Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CwazyCanuck t1_iwuzkxy wrote

Reply to comment by johnhummel in Dashcam footage prompts FBI evaluation - Video shows officers striking suspect on the ground by daddynexxus

Honestly don’t understand how police can claim anything without evidence. Claim that you said something. Claim that you did something. It’s a conflict of interest. If they don’t require evidence because their word is sufficient, what stops them from lying, and once they have, they have a vested interest in maintaining the lie.

39

jonathanrdt t1_iwvqmbf wrote

Police are only required to tell the truth in court and affidavits. During the course of an encounter or investigation, they are free to lie. Lying to known criminals is one thing, but they also lie to people they know are not, which seems like an opportunity for reform.

22

chetchaka t1_iww6qao wrote

Police are free to lie in courts as well, unless there is a specific police officer on trial as the defendant. It might be illegal in theory, but in practice, police get so much protection from police "unions" that they cannot be held accountable for lies they tell in court (again with the exception of a specific officer as the defendant).

I say "unions" because their position of power puts them at odds with every other union in the country. They are not unionized against corporations, they are unionized against citizens. Police "unions" are de facto an arm of the government's will to illegally and violently revoke the rights of the worker class.

20