Earlier 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…
Interesting point about motorcycles. I wonder though, would motorcycles actually benefit from seatbelts? In an accident a car will provide a substantial amount of protection to the driver, so it's in the driver's interest to be fastened in place. Perhaps it's actually better for the motorcyclist to be separated from the bike as opposed to bring dragged along..
This is getting a bit off topic, but no, motorcycles would not benefit from seatbelts. They would actually be a huge detriment. You're right with the idea that it is advantageous to be separated from the motorcycle in a crash. Not just due to not wanting to be dragged along however.
When I started riding a motorcycle several years back I took a proper safety and rider training course. One of the strategies that could be employed for an imminent crash was literally referred to as a "Superman Dive". Basically, you see you're about to hit a car/truck so you put your feet on the footpegs, hands on the gas tank and jump over the vehicle you're about to hit and then do your best to roll when you hit the ground on the other side. A seatbelt would naturally prevent this.
While hitting the ground on the other side of the vehicle and then going for a roll is far from a good day, it beats going from whatever-speed-you're-at to zero instantly when you're flung into the other vehicle. Since there is no metal box around you on a motorcycle, rather than be a safety feature, a seatbelt would limit or prevent actions that could seriously reduce the chances and severity of injuries.
Re: Why police lie under oath
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyers tell me that judges rarely prosecute lying under oath, they just rule against the liars. The reason? If a person is accused of lying under oath, what's to stop him from lying more during the perjury trial? He's already accused of that crime, so more lies makes little difference. This is why perjury trials are so rare. Also, "perjury", strictly defined, means testimony that's both material to the issues and le…
Thanks for the response with a bit of context from that perspective. However, I would think that "material to the issue" and "miscarriage of justice" would both apply to the potential, or particularly actual, conviction of another person based on false testimony. Perjuring oneself while under deposition can lead to prosecution without any "miscarriage of justice" having taken place in the form of a concluded trial an…
> Perjuring oneself while under deposition can lead to prosecution without any "miscarriage of justice" having taken place in the form of a concluded trial and judgment based upon said testimony.
No, as far as I know and in most jurisdictions -- for it to be perjury, among the other conditions already listed, there must be a resulting miscarriage of justice. BTW IANAL.
EDIT: the "miscarriage of justice" issue often affects a prosecutor's decision to pursue a case, and it affects the sentencing phase, but it's not actually part of the formal definition. I was wrong.
> The courts might also consider context, where the fact of a member of law enforcement committing perjury might be considered particularly onerous ...
Yes, but that only applies to sentencing, not the issue of guilt. Whether the facts support a conviction of perjury is separate from the issue of an appropriate punishment after a conviction.
Re: Why police lie under oath
#65Why aren't lie detectors used in court on a regular basis? Even if it didn't work 100% of the time, it would be better than having to read posts like this.
Because "lie detectors" are pseudo-science rubbish. The only thing they test is how well you handle lie detectors.
Re: Why police lie under oath
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the response with a bit of context from that perspective. However, I would think that "material to the issue" and "miscarriage of justice" would both apply to the potential, or particularly actual, conviction of another person based on false testimony. Perjuring oneself while under deposition can lead to prosecution without any "miscarriage of justice" having taken place in the form of a concluded trial an…
> Perjuring oneself while under deposition can lead to prosecution without any "miscarriage of justice" having taken place in the form of a concluded trial and judgment based upon said testimony. No, as far as I know and in most jurisdictions -- for it to be perjury, among the other conditions already listed, there must be a resulting miscarriage of justice. BTW IANAL. EDIT: the "miscarriage of justice" issue often a…
I guess I shouldn't conflate the courts with the prosecutor's office (and law enforcement itself, for that matter).
And IANAL -- NEC (Not Even Close) -- myself. BTW, I hope that acronyms suffice in such disclaimers. ;-)
The P.S. that I added to my grandparent, I wrote before you followed up. So, it was not in response to your response.
Beginning to feel too much like a lawyer, just writing these convolutions...
I appreciate your level-headed, and researched, responses. Admittedly, I'm going more than a bit on emotion, here.
Without being overly versed in the details of the law, I watch the contemporary results and trends in this country with a growing horror. Of course, that may reflect my own particular circumstances [1] as much or more than an objective (however defined) measure of actual circumstances.
--
[1] Including e.g. aging, competing with production environments that don't have to meet my own's level of expenses including due to regulatory and safety expenses, respect for IP, etc.
Re: Why police lie under oath
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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? Wear…
| Is that so bad? Please, I wasn't making a value judgement, but one of consistency. We all know that laws are inconsistent and applied inconsistently, but I was surprised that I'd never considered that particular inconsistency in the seat belt debate. Now I'm curious, do you have to wear a seat belt on an ATV? If the desire is maximum safety, then why a lap belt and not a 4-point harness? Why not a motorcycle helmet…
Sort of OT: I processed accident claims for over five years. You don't have to do anything "insane" on a motorcycle to get seriously racked up. What would be a minor fenderbender in a car leading to minor whiplash, where the policyholder was trying to see how many neckrubs he could get covered, on a motorcycle can be them picking gravel out of your road rash and involve broken bones that don't want to mend right and require surgery weeks later. I also saw plenty of second degree burns on the leg from contact with the tailpipe. I never saw a single burn claim for just routine driving of a car.
As for ATVs, they should require more protection. I saw at least one claim involving loss of the foot and lower leg. It made even motorcycle accidents look relatively tame.
I probably reviewed over 60,000 accident files in my time with the company, to give some context for my impressions that motorcycles are just crazy dangerous, no matter how careful you are.
Re: Why police lie under oath
#68Gopros for police officers?
Re: Why police lie under oath
#69Earlier 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…
Interesting point about motorcycles. I wonder though, would motorcycles actually benefit from seatbelts? In an accident a car will provide a substantial amount of protection to the driver, so it's in the driver's interest to be fastened in place. Perhaps it's actually better for the motorcyclist to be separated from the bike as opposed to bring dragged along..
You're missing the point. Seat belt laws are weird when compared to motorcycles, because the purpose of the law is to limit personal injury during an accident. Which would make sense, if it wasn't for the fact that if you have an accident on a motorcycle, you are pretty much guaranteed to be more injured than when in a car without a seat belt. So either outlaw motorcycles and require seat belts, or allow motorcycles and using seat belts is up to the driver. But the current legal situation is inconsistent.
Re: Why police lie under oath
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does the result of committing perjury ("a miscarriage of justice") factor into whether or not it's been committed? AIUI (IANAL), perjury requires three conditions be met: a materially false statement (1) made with intent to deceive (2) while under oath or affirmation (3). Can you provide a citation or point to some case law for my edification, please?
> Can you provide a citation or point to some case law for my edification, please? A reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury Point 1 -- materiality: "Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding ." Point 2 -- resulting in a miscarriage of just…
Perjury, as a Federal crime, is defined under 18 USC § 1621 [1], which, to my reading, is silent about whether its commission results in a miscarriage of justice or not. It describes the elements of the crime as: an oath, an intent, a falsehood, and the materiality of that falsehood.
Not to disparage that august institution, but I think something more authoritative than a Wikipedia citation is probably warranted to establish whether the result of an action is necessary for that action to be criminal, instead of the usual Model Penal Code standard of mens rea coupled with actus reus.
EDIT: Once again, IANAL. Also, phrasing.