6 ms·
Seriously. Rock solid evidence that directly contradicts your sworn testimony? That's perjury. That's a crime.
by mfoy_ 9y ago
Seriously. Rock solid evidence that directly contradicts your sworn testimony? That's perjury. That's a crime.
- IncRnd 9y agoAnd, what does the quoted officer say in the story about lying under oath? "Behind closed doors, we call it testilying," a New York City police officer, Pedro Serrano, said in a recent interview, echoing a word that officers coined at least 25 years ago. "You take the truth and stretch it out a little bit." An officer lying under oath in order to sway a verdict calls into question every single police report or court testimony from that officer. You're absolutely correct. This is extremely serious.
- LordKano 9y agoYou're absolutely correct. This is extremely serious. And it's extremely common.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> An officer lying under oath in order to sway a verdict calls into question every single police report or court testimony from that officer Are there public databases that track dishonest officers? That could be incredibly helpful to defence lawyers.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoNot always public, but a lot of DAs have lists of officers who's testimony was not legit, and so they were meant to be kept away.
- IncRnd 9y agoUnfortunately, I am unaware of any of those. It stands to reason that police officers speaking openly in this manner about lying under oath don't face repercussions and consequently don't get tracked much.
- throwawaycop 9y agoThat’s easy: if they have a badge, they can’t be trusted. Don’t talk to the cops. Ever.
- Cyberdog 9y agoIf they're an officer, they're dishonest. Even if it may not be technically true, it's safe for the general public to assume this.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoThe point of such a database would be to bring to light specific cases, so actions can be taken against the officers in question.
- adrianratnapala 9y agoCan one be started? Sub-questions include: 1. Are public court-records complete enough to show it? 2. Is it a judgment-call whether a given record shows it? 3. How would list-makers avoid charges of defamation? 4. How do they prevent spam?
- mLuby 9y agoI assume such a list would have rows consisting of, at minimum: a. link to case's public testimony (CPT) b. text in CPT to officer's statement. c. text in CPT that contradicts the statement. (I'd love to see an example row!) 2. Innocent until proven guilty? I'd say best to start with the clear lies first to build the list's credibility. However enough borderline cases surrounding an individual or department can also be interesting. 3. Defamation requires that the statements about the person be false. Referencing court docs about what they said should obviate that concern. Maybe the trick is to bill the db as a "list of inconsistencies" rather than outright lies. 4. I'd be more concerned about DoS attack rather than spam.
- adrianratnapala 9y agoHmm I like how your idea helps with both (3) as you said, and also with what I called "spam". I had in mind a service where people were allowed to write in their claims of testilying -- how do you prevent it being "spammed" by every criminal with a grudge against a cop. By asking them to cut and paste text from CPT -- which can then be electronically verified, you can cut down on the casual attempts. Of course a real attacker can get around that trivially. Another question is where to host it. While truth is a libel defence in the US -- I am not sure that is true in other countries.
- Flenser 9y agoSee this post further down the page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16634769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16634769
- wl 9y agoIt's not perjury unless it's willful. I have no doubt that some of these inconsistencies (most?) are deliberate, but human memory is often pretty terrible. Good luck proving that the officer was deliberately not telling the truth.
- dclowd9901 9y agoHow about making it a crime to misremember? Sure would make you think twice before you testified something as fact. Human memory is _very_ fallible. Time we started treating it that way.
- milesokeefe 9y agoUnder that law, very few sane people would testify at all.
- dclowd9901 9y agoGreat. Most testimonies are probably fallacious anyway.
- cstoner 9y agoWell, usually this comes from written statements right after the event right? It's not like there's a several week gap between the event and the report.... right?
- michaelmrose 9y agoUnless you suffer from a mental disease your memory isn't that bad. Small inconsistencies aren't really the issue.
- philwelch 9y agoChoking people to death on the street for selling loose cigarettes is a crime, too.