3 ms·

In many of these cases its your word against the cop's word. Guess whose side the justice system takes...

rootusrootus 5y ago
Yes, a police officer is considered an officer of the court [1]. His exposure to consequences for lying is higher than the average citizen under oath. Given two conflicting statements that cannot be resolved with evidence, it isn't a surprise that the judge is going to defer to the cop. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court
- coliveira 5y ago
  > consequences for lying is higher than the average citizen This has never stoped them from lying, since they already know who will be believed.
- giantg2 5y ago
  It should be surprising that they defer to the cop. That's basically assuming that one is guilty without proving it. At a minimum, it should objectively provide reasonable doubt. I have an experience where a trooper lied to the court twice and I have evidence to back it up. Nobody cares. I tried a the ACLU (bigger fish to fry), a complaint with the department (they counseled him and made the excuse that they have a lot of new guys at this station), I wrote my state representatives multiple times (no reply, except for one, which was a form letter not even applicable to my scenario), we tried the DA's office (they participated in multiple rights violations), we tried the DoJ for civil rights violations (no updates for about 6 months), we submitted complaints against a magistrate and a judge with the board of conduct (no updates and over 6 months), we submitted complaints against the ADAs who participated in incompetent or misconduct to the Bar (was told they only investigate prosecutors if the court formally determines there was prosecutorial misconduct), talked to an civil rights lawyer (was told it was a violation, but the courts don't care unless large monetary damages were involved), and talked to an investigative journalist (ran a story similar to this but said to keep him posted if I find anything explosive). There's literally nobody to turn to. Almost every person involved in the system made mistakes or misconduct during the process (cop, 2/3 magistrates - 3rd was arrested for an unrelated matter, the judge, 2 ADAs, etc). I have absolutely zero faith in the system.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Are you talking about a judge, or a jury? An officer of the court is compelled to tell the truth, under oath or not. A jury is not required to give an officer of the court any more weight than they give to anyone else.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      The trooper lied to "the court", twice. It was a bench trial. Both lies took place in front of the magistrate with no jury present. I have documentation that shows the statement were factually incorrect and that for one of those statements he said the opposite a few minutes beforehand and the evidence supports the out-of-court statement.
      - rootusrootus 5y ago
        Well, the downside of calling them judges is that sometimes they make a call we don't agree with. Maybe legitimately, maybe not. But it isn't necessarily evidence of a systemic problem, even if it is entirely unjust for you.
        giantg2 5y ago
        What does that have to do with a cop lying in court and continuing to be a cop after that? Judges won't be able to make just decisions if lying cops are allowed to continue to be cops. Allowing garbage-in-garbage-out seems like a systemic issue to me. Judges generally aren't involved I'm the removal of an officer. That typically happens via IAD, and even then the union tells them to resign so the IAD investigation ends and they can just go to a different department.
      - throwaway946513 5y ago
        Following this conversation, it reminds me of the film 'The Chicago Seven' regarding the problems within the court, and the judge's inherent bias for the officers.
      - ChrisKnott 5y ago

Yes, a police officer is considered an officer of the court [1]. His exposure to consequences for lying is higher than the average citizen under oath. Given two conflicting statements that cannot be resolved with evidence, it isn't a surprise that the judge is going to defer to the cop. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court

coliveira 5y ago
> consequences for lying is higher than the average citizen This has never stoped them from lying, since they already know who will be believed.
giantg2 5y ago
It should be surprising that they defer to the cop. That's basically assuming that one is guilty without proving it. At a minimum, it should objectively provide reasonable doubt. I have an experience where a trooper lied to the court twice and I have evidence to back it up. Nobody cares. I tried a the ACLU (bigger fish to fry), a complaint with the department (they counseled him and made the excuse that they have a lot of new guys at this station), I wrote my state representatives multiple times (no reply, except for one, which was a form letter not even applicable to my scenario), we tried the DA's office (they participated in multiple rights violations), we tried the DoJ for civil rights violations (no updates for about 6 months), we submitted complaints against a magistrate and a judge with the board of conduct (no updates and over 6 months), we submitted complaints against the ADAs who participated in incompetent or misconduct to the Bar (was told they only investigate prosecutors if the court formally determines there was prosecutorial misconduct), talked to an civil rights lawyer (was told it was a violation, but the courts don't care unless large monetary damages were involved), and talked to an investigative journalist (ran a story similar to this but said to keep him posted if I find anything explosive). There's literally nobody to turn to. Almost every person involved in the system made mistakes or misconduct during the process (cop, 2/3 magistrates - 3rd was arrested for an unrelated matter, the judge, 2 ADAs, etc). I have absolutely zero faith in the system.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Are you talking about a judge, or a jury? An officer of the court is compelled to tell the truth, under oath or not. A jury is not required to give an officer of the court any more weight than they give to anyone else.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    The trooper lied to "the court", twice. It was a bench trial. Both lies took place in front of the magistrate with no jury present. I have documentation that shows the statement were factually incorrect and that for one of those statements he said the opposite a few minutes beforehand and the evidence supports the out-of-court statement.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      Well, the downside of calling them judges is that sometimes they make a call we don't agree with. Maybe legitimately, maybe not. But it isn't necessarily evidence of a systemic problem, even if it is entirely unjust for you.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        What does that have to do with a cop lying in court and continuing to be a cop after that? Judges won't be able to make just decisions if lying cops are allowed to continue to be cops. Allowing garbage-in-garbage-out seems like a systemic issue to me. Judges generally aren't involved I'm the removal of an officer. That typically happens via IAD, and even then the union tells them to resign so the IAD investigation ends and they can just go to a different department.
    - throwaway946513 5y ago
      Following this conversation, it reminds me of the film 'The Chicago Seven' regarding the problems within the court, and the judge's inherent bias for the officers.
    - ChrisKnott 5y ago