While Part 1 is shocking and horrible, I would like to draw people's attention more to part two, which begins at exactly 28 minutes in. It shows what happens if you dare to go into a police station and inquire about filing a complaint.
If you don't care about the rest of the video, this is the segment I'm talking about:
Act Two. Is That a Tape Recorder in Your Pocket, or Are You Just Unhappy to See Me?
For 17 months, New York police officer Adrian Schoolcraft recorded himself and his fellow officers on the job, including their supervisors ordering them to do all sorts of things that police aren't supposed to do. For example, downgrading real crimes into lesser ones, so they wouldn't show up in the crime statistics and make their precinct look bad. Adrian's story first appeared as a five part series in the Village Voice, written by Graham Rayman. Schoolcraft's website looking for other cops to come forward is here. (41 minutes)
Summary: NYC police officer refuses to write people up to meet quotas, corruption runs really high up in the chain, eventually his fellow police officers try to label him as mentally unstable, including the chief of police and the director of the burrough.
This all gets recorded - and at one point, he has two recordings going, one gets found, and the chief tries to get rid of it.
The Law Office of Jon L. Norinsberg and Cohen & Fitch, LLP recently filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and high ranking members of the NYPD on behalf of Police Officer Adrian Schoolcraft. This lawsuit details PO Schoolcraft’s harrowing experience at the hands of NYPD chiefs and commanders, who plotted a coordinated and concentrated scheme to silence, intimidate, threaten, and retaliate against him for his documentation and disclosure of corruption within the NYPD. Specifically, the NYPD established an illegal quota policy for the issuance of summonses and arrests and instructed police officers to lie on police reports in order to distort COMPSTAT statistics.
o_O
That's like the plot of a movie or something. Damn.
Throw in some Russians and some kind of doomsday weapon it's a tom clancy novel
While Part 1 is shocking and horrible, I would like to draw people's attention more to part two, which begins at exactly 28 minutes in. It shows what happens if you dare to go into a police station and inquire about filing a complaint.
If you don't care about the rest of the video, this is the segment I'm talking about:
While Part 1 is shocking and horrible, I would like to draw people's attention more to part two, which begins at exactly 28 minutes in. It shows what happens if you dare to go into a police station and inquire about filing a complaint.
If you don't care about the rest of the video, this is the segment I'm talking about:
I only watched part 2. I know I shouldn't be shocked, but god damn.
That's shocking.
My wife thinks my distrust and suspicions of the police aren't justified because I haven't actually been victim to their abuse. My only response is, "Yet."
That video makes me wonder what would have happened if they had sent in a black guy to ask those questions. I think the dude they sent in did an honest job, but I'm curious about how race would have played into the situation.
While Part 1 is shocking and horrible, I would like to draw people's attention more to part two, which begins at exactly 28 minutes in. It shows what happens if you dare to go into a police station and inquire about filing a complaint.
If you don't care about the rest of the video, this is the segment I'm talking about:
I only watched part 2. I know I shouldn't be shocked, but god damn.
That's shocking.
My wife thinks my distrust and suspicions of the police aren't justified because I haven't actually been victim to their abuse. My only response is, "Yet."
That video makes me wonder what would have happened if they had sent in a black guy to ask those questions. I think the dude they sent in did an honest job, but I'm curious about how race would have played into the situation.
It sounded like they were ex-cops of all sorts of ethnicities.
i don't think i've ever heard anyone say that, Loren. it's sorta an alien concept to me.
can you give me a cliff's notes version of why you think it'd be a good idea? i'm intrigued now
Assuming sufficient coverage of surveillance--which I do, which I want--you could drastically reduce the size of the police force, at least as the force is represented by beat cops and traffic police. Crime would necessarily move out of the public sphere, property crime done in public areas would almost certainly be met with consequences, etc.
Police would be necessary to follow up on leads presented by the surveillance infrastructure and reported by civilians, but the capacity to pursue and the ease of prosecution afforded by said infrastructure would free up resources to concentrate on other areas of crime and prevention.
I understand that there are concerns about the social impact of a publicly monitored surveillance state. I think that these are overblown and that while the concept seems alien and scary, people and society would adapt as they have to pretty much every other social change.
I think it's clever if he's doing it on purpose and not a case of nerves (which I don't think it is). Talking fast shows you have confidence. Talking fast means the person listening to you can't mull it over and find as many contradictions because KEEP UP! you're already talking about something else.
I think it's clever if he's doing it on purpose and not a case of nerves (which I don't think it is). Talking fast shows you have confidence. Talking fast means the person listening to you can't mull it over and find as many contradictions because KEEP UP! you're already talking about something else.
I think he's talking fast because he has a lot to say, and a limited amount of time to say it.
It sounded like they were ex-cops of all sorts of ethnicities.
Exactly, that part is a montage of several individuals at several different police stations.
I went back and watched the whole thing. I think both of you are correct.
Also, I went back and watched the whole thing.
What. The. Fuck?
[NB--I think we're all able to realize that some of that footage might have been taken out of context, but still, that's fucked up.]
In my anecdotal experience, the cops they got manning the desk at night are those too stupid or psychopathic to be given any important work.
It's no accident that almost every incredibly awful encounter (as opposed to just bad customer service) was at night
I got a false ticket once. The ticket was issued for speeding, and the cop hadn't caught me on radar. He asked me, "Do you know how fast you were going?" to which I replied, "I'm sorry, officer, I can't tell you anything." He wrote me a ticket for going 38 in a 30, which was bullshit. Interestingly enough, when I showed up to protest my ticket, the cop took the stand and said that I had admitted to speeding -- I mean, it was his word against mine, or so he thought. He didn't know that I had recorded the entire traffic stop on my iPhone, even the silence following my pleading the 5th up until the cop returned with my ticket and his "Drive safe". I have no doubt that cop saw absolutely no repercussions for lying on the stand, but at least I had a cool enough judge to let me play the recording with my shitty iPhone speakers into the desk mic. The cop left the room in the middle of the recording.
After walking out of the courthouse, I went next door to the police station, just on a hunch. This was around 2PM in the afternoon. I asked the cop behind the desk if I had the right to refuse to answer questions by police during a traffic stop. His answer was, "You'd better answer every question they have if you don't want to get a ticket." So I asked, "What about my own defense? Do I as a citizen have any tools I can use to defend against a possible infraction?", to which his response was, "What did you do? You're sounding awfully guilty here. I think you'd better go."
Cops stationed at the front desk during the day are just as likely to give you misinformation or aggression as cops at night. But after watching the video of that woman getting taken advantage of by the cops at a station during night, I doubt I would ever go into a police station at night unless I was literally being hunted by an axe-wielding maniac.
EDIT: Interestingly enough, the fact that I had recorded the whole thing without the knowledge of the police officer never came up. I think he was too embarrassed that he had been caught perjuring himself that he excused himself before the recording even finished.
Well right, as I said in my youtube comment, the cops on the desk at night are too damaged in some way to run the desk during the day, and most of those cops are only there because something is too wrong with them for them to be out doing actual police work.
They clearly should be better trained, "YOU CANT USE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT!" is retarded.
Oh, this may have been posted already but IIRC, Thanatos--Thanatos, cop-hating Thanatos!--hasn't heard of this guy, but Radly Balko, a libertarian who focuses most of his efforts on police abuses and such, has a really good blog that people should be RSSing already. His articles at Reason Magazine are also nifty as hell.
A Cop perjuring himself on the witness stand at the very least deserves to be terminated, if not spend time in jail. I don't care how petty the case was, if they are willing to lie about someone admitting to speeding in traffic court, they are willing to lie to get a homicide conviction.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
A Cop perjuring himself on the witness stand at the very least deserves to be terminated, if not spend time in jail. I don't care how petty the case was, if they are willing to lie about someone admitting to speeding in traffic court, they are willing to lie to get a homicide conviction.
All cops lie on the stand. Even a cop will tell you this. Basically, cops think they "know who's guilty" and aren't too worried to bend the truth to get what they want.
My criminal procedure professor handed out a pretty interesting excerpt from one of Alan Dershowitz's books, called "The Rules of the Justice Game."
I. ALMOST ALL CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS ARE , IN FACT, GUILTY.
II. ALL CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES UNDERSTAND AND BELIEVE RULE I.
III. IT IS EASIER TO CONVICT GUILTY DEFENDANTS BY VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION THAN BY COMPLYING WITH IT, AND IN SOME CASES IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONVICT GUILTY DEFENDANTS WITHOUT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.
IV. ALMOST ALL POLICE LIE ABOUT WHETHER THEY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO CONVICT GUILTY DFEENDANTS.
V. ALL PROSECUTORS, JUDGES AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE AWARE OF RULE IV.
VI. MANY PROSECUTORS IMPLICITLY ENCOURAGE POLICE TO LIE ABOUT WHETHER THEY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO CONVICT GUILTY DEFENDANTS.
VII. ALL JUDGES ARE AWARE OF RULE VI.
VIII. MOST TRIAL JUDGES PRETEND TO BELIEVE POLICE OFFICERS WHO THEY KNOW ARE LYING
IX. ALL APPELLATE JUDGES ARE AWARE OF RULE VIII, YET MANY PRETEND TO BELIEVE THE TRIAL JUDGES WHO PRETEND TO BELIEVE THE POLICE OFFICERS.
X. MOST JUDGES DISBELIEVE DEFENDANTS ABOUT WHETHER THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, EVEN IF THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH.
XI. MOST JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS WOULD NOT KNOWINGLY CONVICT A DEFENDANT WHO THEY BELIEVE TO BE INNOCENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED (OR A CLOSELY RELATED CRIME).
XII. RULE XI DOES NOT APPLY TO MEMBERS OF ORGANIZED CRIME, DRUG DEALERS, CAREER CRIMINALS, OR POTENTIAL INFORMANTS.
I don't think anybody in the criminal justice system actually believes that police don't stretch the truth like crazy at best and abuse shit supposedly designed to protect the accused. The testimony of any police is cookie cutter with slightly different shapes to fit the current facts of the case. It is usually the word of the police officer against some nobody. Terry frisks supposedly designed to look for weapons end up being actual searches with a bit more bullshit added on top. Saying you are arresting a person for some minor traffic violation allows you to basically do a full search anyway. Everybody always commits a traffic violation. The appellate courts always assume that the system is working properly.
I don't think anybody in the criminal justice system actually believes that police don't stretch the truth like crazy at best and abuse shit supposedly designed to protect the accused. The testimony of any police is cookie cutter with slightly different shapes to fit the current facts of the case. It is usually the word of the police officer against some nobody. Terry frisks supposedly designed to look for weapons end up being actual searches with a bit more bullshit added on top. Saying you are arresting a person for some minor traffic violation allows you to basically do a full search anyway. Everybody always commits a traffic violation.
Right. Like the cop said in the video, if he follows you around in a car long enough you're going to break a law and he's going to get to have a little chat with you. Basically, if an officer wants to detain you, even for no reason, all he has to do is wait a little bit for the inevitable mistake.
Or, in some cases, no mistake at all, like when I got pulled over for "speeding". One thing I don't think RUNN1NGMAN's rules above have that should be there is that the word of a police officer is taken as a higher authority than any non-police civilian in a court of law. In traffic court, that means that without decisive evidence in your favor to show the cop is lying on the witness stand, you're boned.
It really makes absolutely no sense. I get that the police witness testimony is "professional witnessing" and counts as evidence, but nobody takes the fact that they can get a conviction with literally no other evidence other than their word into account because petty crimes don't cost all that much anyway, so let 'em go nuts. If the burden of proof is on the prosecution, I feel that they should have a radar readout for speeding cases at least. Don't they have a way of printing out the date/time that they acquired a speed reading?
The fact that even nondangerous misdemeanors that warrant only a fine are arrestable offenses is retarded.
Consent is pretty much bullshit at this point. An officer asking you if he can search the car or whatever is hardly going to be taken as a simple question and not as mostly a command.
Oh, and my wife has some friends who are police officers who work out with her at the gym. They know the dude that lied on the stand. He's still working there. I doubt there was anything I could have done to actually make him suffer consequences for perjury. I thought about calling the media but everything around here is really conservative, support our boys-in-blue/troops bullshit. I doubt they would even have listened.
If the burden of proof is on the prosecution, I feel that they should have a radar readout for speeding cases at least. Don't they have a way of printing out the date/time that they acquired a speed reading?
Keep in mind that radar is hardly the only way to know if somebody's speeding, and hardly the only one accepted in court. You can be paced (they follow you at 70mph in a 55), or they can actually just use judgment if the infraction is obviously enough (blowing at 55 through a 25).
I've actually seen speed traps where they use a simple "point A, point B" method of measuring, but that was because the department in question had all let their radar gun qualifications lapse...idiots. But if it took you Y time to cross X distance, and average speed X/Y is over the limit...well, you're busted.
Oh, and my wife has some friends who are police officers who work out with her at the gym. They know the dude that lied on the stand. He's still working there. I doubt there was anything I could have done to actually make him suffer consequences for perjury. I thought about calling the media but everything around here is really conservative, support our boys-in-blue/troops bullshit. I doubt they would even have listened.
You're correct. Cops are never wrong, and when they are wrong it's for good reason or no big deal anyway. Absent storming through wrong door on a falsified warrant and shooting a nice elderly woman in the face, cops don't get in trouble.
And for anybody curious, that is not a hypothetical example, but thankfully IIRC those cops did wind up tried and convicted.
If the burden of proof is on the prosecution, I feel that they should have a radar readout for speeding cases at least. Don't they have a way of printing out the date/time that they acquired a speed reading?
Keep in mind that radar is hardly the only way to know if somebody's speeding, and hardly the only one accepted in court. You can be paced (they follow you at 70mph in a 55), or they can actually just use judgment if the infraction is obviously enough (blowing at 55 through a 25).
I've actually seen speed traps where they use a simple "point A, point B" method of measuring, but that was because the department in question had all let their radar gun qualifications lapse...idiots. But if it took you Y time to cross X distance, and average speed X/Y is over the limit...well, you're busted.
Oh, and my wife has some friends who are police officers who work out with her at the gym. They know the dude that lied on the stand. He's still working there. I doubt there was anything I could have done to actually make him suffer consequences for perjury. I thought about calling the media but everything around here is really conservative, support our boys-in-blue/troops bullshit. I doubt they would even have listened.
You're correct. Cops are never wrong, and when they are wrong it's for good reason or no big deal anyway. Absent storming through wrong door on a falsified warrant and shooting a nice elderly woman in the face, cops don't get in trouble.
And for anybody curious, that is not a hypothetical example, but thankfully IIRC those cops did wind up tried and convicted.
My point is not that it's impossible to tell how fast somebody is going without a radar. It's that when they do such a thing, it is now your word against theirs. That should never be enough to uphold a "guilty" verdict. Cops lie. Everybody knows this. The burden of proof is on them to provide evidence of guilt.
I realize that people who are not cops lie too. But a case that consists of, "I saw him do it." is hardly decisive proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unless I misread the posts at your link, the guy supports privatized everything
From my libertarian days I remember that as a fairly common point of view
Again, cite. This sounds like an unfounded assumption.
I have no idea what his views are on privatizing police forces, because it's not something he talks about pretty much ever. He's mostly concerned with their encroaching on the civil liberties they trample over.
My point is not that it's impossible to tell how fast somebody is going without a radar. It's that when they do such a thing, it is now your word against theirs. That should never be enough to uphold a "guilty" verdict. Cops lie. Everybody knows this. The burden of proof is on them to provide evidence of guilt.
I realize that people who are not cops lie too. But a case that consists of, "I saw him do it." is hardly decisive proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Except that the real world is not CSI, and that attitude (taken beyond speeding tickets) makes law enforcement a lot more difficult. Really, it's more about removing incentives to lie (as much as possible) and dropping the hammer on cops that are caught lying (again, as much as possible) more so than suddenly giving a cop's word in court no more weight than a bum off the street.
That cop that lied regarding the speeding ticket? He should be in prison. Like, for a significant stretch. Do that, and it'll make it easier to actually trust their word in court.
My point is not that it's impossible to tell how fast somebody is going without a radar. It's that when they do such a thing, it is now your word against theirs. That should never be enough to uphold a "guilty" verdict. Cops lie. Everybody knows this. The burden of proof is on them to provide evidence of guilt.
I realize that people who are not cops lie too. But a case that consists of, "I saw him do it." is hardly decisive proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Except that the real world is not CSI, and that attitude (taken beyond speeding tickets) makes law enforcement a lot more difficult. Really, it's more about removing incentives to lie (as much as possible) and dropping the hammer on cops that are caught lying (again, as much as possible) more so than suddenly giving a cop's word in court no more weight than a bum off the street.
That cop that lied regarding the speeding ticket? He should be in prison. Like, for a significant stretch. Do that, and it'll make it easier to actually trust their word in court.
Except that's not going to happen, and even if it does, it'll be 1 cop out of a fuckload and won't necessarily send the message you seem to think it will. If anything, it'll send the message, "This guy was dumb and got caught. Don't be dumb when you lie so that you don't get caught."
Seriously, cops have cameras in their car. Make them submit video evidence. Stop spending so much money on more efficient weapons/toys/tanks and start spending it on methods of gathering evidence to use in court. Prosecutors wouldn't go to trial with a single witness and no material evidence if it was anything more than a petty crime. Why is it suddenly so easy to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt" when the offense is smaller? Wait, let me answer that. Because you're a defendant. If you got a citation from a cop, you're guilty! Presumption of innocence my ass.
Seriously, cops have cameras in their car. Make them submit video evidence. Stop spending so much money on more efficient weapons/toys/tanks and start spending it on methods of gathering evidence to use in court. Prosecutors wouldn't go to trial with a single witness and no material evidence if it was anything more than a petty crime. Why is it suddenly so easy to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt" when the offense is smaller? Wait, let me answer that. Because you're a defendant. If you got a citation from a cop, you're guilty! Presumption of innocence my ass.
I think you misunderstand when "beyond a reasonable doubt" is necessary for a conviction. As far as I was aware, that's only the standard for murder cases.
Seriously, cops have cameras in their car. Make them submit video evidence. Stop spending so much money on more efficient weapons/toys/tanks and start spending it on methods of gathering evidence to use in court. Prosecutors wouldn't go to trial with a single witness and no material evidence if it was anything more than a petty crime. Why is it suddenly so easy to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt" when the offense is smaller? Wait, let me answer that. Because you're a defendant. If you got a citation from a cop, you're guilty! Presumption of innocence my ass.
I think you misunderstand when "beyond a reasonable doubt" is necessary for a conviction. As far as I was aware, that's only the standard for murder cases.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is for criminal cases.
The preponderance of the evidence is for civil cases.
Seriously, cops have cameras in their car. Make them submit video evidence. Stop spending so much money on more efficient weapons/toys/tanks and start spending it on methods of gathering evidence to use in court. Prosecutors wouldn't go to trial with a single witness and no material evidence if it was anything more than a petty crime. Why is it suddenly so easy to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt" when the offense is smaller? Wait, let me answer that. Because you're a defendant. If you got a citation from a cop, you're guilty! Presumption of innocence my ass.
I think you misunderstand when "beyond a reasonable doubt" is necessary for a conviction. As far as I was aware, that's only the standard for murder cases.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is for criminal cases.
The preponderance of the evidence is for civil cases.
Noting that, in some states at least, minor traffic violations are not criminal cases. Not even misdemeanors.
EDIT: Generally, if the maximum punishment is a citation and a small (<$1000) fine, and possibly some administrative punishment (license suspension), it probably isn't a criminal offense. On the other hand, when I was ticketed for driving on a suspended license that was criminal; I was facing jail time (up to like 30 days), got a court-appointed lawyer, the whole nine yards. And, when asked if I've ever been convicted of a crime, I have to say yes now.
Some codes call them violations. I think this is based on the MPC though I am not sure how influential that is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code#Mens_rea
It makes sense. Unfortunately, a lot of states are going to be stupid and allow arrests or allow cops to use them as justifications for searches they would not otherwise be able to commit.
My point is not that it's impossible to tell how fast somebody is going without a radar. It's that when they do such a thing, it is now your word against theirs. That should never be enough to uphold a "guilty" verdict. Cops lie. Everybody knows this. The burden of proof is on them to provide evidence of guilt.
I realize that people who are not cops lie too. But a case that consists of, "I saw him do it." is hardly decisive proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Except that the real world is not CSI, and that attitude (taken beyond speeding tickets) makes law enforcement a lot more difficult. Really, it's more about removing incentives to lie (as much as possible) and dropping the hammer on cops that are caught lying (again, as much as possible) more so than suddenly giving a cop's word in court no more weight than a bum off the street.
That cop that lied regarding the speeding ticket? He should be in prison. Like, for a significant stretch. Do that, and it'll make it easier to actually trust their word in court.
Except that's not going to happen, and even if it does, it'll be 1 cop out of a fuckload and won't necessarily send the message you seem to think it will. If anything, it'll send the message, "This guy was dumb and got caught. Don't be dumb when you lie so that you don't get caught."
Seriously, cops have cameras in their car. Make them submit video evidence. Stop spending so much money on more efficient weapons/toys/tanks and start spending it on methods of gathering evidence to use in court. Prosecutors wouldn't go to trial with a single witness and no material evidence if it was anything more than a petty crime. Why is it suddenly so easy to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt" when the offense is smaller? Wait, let me answer that. Because you're a defendant. If you got a citation from a cop, you're guilty! Presumption of innocence my ass.
There is no excuse, whatsoever, that every officer doesn't have multiple always-on cameras. Seriously, tape a couple of cell-phones to the front. Disabling the cameras or losing evidence should be instantly firable.
Cop testimony doesn't need to carry ANY weight in court.
A Harford County Circuit Court judge ruled this afternoon that a motorcyclist who was arrested for videotaping his traffic stop by a Maryland State Trooper was within his rights to record the confrontation.
Judge Emory A Pitt Jr. tossed all the charges filed against Anthony Graber, leaving only speeding and other traffic violations, and most likely sparing him a trial that had been scheduled for Oct. 12. The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected. He ruled that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.
"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public," the judge wrote. "When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation."
A Harford County Circuit Court judge ruled this afternoon that a motorcyclist who was arrested for videotaping his traffic stop by a Maryland State Trooper was within his rights to record the confrontation.
Judge Emory A Pitt Jr. tossed all the charges filed against Anthony Graber, leaving only speeding and other traffic violations, and most likely sparing him a trial that had been scheduled for Oct. 12. The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected. He ruled that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.
"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public," the judge wrote. "When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation."
Cop testimony doesn't need to carry ANY weight in court.
This I actually disagree with. It should carry the same weight as any other witness testimony; that is, not enough to convict on its own and without any other evidence.
Posts
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=54162036
While Part 1 is shocking and horrible, I would like to draw people's attention more to part two, which begins at exactly 28 minutes in. It shows what happens if you dare to go into a police station and inquire about filing a complaint.
If you don't care about the rest of the video, this is the segment I'm talking about:
Jesus Christ this guy talks fast
Damnit, that whole thing gave me "Gotcha" moment blue balls.
I wanted to see the "wut" on their corrupt fucking faces.
edit: Although thinking about it I'm sure there was just a bit of backpedaling or bravado...and zero repercussions other than a moment of 'Oh crap'.
He wouldn't be a very good defense attorney if he didn't
I only watched part 2. I know I shouldn't be shocked, but god damn.
That's shocking.
My wife thinks my distrust and suspicions of the police aren't justified because I haven't actually been victim to their abuse. My only response is, "Yet."
That video makes me wonder what would have happened if they had sent in a black guy to ask those questions. I think the dude they sent in did an honest job, but I'm curious about how race would have played into the situation.
It sounded like they were ex-cops of all sorts of ethnicities.
Exactly, that part is a montage of several individuals at several different police stations.
I went back and watched the whole thing. I think both of you are correct.
Also, I went back and watched the whole thing.
What. The. Fuck?
[NB--I think we're all able to realize that some of that footage might have been taken out of context, but still, that's fucked up.]
Assuming sufficient coverage of surveillance--which I do, which I want--you could drastically reduce the size of the police force, at least as the force is represented by beat cops and traffic police. Crime would necessarily move out of the public sphere, property crime done in public areas would almost certainly be met with consequences, etc.
Police would be necessary to follow up on leads presented by the surveillance infrastructure and reported by civilians, but the capacity to pursue and the ease of prosecution afforded by said infrastructure would free up resources to concentrate on other areas of crime and prevention.
I understand that there are concerns about the social impact of a publicly monitored surveillance state. I think that these are overblown and that while the concept seems alien and scary, people and society would adapt as they have to pretty much every other social change.
I think it's clever if he's doing it on purpose and not a case of nerves (which I don't think it is). Talking fast shows you have confidence. Talking fast means the person listening to you can't mull it over and find as many contradictions because KEEP UP! you're already talking about something else.
In my anecdotal experience, the cops they got manning the desk at night are those too stupid or psychopathic to be given any important work.
It's no accident that almost every incredibly awful encounter (as opposed to just bad customer service) was at night
Yes.
I got a false ticket once. The ticket was issued for speeding, and the cop hadn't caught me on radar. He asked me, "Do you know how fast you were going?" to which I replied, "I'm sorry, officer, I can't tell you anything." He wrote me a ticket for going 38 in a 30, which was bullshit. Interestingly enough, when I showed up to protest my ticket, the cop took the stand and said that I had admitted to speeding -- I mean, it was his word against mine, or so he thought. He didn't know that I had recorded the entire traffic stop on my iPhone, even the silence following my pleading the 5th up until the cop returned with my ticket and his "Drive safe". I have no doubt that cop saw absolutely no repercussions for lying on the stand, but at least I had a cool enough judge to let me play the recording with my shitty iPhone speakers into the desk mic. The cop left the room in the middle of the recording.
After walking out of the courthouse, I went next door to the police station, just on a hunch. This was around 2PM in the afternoon. I asked the cop behind the desk if I had the right to refuse to answer questions by police during a traffic stop. His answer was, "You'd better answer every question they have if you don't want to get a ticket." So I asked, "What about my own defense? Do I as a citizen have any tools I can use to defend against a possible infraction?", to which his response was, "What did you do? You're sounding awfully guilty here. I think you'd better go."
Cops stationed at the front desk during the day are just as likely to give you misinformation or aggression as cops at night. But after watching the video of that woman getting taken advantage of by the cops at a station during night, I doubt I would ever go into a police station at night unless I was literally being hunted by an axe-wielding maniac.
EDIT: Interestingly enough, the fact that I had recorded the whole thing without the knowledge of the police officer never came up. I think he was too embarrassed that he had been caught perjuring himself that he excused himself before the recording even finished.
They clearly should be better trained, "YOU CANT USE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT!" is retarded.
It's kind of a hard position to work from
All cops lie on the stand. Even a cop will tell you this. Basically, cops think they "know who's guilty" and aren't too worried to bend the truth to get what they want.
My criminal procedure professor handed out a pretty interesting excerpt from one of Alan Dershowitz's books, called "The Rules of the Justice Game."
Right. Like the cop said in the video, if he follows you around in a car long enough you're going to break a law and he's going to get to have a little chat with you. Basically, if an officer wants to detain you, even for no reason, all he has to do is wait a little bit for the inevitable mistake.
Or, in some cases, no mistake at all, like when I got pulled over for "speeding". One thing I don't think RUNN1NGMAN's rules above have that should be there is that the word of a police officer is taken as a higher authority than any non-police civilian in a court of law. In traffic court, that means that without decisive evidence in your favor to show the cop is lying on the witness stand, you're boned.
It really makes absolutely no sense. I get that the police witness testimony is "professional witnessing" and counts as evidence, but nobody takes the fact that they can get a conviction with literally no other evidence other than their word into account because petty crimes don't cost all that much anyway, so let 'em go nuts. If the burden of proof is on the prosecution, I feel that they should have a radar readout for speeding cases at least. Don't they have a way of printing out the date/time that they acquired a speed reading?
Consent is pretty much bullshit at this point. An officer asking you if he can search the car or whatever is hardly going to be taken as a simple question and not as mostly a command.
Unless I misread the posts at your link, the guy supports privatized everything
From my libertarian days I remember that as a fairly common point of view
Keep in mind that radar is hardly the only way to know if somebody's speeding, and hardly the only one accepted in court. You can be paced (they follow you at 70mph in a 55), or they can actually just use judgment if the infraction is obviously enough (blowing at 55 through a 25).
I've actually seen speed traps where they use a simple "point A, point B" method of measuring, but that was because the department in question had all let their radar gun qualifications lapse...idiots. But if it took you Y time to cross X distance, and average speed X/Y is over the limit...well, you're busted.
You're correct. Cops are never wrong, and when they are wrong it's for good reason or no big deal anyway. Absent storming through wrong door on a falsified warrant and shooting a nice elderly woman in the face, cops don't get in trouble.
And for anybody curious, that is not a hypothetical example, but thankfully IIRC those cops did wind up tried and convicted.
My point is not that it's impossible to tell how fast somebody is going without a radar. It's that when they do such a thing, it is now your word against theirs. That should never be enough to uphold a "guilty" verdict. Cops lie. Everybody knows this. The burden of proof is on them to provide evidence of guilt.
I realize that people who are not cops lie too. But a case that consists of, "I saw him do it." is hardly decisive proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Again, cite. This sounds like an unfounded assumption.
I have no idea what his views are on privatizing police forces, because it's not something he talks about pretty much ever. He's mostly concerned with their encroaching on the civil liberties they trample over.
I guess it is appropriate for police to be about as trusted as the clergy.
Except that the real world is not CSI, and that attitude (taken beyond speeding tickets) makes law enforcement a lot more difficult. Really, it's more about removing incentives to lie (as much as possible) and dropping the hammer on cops that are caught lying (again, as much as possible) more so than suddenly giving a cop's word in court no more weight than a bum off the street.
That cop that lied regarding the speeding ticket? He should be in prison. Like, for a significant stretch. Do that, and it'll make it easier to actually trust their word in court.
Except that's not going to happen, and even if it does, it'll be 1 cop out of a fuckload and won't necessarily send the message you seem to think it will. If anything, it'll send the message, "This guy was dumb and got caught. Don't be dumb when you lie so that you don't get caught."
Seriously, cops have cameras in their car. Make them submit video evidence. Stop spending so much money on more efficient weapons/toys/tanks and start spending it on methods of gathering evidence to use in court. Prosecutors wouldn't go to trial with a single witness and no material evidence if it was anything more than a petty crime. Why is it suddenly so easy to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt" when the offense is smaller? Wait, let me answer that. Because you're a defendant. If you got a citation from a cop, you're guilty! Presumption of innocence my ass.
I think you misunderstand when "beyond a reasonable doubt" is necessary for a conviction. As far as I was aware, that's only the standard for murder cases.
The preponderance of the evidence is for civil cases.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Noting that, in some states at least, minor traffic violations are not criminal cases. Not even misdemeanors.
EDIT: Generally, if the maximum punishment is a citation and a small (<$1000) fine, and possibly some administrative punishment (license suspension), it probably isn't a criminal offense. On the other hand, when I was ticketed for driving on a suspended license that was criminal; I was facing jail time (up to like 30 days), got a court-appointed lawyer, the whole nine yards. And, when asked if I've ever been convicted of a crime, I have to say yes now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code#Mens_rea
It makes sense. Unfortunately, a lot of states are going to be stupid and allow arrests or allow cops to use them as justifications for searches they would not otherwise be able to commit.
There is no excuse, whatsoever, that every officer doesn't have multiple always-on cameras. Seriously, tape a couple of cell-phones to the front. Disabling the cameras or losing evidence should be instantly firable.
Cop testimony doesn't need to carry ANY weight in court.
This judge deserves a cookie.
This I actually disagree with. It should carry the same weight as any other witness testimony; that is, not enough to convict on its own and without any other evidence.