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

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: Why police lie under oath

#81

Post by spullara »

saalweachter wrote: post #18
Alex3917 wrote: post #13

"Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie." Actually there have been studies showing that police lie much more than the general public. E.g. here is a summary of one such study showing that: http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_ar...

Studies have also shown that high status people lie more; police are high status.

Are you saying they are high status because they lie or that you think they are high status so you would expect them to lie?

Re: Why police lie under oath

#82

Post by calibraxis »

noonespecial wrote: post #16

Nearly the entire job of police is to collect evidence of crimes being committed. (Actually stopping crimes in progress is secondary at best). Falsifying evidence is the opposite of this job. Not just not doing the job, but doing its inverse. Provably falsifying evidence even one time should be enough to be banned from ever being entrusted to carry out this role again.

> Nearly the entire job of police is to collect evidence of crimes being committed.

I have to disagree. Their job is to maintain social control using violence (and the threat of it). If you take food from a store and give it to a hungry person, you'll face a man with a stick.

What happens when you watch a DVD movie? You get threatened that a man with a stick will come after you if you copy it. Similar goes if you simply have the wrong color, which once meant you were a slave... or engage in civil disobedience.

We can fantasize about how something like "police" would act in a future society, who just focus on real problems like violent drunks and child abusers. But that's not our world. We're like people under feudalism talking about how the king is a benevolent administrator of people's needs.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#83

Post by joelrunyon »

Firehed wrote: post #45
Anechoic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why have speed limits at all then?

Some speed limits were passed to help limit energy consumption - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

Re: Why police lie under oath

#84

Post by zevyoura »

csense wrote: post #55
Firehed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> professional drivers getting out of massive speeding tickets That seems unlikely. > Why have speed limits at all then? To reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. To give people a baseline for safe speed. If most people's usual driving speed is "10 mph over the limit," then the effective speed limit is simply N+10 mph, where N is the number on the signs. > tailgating It's easy to deal with this effectively on…

> If you're being tailgated, just take your foot off the gas until you're 10mph under the limit.

This advice (slow down when tailgated) is also what's advised at MSF training courses for motorcycle licenses also. It sounds counter-intuitive, but in addition prompting the tailgater to pass it also gives you more space to maneuver if things get dicey.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#86

Post by InclinedPlane »

csense wrote: post #55
Firehed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> professional drivers getting out of massive speeding tickets That seems unlikely. > Why have speed limits at all then? To reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. To give people a baseline for safe speed. If most people's usual driving speed is "10 mph over the limit," then the effective speed limit is simply N+10 mph, where N is the number on the signs. > tailgating It's easy to deal with this effectively on…

> > professional drivers getting out of massive speeding tickets

> That seems unlikely.

It happens sometimes. A co-worker of a friend of mine was speeding in excess of 100 mph in a dodge viper and was pulled over and charged with reckless driving. However, the driver had completed the dodge viper training school so the judge ruled for him, and the officer had neglected to add any additional charges such as speeding.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#87

Post by politician »

MartinCron wrote: post #80
Mz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And the motorcyclists who do not get injured? You saw their insurance claims, too? You have the most biased perspective on this as is possible :)

That's not fair; she could easily look at the number of policyholders versus claims broken down by vehicle type. I'm sure the numbers looks as bad as she describes.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#88

Post by nitrogen »

politician wrote: post #87
MartinCron wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the motorcyclists who do not get injured? You saw their insurance claims, too? You have the most biased perspective on this as is possible :)

That's not fair; she could easily look at the number of policyholders versus claims broken down by vehicle type. I'm sure the numbers looks as bad as she describes.

Note: Mz is a "she".

Re: Why police lie under oath

#89

Post by peteretep »

saalweachter wrote: post #18
Alex3917 wrote: post #13

"Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie." Actually there have been studies showing that police lie much more than the general public. E.g. here is a summary of one such study showing that: http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_ar...

Studies have also shown that high status people lie more; police are high status.

> police are high status

And ... that's pretty much the problem.

In the UK, policing is meant to be consensual, by the "people" for the people. The first police were intentionally recruited from lower classes to avoid the whole high-status issue. It's not a well-paid job. Police Dramas like "The Wire" in the US glamorise police work, where in the UK, we have "The Bill" which makes it look dull as hell...

Re: Why police lie under oath

#90

Post by youngtaff »

gonehome wrote: post #26
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…

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…

In a car accident you want to stop people form being thrown around the car, hitting each other, steering wheels etc.

'Judy Knew Her Killer' is a good example of why even backseat passengers should wear belts - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEa8j98eR9g

On a motorbike you want the rider to separate from the bike, if a bike is rolling and the rider is attached to it they are going to get really mangled.

Post reply on HN