3 ms·
Unless it's recorded, there's a good chance they won't believe you. Oh, you have a bruise? That could have been caused by anything. Judges and juries tend to si
by fl3tch 14y ago
Unless it's recorded, there's a good chance they won't believe you. Oh, you have a bruise? That could have been caused by anything. Judges and juries tend to side with cops. So cops have little to gain by recording everything, which is of course why they are generally against it. They outlawed it in Illinois before it was overturned.
- bigiain 14y ago"Judges and juries tend to side with cops." I see that becoming less and less true… A couple of recent examples locally: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cctv-exposes-police-lie-20120705-21jl5.html http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cctv-exposes-police-lie-20120705-2... http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/tasered-for-not-showing-his-ticket-20120630-219m3.html http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/tasered-for-not-showing-his-ticket...
- aswanson 14y agoIt may becoming less true, with less meaning 95 rather than 100 percent of the time. There is tremendous inertia and precedent in the legal system to side with the officer over the citizen. This, along with judicial familiarity with local law enforcement (most traffic and municipal disputes by definition are raised by a few officers in a given jurisdiction) almost guarantee the lack of the possibility of fairness.
- mchanson 14y agoAmazing cases. Hope little brother continues to root out police abuse of citizens.
- zcid 14y agoThe part that bothers me about the first case linked is that the officers were submitted to an internal investigation. They should have been arrested as soon as the video evidence came to light. There is far too little willingless to arrest and imprison officers that betray public trust. I know it's also this way in the US; it's incredibly rare to see an officer fired, much less imprisoned.