ot. wait. cops actually lie?

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=svelte][quote=FlyerInHi]What about in states where there are open carry laws.
.[/quote]

You need to read up on the situation before you comment.

Also..you breezed right by the custom rims part…he can sell those effing things on craigslist, give his kids some of what he owes them, and ride on steel rims like I did when I had no dough! But to ride around with a customized ride with nice rims and tinted windows…nah….he should get himself an old POS (like I did when I was broke) and give his kids the difference. No sympathy from me!

Scaredy – you’re sounding more and more like a defense lawyer every day! If he got pulled over illegally, then he should STAND RIGHT THERE, let’em haul his ass in and get it thrown out in court! Maybe even sue the police and get a tidy bunch-o-cash! I’m all for that! But don’t run! That disrespects the very foundation of American society. If he thinks he got a raw deal, then plead his case in court, not via the Adida Hustle.

I’ve been shortchanged and even lied to by police before…I know they aren’t always honest or right. But I never ran. Never.

Do police have prejudices? You betcha, like every other white AND black AND Asian person in the United States. Every stinkin’ person!

But to assume it is a racial thing is a little too much for me to take.

Let me give you a real world example.

I typically don’t put front license plates on my sports cars, for a variety of reasons. I have driven that way for over 20 years during the day, at night, around bars, everywhere. Never been pulled over once for it. Never.

My sons and their friends emulated this and didn’t put the front plates on their cars when they were in high school. It seemed like monthly there were getting stopped for it…so much so they gave up and put the plates back on. They were ticked at me and the profiling that police were doing. They were young so of course they must be up to no good, right?

These boys were as lilly white as they come. They could never be mistaken for a person of color.

Now. Imagine the same cars, same driving patterns, same everything but turn my son and his friends black.

Do you suppose folks would be saying the cops were pulling them over due to racial profiling?

Do I think the young man should have been shot in SC? No I do not. The cop should stand trial and I bet he will rightly be convicted.

But I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the victim.

Before you all run off and misconstrue that comment, here is an analogy.

My heart gets heavy when I read of a person dying in a car accident that was not their fault. Pure bad luck, I feel bad for them.

But, when I hear of a person dying while skydiving, I don’t get a heavy heart. They knew their behavior was risky, they did it anyway. Oh well. I wish it didn’t happen, but no tears will be hitting my pillow. Same way I feel if someone runs from the police. Wish it wouldn’t have happened, cop should stand trial. But no tears on my pillow.

Tired of talking about this – I’m out.[/quote]

i get what you’re saying.

I think the bigger problem in this case is that it highlights just what a bunch of coldblooded liars police can be.

I mean ok, say you don’t feel sorry for the guy. I see your point of view.

The fact remains the police officers (plural) lied about the whole scenario. LIED. and would neevr have been found out but for a tape.

they lied about giving CPR to the fellow.

Lied about the location of the taser.

planted evidence, allegedly.

lied about the circumstances of the shooting.

and were just so coldblooded about it on the tape that frankly, i got a little chilled watching it…

so this kind of thing makes it very difficult for normal people to trust the police. even if you think the victim had it coming for participating ina risky activity. you still should feel a little queasy about a bunch of lies from police officers…because its very difficult to beleive that this is some unvbelievably rare incident of lying.

call me crazy, but i require honesty from the police. it makes it very difficult to run a criminal justice system if you don’t ahve faith that the overwhelming majority of police officer tell the truth the overwhelming majority of the time, with perhaps slight shadings here and there…

i guess the response might be, well, if you didn’t run, we wouldn’t have to become a bunch of dishonest liars. and if wr’re lying you’ll just have to beleive we are lying because the fellow had it coming, in our opinion.

[spdrun]

Svelte:

(a) What’s wrong with sounding like a defense lawyer? They fulfill a useful function in a country with a “justice” system as fucked up as the US.

(b) Would you give the same advice to someone who’s being raped or mugged? Just stand right there — you’ll have your day in court … maybe. Eventually.

(c) Screw the swine who shot the guy who was running away, then planted evidence. Hope he spends the rest of his pathetic life rotting in prison, only seeing his family through a thick glass wall. And that the visits get less and less frequent — one day, his wife will mention the better man in her life and shrug. At that point, maybe he’ll hope to get his shoelaces back.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=svelte] . . . Scaredy – you’re sounding more and more like a defense lawyer every day! . . .[/quote]In scaredy’s defense, he comes by that trait honestly, svelte! It’s a “JOB” that “somebody has to do.”

Maybe scaredy has a “ride-along” package you could sign up for where you could “shadow” him for one week. H@ll, maybe on a week where you could take a little road trip to visit one of CA’s “BIG Houses!”

Remember, if you’re going to stop for Mickey D’s along the way, you need to bring enough for everyone!

I think it would be enlightening for y’all (ALL Piggs) to “shadow” the likes of scaredy for at least one business day.

Signed,

Lived it for decades, breathed it, know it cold

PS: Without the scaredy’s of the world, the “system” would completely collapse …. within 24 hours.

[bearishgurl]

Norco reception center awaits your arrival, Piggs …

[spdrun]

Without the scaredys of the world, we’d have descended into Fascism 100 years ago.

[NotCranky]

Defense attorneys don’t fabricate on behalf of their clients? Parade a bunch of liars through the court. People who they put together for some bullshit Con whether the result is possibly to revictimize actual victims and society at large? Maybe get some scumbag off who killed plenty of times, who killed maimed and in other ways traumatized people? Yeah they do and sometimes they get the tax payer to pick up the tab for most of it or all of it too.

[NotCranky]

I imagine most cops will lie though, and most of their supervisors will back them if they can get away with it.

[FlyerInHi]

It’s all a question of incentives.

Cops will lie and the department will back up the cops because the incentives are to sustain a corrupt system, usually from the top on down. The incentives are self-preservation. It’s up to the leadership to not tolerate lies.

Defense attorney don’t have incentives other than winning a case, which in itself is powerful. But there is no personal investment on the part of the attorney.

Attorney may win cases on technicalities. But that’s due to inept prosecutors and cops who failed to follow the law.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Blogstar]Defense attorneys don’t fabricate on behalf of their clients? Parade a bunch of liars through the court. People who they put together for some bullshit Con whether the result is possibly to revictimize actual victims and society at large? Maybe get some scumbag off who killed plenty of times, who killed maimed and in other ways traumatized people? Yeah they do and sometimes they get the tax payer to pick up the tab for most of it or all of it too.[/quote]

Prosecutors and Defense attorneys almost never know what actually happened, because they a re not witnesses. They put on witnesses and make arguments to try to prove a theory. Neither the statements of prosecutors nor defense attorneys are evidence. theya re simply what they expect the evidence to show. It is up to the judge or jury to determine what the evidence means, what weight to give it, and what the truth is.

The correct outcome doesnt always occur, but it is not expected to be perfect. The system is set up to maximize letting innocent people go by establishing a high burden of proof …proof beyond a reasonable doubt…that’s our ssystem when it works correctly.

Stating a prosecution or defense theory that is not true is not lying, because the truth is almost never known to either side. In that sense, one side is “lying” in every trial where different theories of the facts are presented, since often both stories cannot be true. That doesn’t undermine the purpose of the system; in fact, that is the purpose of the system..to see if the evidence supports the charges, or if there is some reasonable alternative explanation that creates doubt about the truth of the charge. We expect one side’s story to not hold up after careful examination.

When the police interview witnesses, they are in a similar position to prosecutors or defense attorneys. They don’t know what the truth is. They are simply gathering in a critically examining manner evidence to be later considered in the context of the whole.

However, in other situations, the police are direct witnesses. In that case the police ACTUALLY DO know what happened.

When police make stuff up, it is bad. It is bad in a way that is utterly different than presenting an incorrect prosecution or defense theory to a jury, which as noted above, is normal. Because police hold a position of high regard in society, because jurors and judges trust them, when they fabricate evidence, it is highly likely it will be believed to be true, and that the outcome may therefore be very, very wrong, because innocent people might get convicted.

Alternatively, if that trust in police decayed over time, say by videotapes proving bold lies, and people started doubting everything the police said, it would also be terrible, because we as a society want jurors to be able to trust police, because that trust is necessary to enforcing laws and getting convictions of the guilty.

[NotCranky]

The defense attorneys don’t know what happened? I think often times they do.
At that point the alternative story is a lie. Protected legal lie maybe, but it’s still a lie. Those lies empower criminals to hit the streets again much earlier than if the defense refused with honesty, to bargain with them well before court. When they go to court with a lie , that’s what it is.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Blogstar]The defense attorneys don’t know what happened? I think often times they do.
At that point the alternative story is a lie. Protected legal lie maybe, but it’s still a lie. Those lies empower criminals to hit the streets again much earlier than if the defense refused with honesty, to bargain with them well before court. When they go to court with a lie , that’s what it is.[/quote]

No. They only very rarely know the truth. The story they tell may seem unlikely, or implausible, to themselves or others, but if that’s true, the factfinder should be able to see through that.

Sometimes very unlikely implausible stories turn out to be true. it is not up to the attorney to judge whether it is true or not, because she simply doesn’t know.

[NotCranky]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]The defense attorneys don’t know what happened? I think often times they do.
At that point the alternative story is a lie. Protected legal lie maybe, but it’s still a lie. Those lies empower criminals to hit the streets again much earlier than if the defense refused with honesty, to bargain with them well before court. When they go to court with a lie , that’s what it is.[/quote]

No. They do not know. The story may seem unlikely, or implausible, but if that’s true, the factfinder should be able to see through that.

Sometimes very unlikely implausible stories turn out to be true. it is not up to the attorney to judge whether it is true or not, because she simply doesn’t know.[/quote]

Lets say “she” is defending me and I tell “her” ,yes, I robbed the bank but I don’t want to plead guilty because I have a pretty bad criminal history and that will be considered in sentencing. Now “she” knows , do attorneys drop those cases or present some alternate story that I did not rob the bank?

[NotCranky]

Do cops/ DA know how much lying their cases will come up against? Yes. They live with this every day. How many cases are settled with a hand slap because it is too costly to fight against defense lies, I mean alternate versions? Are the cops kind of powerless to do their jobs because of it , some might think so.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Blogstar]Do cops/ DA know how much lying their cases will come up against? Yes. They live with this every day. How many cases are settled with a hand slap because it is too costly to fight against defense lies, I mean alternate versions? Are the cops kind of powerless to do their jobs because of it , some might think so.[/quote]

Police officer duties are completely separate and apart from penalties under the law. The police officer is not the jduge or the jury and has no impact on sentencing. The police are only there to gather facts and arrest suspects. They shoudl not dispense street justice.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Blogstar][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]The defense attorneys don’t know what happened? I think often times they do.
At that point the alternative story is a lie. Protected legal lie maybe, but it’s still a lie. Those lies empower criminals to hit the streets again much earlier than if the defense refused with honesty, to bargain with them well before court. When they go to court with a lie , that’s what it is.[/quote]

No. They do not know. The story may seem unlikely, or implausible, but if that’s true, the factfinder should be able to see through that.

Sometimes very unlikely implausible stories turn out to be true. it is not up to the attorney to judge whether it is true or not, because she simply doesn’t know.[/quote]

Lets say “she” is defending me and I tell “her” ,yes, I robbed the bank but I don’t want to plead guilty because I have a pretty bad criminal history and that will be considered in sentencing. Now “she” knows , do attorneys drop those cases or present some alternate story that I did not rob the bank?[/quote]

Regardless of whether the client confesses to the lawyer, the People still ahve to prove the case beyonda reasonable doubt. if there are holes in the proof, the lawyer would still be ethically obligated to point those out. In generaldefendants rarely confess to their lawyers.

[Author]

Posts