4 ms·
Not only that, when they lie in conversations/interrogations, they can lie about what the law is, as well as what official acts can/will undertake. To me there
by Terr_ 2y ago
Not only that, when they lie in conversations/interrogations, they can lie about what the law is, as well as what official acts can/will undertake.
To me there is a fundamental difference between lies like:
1. "Your buddy in the next room already ratted you out."
2. "Sign this admission and you'll only get 6 months, tops. If you don't, we can seize your house and your mother will be living on the streets. "
- nemomarx 2y agoI get your point but actually why can they lie and claim your buddy ratted you out?
- p_ing 2y agoTax payers don't care enough to force the congress critters to change the laws in <your home state>. Instead, you get human beings who are shielded by a thin piece of paper who can summarily execute you, then say "whoops, my bad". Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members.
- pstuart 2y agoMany of those tax payers are fine with them being gang members, but only against "others" -- that's a feature, not a bug.
- deepsun 2y agoState (any country, since the birth of monarchies) is the gang. It literally robs you ("taxes"), monopolized violence (only state is allowed to utilize it). But if it does a poor job at that, other states swoop in with their rules, no invitation needed.
- Retric 2y agoCops are sufficiently independent to be a separate entity here. Under civil asset forfeiture they are literally allowed to go out and rob people independent of what any taxes might be.
- duskwuff 2y ago> Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members. Sometimes very literally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff%27s_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_Count...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Zak 2y agoThe assumption, as I understand it is that a guilty person is more likely to confess if they believe the evidence against them is strong, but an innocent person will not believe the lie because they know they didn't commit the crime and generate the purported evidence. I fear like many other old assumptions about criminal justice that isn't a close match to reality.
- Terr_ 2y agoI imagine a lot of it is tradition, AFAICT it was never really banned in the US (or Britain), although in the US it was codified in 1969. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp
- dghlsakjg 2y agoSimple answer? Because there is nothing prohibiting it.
- plsbenice34 2y agoI dont see the difference, both should be illegal
- LinuxBender 2y agoNever talk to the police. Let your lawyers do the talking.
- gosub100 2y ago[flagged]
- Kinrany 2y agoYou're interpreting GP's comment in bad faith.
- AlexeyBelov 2y agoIt's a pattern for this user. Seriously, read their comments. I don't understand why HN tolerated that.
- gosub100 2y agosomeone has different views than you. can you handle that?
- gosub100 2y agoHe used the word "never". That's not a word requiring interpretation. And for finding this gaping hole in his argument, I'm rewarded by getting flagged.
- some-guy 2y agoWhen I was a child, I thought police had to go to law school. How else would you enforce the law if you didn't know what the law was?
- Clubber 2y agoThey're supposed to be trained on it, and they probably get a week maybe, depending on the academy. The rest is how to beat your ass.
- redeux 2y agoI took a class in college from a lawyer who said he started as a cop but wanted to understand the law better so he went to law school at night. When he graduated the chief (or whatever) told him he couldn’t practice law and be a cop, and even though he had no intention of actually being an attorney, they let him go.
- bryanrasmussen 2y agomaybe related https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
- ein0p 2y agoLiterally too smart to be regime muscle.
- jasonm23 2y agoRegime... how cute to call money a regime.
- underdeserver 2y agoWe all have to go to law school. How could you live in the world without breaking the law if you didn't know what the law was?
- 2y ago
- voxic11 2y agoThey can't do 2. Or at least it would make the confession inadmissible evidence. The case law for this goes back more than a century. The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession. > Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that an alleged confession to a crime, in order to be admissible, must not be obtained by threats or violence, nor by any direct or implied promises, however slight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_v._United_States The ruling was later applied to the states as well in Malloy v. Hogan > The Court held that the Fifth Amendment's exception from compulsory self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by a state. When determining if state officers properly obtained a confession, one must focus on whether the statements were made freely and voluntarily without any direct or implied promises or improper influence. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/110 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/110 The "you will get X years instead of Y years" has repeatedly been found to make testimony inadmissible. You might be confusing it with plea bargains which are legal but don't involve the police and are actually binding agreements. The prosecutor cannot lie to you about what you will receive in return for your cooperation.
- decimalenough 2y ago> The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession. Yet plea bargaining is basically a promise in exchange for a confession (guilty plea), and that's why it's not allowed basically anywhere except the US.
- bryanrasmussen 2y agoplea bargaining in the U.S also is a promise that they will recommend that you get a particular deal, but the judge in sentencing can decide not to take that deal.
- voxic11 2y agoYes maybe my wording was clumsy but that is what I was attempting to say. The important thing is the prosecutor is not allowed to lie to you as part of the plea bargain. If they promise to do something like give a specific recommendation to the judge they must do it or risk the verdict being overturned.