Let's not rush to judgement but police are generally liars

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The reason I'm writing "generally" is because as someone pointed out in another thread, they are trained to lie. I am NOT saying that most of the things they claim are lies. I AM claiming that most police lie often enough to be considered liars.

Interrogation It's a normal part of the job to lie in interrogations, for example. That's how they trick people into confessing or into giving something away. At some point in a police officer's career, most will participate in an interrogation. During interrogations there are good cop-bad cop techniques, lying that a co-defendant has confessed or named them as the real culprit, lying that evidence has been found, pretending to have empathy, lying about degree of consequences (this one while illegal is still sometimes done).

The Blue Wall of Silence It's probably a part of many jobs to protect your own and police may not be different in that regard. However, because of the nature of their job and its high relation to the judicial system, for cops in this context, protecting your own means do not testify in court against another cop. Let's not forget that this problem has been so bad, that police needed to make an Internal Affairs department. When police are silent, it's a form of lying--lying by omission.

Now, there seems to be a more current issue of "not being able to find recording evidence," not releasing it to the public. Planting evidence, destroying evidence, or making up stories may be more rare (at least I like to think so). But don't forget that other police will generally be silent about it, if they were present because of the wall of silence.

While I am posting this thread, I actually don't have anything against police in general. I think they have tough jobs that force them into morally contradictory positions such as loyalty being a good thing--you have to physically protect your workmates but you are supposed to rat them out? ...to you can catch someone in a lie or perjuring themselves but you can lie yourself officially and legally ... to you can literally, officially pretend to be someone else except when you document evidence ... to you are supposed to protect people's rights but you can tell them what to do. It must be extremely morally confusing.

Finally, there's a story in the news right now about a police officer who allegedly made up a story about a black man trying to shoot her:

An officer shot. A bullet stopped by body armor. A 10-day chase for an unidentified shooter.

A newly hired Jackson police officer told a compelling story about what happened late the night of Sept. 13. After only three months on the job, Sherry Hall found herself immersed in a high-profile shooting, pitting a white officer against a black man. At least, that was her account of what happened.

But she made the whole thing up, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaking-news/cop-made-up-story-about-georgia-shooting-gbi-says/nsdct/

I have to wonder if it was easier for the police officer to make up this story because she's a police officer. Let's not rush to judgement but police are generally liars.

 

[Derec]

You are rushing to judgment about what police generally are based on one officer who lied.

 

[Jaecp]

You are rushing to judgment about what police generally are based on one officer who lied.

Err, no. That's what he ended with after detailing the many reasons cops are trained to lie

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are rushing to judgment about what police generally are based on one officer who lied.

That's completely untrue as any objective person can tell from reading the whole op.

 

[ksen]

You are rushing to judgment about what police generally are based on one officer who lied.

if only it was 1 officer

 

[Bronzeage]

You are rushing to judgment about what police generally are based on one officer who lied.

Maybe so, but I have personally seen all that Don talks about, in real life. Based on my personal interactions with various police officers through out the years, if I were on a jury, the testimony of a police officer would be suspect and I would be inclined to doubt anything that was not independently confirmed.

Police officers do lie as part of their normal duties. They fabricate stories in order to confuse suspects and get them to change their story. It's a lie to discover a lie.

Police have a peculiar power which is largely unappreciated. There is an old saying, "History is written by the winners." In any encounter, the police are always the winners. They are the ones who write the official version of what happened. When things don't go exactly as they should, it's easy to write it as it should have been.

This is the way it's been since policemen wore badges. The only reason it's a issue today is because video has left them vulnerable. There are too many cameras in the hands of the public and changing the facts after the fact is no longer possible.

 

[Valjean]

I agree with Bronzeage.

The job selects for authoritarians, conservatives and bullies. Loyalty and authority are exaggerated and fairness and care given short shrift.

Just consider the authoritarian triad:
Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one's society should also be required to adhere to these norms

Police see their function as protectors of The Tribe ("legitimate" authority and values) from the threats of unconventionalism and impropriety. "Protect and Serve" amounts to protecting not the citizens, but the existing power structure and social order.

Police see themselves as legitimate authority -- owed respect and deference. Disrespect and bad behavior incenses them.
Fairness and moral consideration extends only to legitimate members of The Tribe. Disrespect and bad behavior brand one as an outlier; a legitimate target for aggression and without claim to care and fairness.

 

[abaddon]

"Protect and Serve" amounts to protecting not the citizens, but the existing power structure and social order.

Exactly. It’s why trying to remind police they are there to “protect and serve” cannot work. They already know very well what they are paid to protect and serve.

 

[BH]

I have three cousins and an uncle who are/were policemen or sheriff's deputies.

I have three friends that were police, sheriff's deputy, or highway patrol.

Two cousins have always told me to be careful of police even though they are police themselves. They said pretty much what Bronzage has said and told me they will cover up for each other's mistakes even to the point of lying. They are scared of getting sued for mistakes but also are scared of each other. They have to trust each other to cover each other in any threatening situation---piss another officer off because you ratted on him or did not lie for him, he might be a little slower pulling a gun on someone fixing to shoot you from behind or hit you with a baseball bat .


Friend who was a highway patrolman said that when you see someone being beat down on tv by the cops and they say suspect had a weapon but no weapon is in sight, it is more than likely what it looks like. The person is just being beaten. The suspect may have fled or had a weapon at one point but not anymore and is not a threat but the cops are still beating the person out of revenge and hate.

Other friend said he was out on patrol with another cop one day and they came across this guy laying on the sidewalk drunk. The drunk sees them and yells out something ugly but does not try anything other than mouth off. The other cop walks over and simply kicks the guy in the head and tells him to shut his fucking face. My friend told me he told that other cop he was not going to lie and cover for him if that drunk remembered who he was and what he did. He did not stay in the police force much longer. Seeing things like that made him want to leave.

Uncle said that the police are the ones who have to enforce the rules on everyone else. And one problem with that position is that for the enforcers there are very, very few people who have the authority to call them to account for their actions or are perceived as having the right to call them to account for anything they do. And lots of times the people who can legally rebuke and discipline a policeman often are scared too because it is just so easy for law enforcement to find out dirt on people or their relatives.

 

[Jaecp]

Oh, hey, it happened again!

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-futu...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

... Michael debates with him a little because he’s very knowledgeable about the law and the First Amendment, and the end result is that the trooper snatches the camera, walks away, and puts it on top of the cruiser, without realizing that it is working and is recording video.

This is the point at which the troopers’ accidental self-surveillance begins. Barrett continues:

So we get the three troopers at the cruiser talking about what to do. Michael’s permit comes back as valid, they say “oh crap,” and one of the troopers says “we gotta punch a number on this guy,” which means open an investigation in the police database. And he says “we really gotta cover our asses.” And then they have a very long discussion about what to charge Michael with—none of which appear to have any basis in fact. This plays out over eight minutes. They talk about “we could do this, we could do this, we could do this….”

In Connecticut, police officers have clear requirements under the law to intervene and stop or prevent constitutional violations when they see them. But at no time did any of the three officers pipe up and say, “why don’t we just give him his camera back and let him go.”

They eventually settled on claiming that a bunch of motorists were scared of him waving a gun around but nobody wanted to stop and make a report...

 

[barbos]

I understand law enforcement in general are allowed to lie in order to get information. I was once detained under completely fictional pretenses in order to have a talk. Unfortunately I realized that only after I got home and found out that they made up the story. No harm was done but I was pissed off. Next time I am going to try "Fuck off, I don't give free lectures" approach.
Other than that I think when they have more than one perpetrator they always lie about what other perpetrator said. That's a standard technique they are taught in their police academies. I just think it's not nice to treat that way completely innocent people.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I understand law enforcement in general are allowed to lie in order to get information. I was once detained under completely fictional pretenses in order to have a talk. Unfortunately I realized that only after I got home and found out that they made up the story. No harm was done but I was pissed off. Next time I am going to try "Fuck off, I don't give free lectures" approach.
Other than that I think when they have more the one perpetrator they always lie about what other perpetrator said.

Perpetrators or suspects? (The primarily relevant-to-the-op difference being the frequency with which police will lie.)

 

[barbos]

I understand law enforcement in general are allowed to lie in order to get information. I was once detained under completely fictional pretenses in order to have a talk. Unfortunately I realized that only after I got home and found out that they made up the story. No harm was done but I was pissed off. Next time I am going to try "Fuck off, I don't give free lectures" approach.
Other than that I think when they have more the one perpetrator they always lie about what other perpetrator said.

Perpetrators or suspects?

There is no difference as far as police concerned, I could be wrong but I think police are legally allowed to lie to suspects too.
More serious agencies like CIA-NSA (or KGB-FSB) lie to everybody, even to senators

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There is no difference as far as police concerned, but I think police are allowed to lie to suspects too.

Yes and you made me remember a problem. Police aren't allowed to say something like 'if you say this, we'll give you this'--a reward or a consequence. But if they say that so-and-so in the nearby room said you were the primary person who shot the guy, a suspect is indirectly being assigned a consequence--it's a risk to a consequence if they don't lie. So police ability to lie to the public can lead to false confessions.

 

[barbos]

There is no difference as far as police concerned, but I think police are allowed to lie to suspects too.

Yes and you made me remember a problem. Police aren't allowed to say something like 'if you say this, we'll give you this'--a reward or a consequence.

Well, if this is recorded then that would look quite ridiculous in the court, right? But yeah, this is an obvious bullshit which corrupted police often do.

But if they say that so-and-so in the nearby room said you were the primary person who shot the guy, a suspect is indirectly being assigned a consequence--it's a risk to a consequence if they don't lie. So police ability to lie to the public can lead to false confessions.

More like false accusations. I mean two suspects are going to accuse each other and the idea is to see who is better at that

 

[barbos]

I have three cousins and an uncle who are/were policemen or sheriff's deputies.

I have three friends that were police, sheriff's deputy, or highway patrol.

Two cousins have always told me to be careful of police even though they are police themselves. They said pretty much what Bronzage has said and told me they will cover up for each other's mistakes even to the point of lying. They are scared of getting sued for mistakes but also are scared of each other. They have to trust each other to cover each other in any threatening situation---piss another officer off because you ratted on him or did not lie for him, he might be a little slower pulling a gun on someone fixing to shoot you from behind or hit you with a baseball bat .

Yeah, corporate loyalty is very strong among law enforcement and in mafia too. Reminded me that former KGB agent and then defector poisoned by polonium. British let it slide I think because they understood they would probably do something similar. Same story with Snowden, not many people believe he would get a fair trial if he decides to return.
But corporate loyalty is pretty strong in other fields like doctors, science, etc.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes and you made me remember a problem. Police aren't allowed to say something like 'if you say this, we'll give you this'--a reward or a consequence.

Well, if this is recorded then that would look quite ridiculous in the court, right? But yeah, this is an obvious bullshit which corrupted police often do.

But if they say that so-and-so in the nearby room said you were the primary person who shot the guy, a suspect is indirectly being assigned a consequence--it's a risk to a consequence if they don't lie. So police ability to lie to the public can lead to false confessions.

More like false accusations. I mean two suspects are going to accuse each other and the idea is to see who is better at that

generally, they dont want to record things. most often, the confessions are written as the final versions--after much ado.

 

[barbos]

Well, if this is recorded then that would look quite ridiculous in the court, right? But yeah, this is an obvious bullshit which corrupted police often do.

But if they say that so-and-so in the nearby room said you were the primary person who shot the guy, a suspect is indirectly being assigned a consequence--it's a risk to a consequence if they don't lie. So police ability to lie to the public can lead to false confessions.

More like false accusations. I mean two suspects are going to accuse each other and the idea is to see who is better at that

generally, they dont want to record things. most often, the confessions are written as the final versions--after much ado.

Then suspect can later simply say he was coerced to do it or signed empty page or something.

 

[BH]

Mr. Barbos said:

But corporate loyalty is pretty strong in other fields like doctors, science, etc.

I got two stories about doctors.

One, a hospital administrator told me that when the doctors make a supposed mistake and he starts an investigation to see if it was indeed a mistake the reveiwing doctors very rarely ever admit another doctor made a mistake because it's all good old boy at work and the reveiwing doctors don't want another doctor to say they made any mistakes when they do either.

Two, I know a lab tech who heard a gynecologist say how much he hates having to pay taxes for welfare and he gets so angry when a welfare mother comes in to have a baby and the government pay for it. He said he gets his revenge when the woman needs a c-section. If she has money to pay out of pocket or private insurance he wheels her off, knocks out her pain, and gets the baby out. If she is on welfare he simply lets her sit there in a lot of pain for a good while before opening her up and taking out the baby. The lab tech was like but had no witnesses and could not prove anything.

When my dad was in the hospital with his cancer dying mom told the doctor on duty dad and her had discussed him going on hospice. The doctor just looked at her and said "You should. If you keep bringing him in here the insurance isn't going to keep paying for it and you will run out of money and then the hospital will have to help him without getting anything for it...." He went on a rant about the hospital getting its money. Needless to say the insurance took care of 98% of all of it and he did go on hospice. We did not tell dad what the doctor said because he thought of him as a friend.

 

[Deepak]

Yes and you made me remember a problem. Police aren't allowed to say something like 'if you say this, we'll give you this'--a reward or a consequence.

Well, if this is recorded then that would look quite ridiculous in the court, right? But yeah, this is an obvious bullshit which corrupted police often do.

But if they say that so-and-so in the nearby room said you were the primary person who shot the guy, a suspect is indirectly being assigned a consequence--it's a risk to a consequence if they don't lie. So police ability to lie to the public can lead to false confessions.

More like false accusations. I mean two suspects are going to accuse each other and the idea is to see who is better at that

Well, if this is recorded then that would look quite ridiculous in the court, right? But yeah, this is an obvious bullshit which corrupted police often do.

But if they say that so-and-so in the nearby room said you were the primary person who shot the guy, a suspect is indirectly being assigned a consequence--it's a risk to a consequence if they don't lie. So police ability to lie to the public can lead to false confessions.

More like false accusations. I mean two suspects are going to accuse each other and the idea is to see who is better at that

generally, they dont want to record things. most often, the confessions are written as the final versions--after much ado.

Well, if this is recorded then that would look quite ridiculous in the court, right? But yeah, this is an obvious bullshit which corrupted police often do.

But if they say that so-and-so in the nearby room said you were the primary person who shot the guy, a suspect is indirectly being assigned a consequence--it's a risk to a consequence if they don't lie. So police ability to lie to the public can lead to false confessions.

More like false accusations. I mean two suspects are going to accuse each other and the idea is to see who is better at that

generally, they dont want to record things. most often, the confessions are written as the final versions--after much ado.

Then suspect can later simply say he was coerced to do it or signed empty page or something.

Doesn't really matter if it's recorded or written. Unless it's an explicit promise to affect the outcome of the arrest the courts have ruled that it's above the board. Implying that giving the police information will result in a lesser charge, or reduce the sentence, or state that it will sway a potential jury is allowable. If such a video exists, and every interrogation room has a camera, that recording would be admissible as evidence of a confession in a courtroom without any need to edit out the implied leniency.