3 ms·

Engaging in a cover-up is in fact a crime. Recently a Massachusetts trooper who engaged in railroading a fabricated suspect was exposed for sending extreme raci

by Zigurd 6mo ago

Engaging in a cover-up is in fact a crime. Recently a Massachusetts trooper who engaged in railroading a fabricated suspect was exposed for sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers. But the names of those troopers and their own behavior remains opaque to the public. That's crazy! Nobody should put up with that.

gruez 6mo ago
>Recently a Massachusetts trooper who engaged in railroading a fabricated suspect was exposed for sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers. But the names of those troopers and their own behavior remains opaque to the public. That's crazy! Nobody should put up with that. What does sending "sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers" have to do with cover-ups? Anyways my guess is that it's general policy for police/courts to not release evidence unless it's part of a trial, similar to how the Epstein files weren't released across 3 administrations and took an act of congress to get released.
- bilbo0s 6mo ago
  >took an act of congress to get released. I guess? I mean you go ahead and call that a release. If it brings you comfort. The US government is just corrupt from tip to tail. Why everyone continuously acts surprised about these things is genuinely a mystery?
cucumber3732842 6mo ago
[flagged]
- Zigurd 6mo ago
  Their actual material conduct was coordinating with other dirty cops which is how their phone got seized and entered into evidence. Are you saying people need to put up with racist POS cops?
  - cucumber3732842 6mo ago
    >Are you saying people need to put up with racist POS cops? Nice strawman. I'm saying that the hand wringing about racism is counterproductive because it's implicitly saying "you can be crooked but just don't be racist" and it distracts from the question of just how common this sort of crookedness is by asking same question of the racism. By all means go after them for whatever policy they violated. But that's tangential. Same as if embezzlement was uncovered. Some rando who's out four figures because some cop needed an extra DUI that month to make the numbers work is out no more nor no less based upon the racism of the cop. If anyone actually gave a shit about police racism, or any other -ism, they'd prioritize making the cops less crooked because the undeserved screwings cops dispense is concentrated among those least able to screw back. The general case solution solves the specialty problem (racism, or whatever) here.
- DonHopkins 6mo ago
  Sounds like you hang out in racist, sexist, antisemitic dank memes groupchats yourself, and don't think there's anything wrong with that.
  - frumplestlatz 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - DonHopkins 6mo ago
      [flagged]
      - frumplestlatz 6mo ago
        [flagged]
GorbachevyChase 6mo ago
What really bothers me is how an independent investigator made a compelling case that identified a member of the DC metropolitan police as the suspect who placed a pipe bomb on Capitol grounds. Then after years of inactivity, the FBI suddenly broke the case and arrested a mentally unwell black kid. The whole apparatus is shameful.
- cindyllm 6mo ago
  [dead]
- rtkwe 6mo ago
  The "compelling case" was all based on gait analysis which is heavily debunked and while making the case they quoted from reports about gait analysis but left out all the parts about it being an extremely inexact process prone to false matches.
  - bilbo0s 6mo ago
    Ironically, gait analysis is considered iron clad scientific evidence when used against impoverished black guys like in the Taylor trial. Just kind of displays the. corruption and duplicity of the US legal system.
    - rtkwe 6mo ago
      There's a lot of junk "science" used in trials because there are plenty of "experts"[0] available to back it up for the prosecution and fewer funds to pay for the countervailing defense expert available to present the problems with it. Usually it takes a particularly bad case making it to a supreme or appeals court for that kind of evidence to be disallowed. [0] The people paid to perform these analyses in the first place and then go testify convincingly for the prosecution about it but that's a whole separate rant.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
qingcharles 6mo ago
Even if it is a criminal offense, a prosecutor still has to bring charges. No prosecutor is ever bringing charges against a cop unless there is an absolute media frenzy that pushes it beyond the point it can be ignored. Prosecutors need cops. Cops bring them cases. Cops testify in their cases. If they piss off the cops they can't do their job.
- Zigurd 6mo ago
  This is fixable. Many jurisdictions have a provision for outside prosecutors appointed by courts.
  - qingcharles 6mo ago
    They do, special prosecutors, but the court has to appoint them. The bar is extremely high for getting a judge (80% ex-prosecutors) to appoint a private attorney or outside-jurisdiction prosecutor as a special prosecutor. Again, sadly, almost never happens.
    - Zigurd 6mo ago
      I have to agree it almost never happens. It needs to be normalized among the public and institutionalized in governments.

by Zigurd 6mo ago

gruez 6mo ago

>Recently a Massachusetts trooper who engaged in railroading a fabricated suspect was exposed for sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers. But the names of those troopers and their own behavior remains opaque to the public. That's crazy! Nobody should put up with that. What does sending "sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers" have to do with cover-ups? Anyways my guess is that it's general policy for police/courts to not release evidence unless it's part of a trial, similar to how the Epstein files weren't released across 3 administrations and took an act of congress to get released.

bilbo0s 6mo ago
>took an act of congress to get released. I guess? I mean you go ahead and call that a release. If it brings you comfort. The US government is just corrupt from tip to tail. Why everyone continuously acts surprised about these things is genuinely a mystery?

cucumber3732842 6mo ago

[flagged]

Zigurd 6mo ago
Their actual material conduct was coordinating with other dirty cops which is how their phone got seized and entered into evidence. Are you saying people need to put up with racist POS cops?
- cucumber3732842 6mo ago
  >Are you saying people need to put up with racist POS cops? Nice strawman. I'm saying that the hand wringing about racism is counterproductive because it's implicitly saying "you can be crooked but just don't be racist" and it distracts from the question of just how common this sort of crookedness is by asking same question of the racism. By all means go after them for whatever policy they violated. But that's tangential. Same as if embezzlement was uncovered. Some rando who's out four figures because some cop needed an extra DUI that month to make the numbers work is out no more nor no less based upon the racism of the cop. If anyone actually gave a shit about police racism, or any other -ism, they'd prioritize making the cops less crooked because the undeserved screwings cops dispense is concentrated among those least able to screw back. The general case solution solves the specialty problem (racism, or whatever) here.
DonHopkins 6mo ago
Sounds like you hang out in racist, sexist, antisemitic dank memes groupchats yourself, and don't think there's anything wrong with that.
- frumplestlatz 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - DonHopkins 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - frumplestlatz 6mo ago
      [flagged]

GorbachevyChase 6mo ago

What really bothers me is how an independent investigator made a compelling case that identified a member of the DC metropolitan police as the suspect who placed a pipe bomb on Capitol grounds. Then after years of inactivity, the FBI suddenly broke the case and arrested a mentally unwell black kid. The whole apparatus is shameful.

cindyllm 6mo ago
[dead]
rtkwe 6mo ago
The "compelling case" was all based on gait analysis which is heavily debunked and while making the case they quoted from reports about gait analysis but left out all the parts about it being an extremely inexact process prone to false matches.
- bilbo0s 6mo ago
  Ironically, gait analysis is considered iron clad scientific evidence when used against impoverished black guys like in the Taylor trial. Just kind of displays the. corruption and duplicity of the US legal system.
  - rtkwe 6mo ago
    There's a lot of junk "science" used in trials because there are plenty of "experts"[0] available to back it up for the prosecution and fewer funds to pay for the countervailing defense expert available to present the problems with it. Usually it takes a particularly bad case making it to a supreme or appeals court for that kind of evidence to be disallowed. [0] The people paid to perform these analyses in the first place and then go testify convincingly for the prosecution about it but that's a whole separate rant.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

qingcharles 6mo ago

Even if it is a criminal offense, a prosecutor still has to bring charges. No prosecutor is ever bringing charges against a cop unless there is an absolute media frenzy that pushes it beyond the point it can be ignored. Prosecutors need cops. Cops bring them cases. Cops testify in their cases. If they piss off the cops they can't do their job.

Zigurd 6mo ago
This is fixable. Many jurisdictions have a provision for outside prosecutors appointed by courts.
- qingcharles 6mo ago
  They do, special prosecutors, but the court has to appoint them. The bar is extremely high for getting a judge (80% ex-prosecutors) to appoint a private attorney or outside-jurisdiction prosecutor as a special prosecutor. Again, sadly, almost never happens.
  - Zigurd 6mo ago
    I have to agree it almost never happens. It needs to be normalized among the public and institutionalized in governments.