The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Cops Gone Wild: Confessions, Lies, And Videotape Edition
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
In the Boston area, a wrongfully convicted woman is now suing over the confession obtained under duress that led to both her conviction and its overturning.
Needless to say, the police chief is backing the officers, in part because his balls are in the vice as well.
One, this is why we need interrogations taped. Two, it's about time that we started looking at curtailing exactly what officers are allowed to do during interrogations. There's an upcoming documentary on the Central Park Jogger case that takes a look at the torturous interrogations used then, and how they failed justice.
Needless to say, the police chief is backing the officers, in part because his balls are in the vice as well.
One, this is why we need interrogations taped. Two, it's about time that we started looking at curtailing exactly what officers are allowed to do during interrogations. There's an upcoming documentary on the Central Park Jogger case that takes a look at the torturous interrogations used then, and how they failed justice.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
0
Posts
Quotas and performance reviews based on "criminals caught" and "confessions obtained"?
Ignorant assholes joining the police so they can live a video game/bully people and not get caught?
The militarization of the police/sheriff's departments as part of the Wars on Drugs and Terror?
What the hell were they smoking?
We are all guilty in the eyes of some. Something bad happens, someone must be held responsible. At any cost.
"I did not know what constitutes a juvenile" ... oh so this is perfectly fine on an adult. Thanks!
There is a lot of physiological research that has been done in this area but I am not really qualified to talk about it.
Basically group think and us-versus-them dynamics but that is really simplifying things.
The last reason you state at first seems like it could be a red herring, but the dynamic it sets up with the community by criminalize a large segment of the population who many people think should not be criminalized should not be overlooked. It breeds mistrust and resentment on both sides.
FRONTLINE: The Confessions
Don't watch if you've already met your rage quota for the week.
It may be that we're just paying more attention to it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Our methods for handling evidence are pretty bad from top to bottom and IMO we can't fix it until we reduce the influx of people getting arrested in the first place.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
WARNING! This is a color, and very clear, police dashcam video of a man being shot to death.
If you are wondering what he's reaching for in the truck, he got his foot caught in the seatbelt and was trying to free it. It looks like he was gonna try and run for it.
There are much much less ambiguous cases of police abusing their power than this if you want to pick something to get angry about. This guy got scared and made a split-second call to potentially save his own life. The cops in the incident in the OP were just shit-heads.
Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. Truly, you are a master of reading comprehension. I said nothing of the sort. Go back and read my post again. There's a lot more context to this beyond "he was reaching for something".
Just because you put a bullet into someone does not mean they cease to be a threat. There is no instant-death bullet and there is no "shoot to wound". He could have been playing dead. He could have pulled out a gun fired a shot from the ground. The officer was obviously panicking and not thinking clearly beyond "ohfuck shoothimshoothimshoothim". Are you seriously suggesting police procedure should be "fire one shot, wait to see if he's still trying to kill me and only then shoot him some more"?
I have no problem with a cop making a bad call in the heat of the moment and getting let off lightly if, given the information available to him, the suspect posed an immediate threat to his life. The pepper-spraying cop of internet meme fame? Not so much. There was no "heat of the moment", no threat to his life. He should be hung drawn and quartered. The cops in the OP? Again, inexcusable. They weren't in any danger beyond failing to meet their quota.
This is why your cops are so fucked up by the way; any random nutjob they encounter could have a gun. So if they don't react like this they stand a non-trival chance of getting shot one day. And the sad thing is, there is no fix. Even if you banned guns forever tomorrow, the existing guns would be out there in circulation forever. Except only the criminals would have them.
That woman was damn lucky she threw whatever was in her hand when she went running. If you believe these officers were half the shit brains you want to claim they are, they would of shot her as well.
I remember the first time I found out police were allowed to say any lie they wanted, no matter how big, to coerce a confession during an interrogation. Totally flabbergasted me; but this is why...as we all know...You.Don't.Talk.To.Cops if they pull you in for an interrogation.
Honestly
Everything after the part where you say you didn't watch is bullshit.
omfg
the feelings I feel there are no words for this feel
these words make me literally hurt
If you're not at least going to explain why you think my words are so bad and wrong then we're not going to be able to have a conversation here. Which is, you know, the point of this section of the forums. If you misunderstood, let mcdermott spell it out for you:
This is exactly what I was trying to say. The moment he fired the first shot, the cop had decided the guy was going to die. Seriously, what's the alternative here, given he's already been shot once? You do not shoot to wound. Police are not trained to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand, or hit them in the kneecaps; they are not the Lone Ranger or Vash the Stampede. If you're shooting at all, you're shooting to kill. If they're still moving, they're still a potential threat.
Apparently the guy's foot got caught in his seat belt and he was reaching to unhook it so that he didn't fall over. I guess the right thing to do in that situation would have been to keep his hands in the air and just fall the fuck over, but the victim's reaction was also likely a split-second heat of the moment thing, not something he had time to think about. This was not some horrible act of police brutality, it was a tragic combination of events leading to an unfortunate loss of life. Not everything has to be somebody's fault.
Oh for fuck's sake.
At this point I'm willing to just say that the police aren't allowed to interrogate someone without a lawyer in the room.
The officer involved was actually told that he was armed.
Back to the OP, I thought police interrogations were always recorded?
I mean, yeah, there's the whole thing about us vs. them, and lobbying and shit, but the hypocrisy of pretending to stand for justice while completely skewing the process is astounding.
And then complaining that no one likes cops
I like this. About the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that could cause a problem is police having to wait on an interrogation until the accused's lawyer/a public defender is able to get to the police-station. That seems like a mostly minor inconvenience though; a ticking time-bomb scenario seems unlikely.
I'd also really like it if LEO's weren't allowed to lie (or at the very least, "play fast and loose with facts") and make shit up during questioning.
However, there probably should be limits on the lies Police can tell in certain cases. Especially to children about what they can do for them because quite frankly that just looks like terrible police work. You got a confession by promising to do something for them is just quite silly.
The most disgusting report I ever watched on TV was about how vicious and deceitful police can be when interrogating teenagers. And not even "almost adult" teenagers but 13 year old's. They wind them up, deprive them of everything, yell at them, threaten them, tell them their whole lives are ruined, mock them when they cry and say they want their mommy. And then they drop the bomb. "If you just confess, you can see your mom and everything will be alright." And I don't mean to spoil anything, when they confess, they don't get to see their mom, and nothing is ever alright again.
My point was that I don't think removing that ability from the Police is the correct fix, but making sure in the Court system there is a review of it during the trial so everyone understands what exactly happened and the Jury/Judge can add that to their deliberating.
Oh it gets worse, because then, when it goes to trial, the teenager gets an overworked public defender who couldn't honestly give a rats ass if another punk kid gets locked away, VS an aggressive DA who's trying to look tough on crime.
And if you think it looks bad now, wait until you start reading about "no drop" policies. There are an array of crimes that for political reasons, the DA is forced to prosecute. Regardless of evidence or even if the victim wants to. They also tend to be the sorts of crimes where even the accusation alone is enough to disgust people enough to want to convict.
At least, it is in my state.
The innocence project puts the number of innocent people in jail is between 2.3% and 5%, and roughly a quarter of those are due to false confessions. Probably not an unbiased source, but one that had numbers easily googleable.
So that is not a good number. Not as bad as some areas but not good. False confessions are simply the result of lazy or poorly done police work. They brought the wrong person in for interrogation, and it's that simple. If they are overworked, then they need to add more manpower, if they are lazy they should be fired, and the same occurs if they are bad at their job.
So if everyone asserts their rights and the police are properly staffed with the poor officers being removed, false confessions will likely drop dramatically.
Parents have to give consent, if not be present, but there are workarounds in schools and other places. Like the officer stands by and lets the principal/school worker interrogate.
Does a parent have the right to waive the presence of a lawyer? What about the minor themselves? What if they are being charged as an adult? How available will the advocate be? Will kids be held for hours / days until the advocate / defender is available for questioning? Will everything the individual says prior to the arrival of the lawyer / advocate be inadmissible? What if the suspect volunteers a confession? And so on.
I can also see how police would immediately begin to manipulate this. Similar to how people aren't 'suspects' anymore but a 'person of interest' because of the legal baggage that comes with a person being a 'suspect' in a crime. Or a kid will be held for unreasonably long periods of time because an advocate / public defender isn't available.
I can see how the public defender or advocate could also become a liability for the individual. If you think it's hard convincing a jury a confession was forced now, try proving that a confession was forced when your public defender was present and agreeing with the police that you should just confess. I don't have a lot of faith that the public defenders or advocates aren't just going to be captured by the system.
What I see would be a requirement that all interrogations / interviews be recorded and available to the defense, stricter guidelines be placed on police as to the techniques they can and can't use, and that an independent audit board be established to verify that police are following those guidelines and disciplined if they don't.
Hell, we have the technology today to put cameras and microphones on every single police officer, record every moment that they are on duty, and upload that information to a secure server. Not that we would ever see it, but that would help resolve a lot of these issues where the only verification / evidence is the cop's testimony.
It depends on the state. But this confession was recorded, it was just that the police fought it being made public.
This is true and upheld by a supreme court ruling. Actually say you choose to remain silent. Good point.
I miss that state.
It's such a nice state.
Otherwise, we end up with situations where the parents waive the right to an attorney, make the kid confess, and then the kid ends up getting prosecuted as an adult, which is complete fucking bullshit. And parents don't know shit about the law, so they can very easily fuck up their kids' whole life, and the kid has no control over it since kids aren't people according to the U.S. government.