5 ms·

Police can't really face any consequences for lying, so why wouldn't they? On an individual level it doesn't matter even if the lie is in a courtroom for the p

Police can't really face any consequences for lying, so why wouldn't they? On an individual level it doesn't matter even if the lie is in a courtroom for the purpose of turning a murder into justified deadly force! Why wouldn't an organization of police lie even more when they know full well neither the org nor the individual officers will be punished? Even in this story the truly disturbing part is this: > A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit eventually ruled in BPD’s favor in the case. ACLU is appealing the decision, but where are the obstruction / perjury / contempt charges for all the individuals that lied?

dmix 6y ago
In the current system maybe. All things can change, laws especially. But there seems to be heavy bipartisan support federally/executively for mass surveillance in the US so good luck with getting your privacy protected nationally. Your best hope is some local policy changes at the state or municipal level in Baltimore or Maryland. Which may inspire change elsewhere.
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  Yes -- if you or anyone else is a concerned citizen please look into your local district attorney and your state's attorney general. Make sure your DA knows that if they aren't willing to indict criminal cops they will be out of a job. We just did this in Los Angeles! No clue how far the new guy will take it, but he definitely understands that this was a referendum on the previous DA's near-absolute refusal to even consider indicting police misconduct.
- tw25585624 6y ago
  Things can change, but only in ways that are beneficial to the system. Corporations and governments at every level now have more power over human affairs than they have at any other time in human history.
voodootrucker 6y ago
The headline says "lied about" but I think it should be updated to "lied to a judge about" - that's perjury! Nothing in the article about them being charged :(
valuearb 6y ago
It’s not “exactly” true, there are plenty of cases where departments have fired individual officers for the singular act of lying in investigations. A better way to say it is that there aren’t enough honorable police departments firing enough dishonest cops. And in this case they will argue that misleading != lying.

dmix 6y ago

In the current system maybe. All things can change, laws especially. But there seems to be heavy bipartisan support federally/executively for mass surveillance in the US so good luck with getting your privacy protected nationally. Your best hope is some local policy changes at the state or municipal level in Baltimore or Maryland. Which may inspire change elsewhere.

tehwebguy 6y ago
Yes -- if you or anyone else is a concerned citizen please look into your local district attorney and your state's attorney general. Make sure your DA knows that if they aren't willing to indict criminal cops they will be out of a job. We just did this in Los Angeles! No clue how far the new guy will take it, but he definitely understands that this was a referendum on the previous DA's near-absolute refusal to even consider indicting police misconduct.
tw25585624 6y ago
Things can change, but only in ways that are beneficial to the system. Corporations and governments at every level now have more power over human affairs than they have at any other time in human history.

voodootrucker 6y ago

The headline says "lied about" but I think it should be updated to "lied to a judge about" - that's perjury! Nothing in the article about them being charged :(

valuearb 6y ago

It’s not “exactly” true, there are plenty of cases where departments have fired individual officers for the singular act of lying in investigations. A better way to say it is that there aren’t enough honorable police departments firing enough dishonest cops. And in this case they will argue that misleading != lying.