Truth be told, they have a greater inclination towards thuggery than the general population.

This dynamic is making its way to the street now. (It has been for a long time.) In large part, it is the laws themselves that are corrupting the police. The de facto destruction of the Fourth Amendment alone ought to make this obvious: the work is positively attracting the sort of person who gets his jollies from kicking peoples’ doors down. In a general ethical culture like this, only very exceptional individuals will survive un-rotted, and those kinds of people — because of their ethical sense to begin with — would most likely never become cops now. We’re talking about a Gresham’s Law of policing.

Tell your friend to get into another line of work. At the very least, he’s going to end up despised by every one of his countrymen with brains in their heads.

Unfortunately, from what I understand a lot of judges would deem a cop’s testimony from another case to be “irrelevant”. Probably because they know that if defense attorneys were allowed to introduce evidence of cops’ contradictory testimony in other cases, most cops would be useless on the witness stand whether they were truthful or not (even a cop that is 100% honest is frequently going to give testimony that contradicts that of other witnesses). Still, I would think reasonable jury instructions should allow a reasonable compromise.

Perhaps juries should be instructed that, when the defense tries to introduce testimony and evidence from other cases for purposes of discrediting a witness, they should only discredit the witness if they find specific instances where there can be no doubt but that he lied. They should be informed that anyone who testifies very often is going to occasionally have his testimony contradicted by other witnesses, even if he is 100% truthful. Additionally, they should be encouraged to look negatively upon “throw everything and see what sticks” tactics (by either side).

I believe a better action would be to drug test all the cops involved. This sounds like a case of ‘roid rage to me.

Yep. Im with ya there. Im using Firefox right now. I usually use Opera Browser but because of this video it not only beeps at me, it locks me up completely and i have to use the dreaded “end task” button.

I’m surprised the cops in that video didn’t look around and break the camera.

Anyway, if nothing else, this highlights just how vital it is that we retain our right to videotape police. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that said rights are going to be challenged even more in the future.

The sad fact is that Joe Blow could go intot he police station right now and say that Joe Shmoe slammed his face into the ground and the police would charge shmoe with a crime in about a day, just on the word and bruises of Blow. Cops need a video, 6 eye-witnesses, DNA samples and crying children before they get a slap on the wrist.

Did this stupid police spokesman prick actual talk about the presumption of innocence with a straight face?

#7 | Cappy | August 13th, 2008 at 12:24 am

#3 | Lior | August 12th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
For some reason I doubt the officers will be charged with perjury.

——————————

Briscoe .v. LaHue

Held: Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976 ed., Supp. V) does not authorize a convicted state defendant to assert a claim for damages against a police officer for giving perjured testimony at the defendant’s criminal trial. Pp. 460 U. S. 329-346.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/325/case.html

Actually, Heaney wasn’t convicted, his case was thrown out. That means that the officers CAN be charged with perjury. Not only that, but the fact that they lied in court should be grounds for them being fired. If they’ll do it once, what is to say they haven’t done it every time or will do it again?

The limits of euphemasia are infinite.

~

GAguilar wrote:
If we’re going to have a safe and secure socity, we’re going to have to tolerate the occasional bit of official mischief, O.K.?

So it would have been better if the cops had sent someone by to “explain” to the owner of that embarrassing tape that his health might suffer if the tape surfaced. For by letting these cops suffer, our safety and security is at risk in a time of war. We just can’t tolerate that and it’d have been better if they’d not only beat the bicyclist, but also the owner of the video camera to get rid of the evidence.

Why? Well, we’d be safer in the future, that’s why.

Of course the damage is already done, but in the future we should not mind the occasional act of battery, even murder, or the occaisional act of perjury if, and only if, it’s done by someone in authority who’s actions are done in service of a more secure nation.

Less damage would have been done in this case if the victim of police brutality had done 10 years behind bars for the police assault he didn’t commit than has been done to our security by halting his prosecution to turn a finger of guilt at the lying cops. For if cops can’t occasionally kill and maim innocent citizens, and get away with it, in order to protect us, why they may not have the zeal to protect us at all!

What’s a few broken teeth and a few years behind bars, anyway?

Think about it!

GA

~

That bad boy got 5 recommendations. Score 1 to Big Brother.

cmrent at wrote:
As a god fearing christian american neoconservative, I believe the police need to defend themselves and not be questioned. They are part of the government and it is not morally correct to question authority. I agree with our president who is also a christian and believe it is right to kill people in america and foreign lands if it is for the safety of our government.

Does he have any idea how flawed and un-American his logic is? Thomas Jefferson would punch this guy in his face. If a government kills its people- the people it’s supposed to be protecting- in order to protect itself, then it’s no longer serving its function; rather, that government’s sole purpose has become propagating more government. In essence, it exists to further its own existence. Furthermore, he must surely be joking with his suggestion that questioning authority is immoral. The Nazis didn’t question what their government told them to do, but does that make their actions moral? Since he’s such a fan of their logic, I’ll go ahead and borrow from the Nazis’ concept of Eugenics and suggest that he be barred from breeding.