I wonder, In how many other cases did they lie?

Post Reply New Topic

Reading these two articles make me wonder in how many other cases, where cops were able to prevent being videotaped (something I know cops really hate and if they know you're videotaping they will try to seize your cell phone and delete it all or destroy it or whatever), they lied about what was going on? I know there was another case where the cop lied to try to justify killing a mentally ill man from a few years back, but the release of video showing otherwise messed it all up.

Anyway, it's this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south- ... th-murder/

And this article, using actual local news coverage, shows what news coverage would say if videotape wasn't released:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/0 ... 24404.html

These cases of lying that took videotape to disprove and law enforcement officers' general aversion to being videotaped makes me wonder if we should take a hard look at the "It's the officer's word against yours" doctrine.

They all lie, it is official policy and they have a code of silence so none of their own are ever held accountable. These cops are not dumb, they now the check marks of the things they have to say to get off for killing somebody. "He was reaching for his waistband!" "I feared for my life!" They can kill literally anyone. Authority as a rule is ALWAYS abused, the natural cruelty of people comes out when they have power over one another. Remember the Stanford Prison experiment, its the same thing.

How can you tell if a cop is lying?

He's speaking.

Solution: Fewer cops

In neighboring Spokane just a few years ago, a janitor name Otto Zehm, who had had a history of schizophrenia, had been severely beaten into unconsciousness by a police officer while purchasing a candy bar and bottle of pop at a convenience store. Zehm had been hogtied, and left in that position. While an oxygen mask had been placed on his face, no one had bothered to turn on the equipment, and so he died a few days later. The arresting officer had claimed Zehm had assaulted him with the pop bottle he was carrying, and that was the official statement by the SPD. But what the police seemingly had forgotten was how convenience stores all have security cameras. When the existence of this tape became public knowledge, the police department had tried to have it suppressed. After months of legal wrangling, the tape had finally been released. On it, it was clear that the officer had rushed up behind Zehm, who had not even been aware of the cop's presence, and struck his repeatedly with his (non-regulation) baton. The officer was finally convicted and sent to prison for the murder of a vulnerable, mentally ill individual who actually had been wrongly accused of trying to earlier break into the nearby ATM machine. The police present at the sentencing hearing gave the convicted ex-cop a standing salute.
Otto Zehm's last known words, as he had laid bleeding on the store's floor had been, "I just wanted a Snickers bar."

Whenever police apologists claim that these murderous thugs in uniform are only "a few bad apples," this is a great example of how just a few bad apples spoils the entire barrel.

Right you are. And the notion of the "thin blue line," and all the talk of the policeman's code and brotherhood leads many to protect the bad cops, even when they know perfectly well that it's wrong.

Its worse than that. Its not just "a few bad apples spoiling the entire barrel". The "few bad apples" defense doesn't hold water when its ALL cops who tolerate the 'bad' ones in their ranks, making all of them complicit in this sort of thing. And it doesn't hold water when the police unions refuse to condemn bad acts by its members no matter how overt or egregious, when the cops all cover for each other and when they are all passing on from one generation of cop to the other how to get away with stuff. So yeah, maybe the ones who actually do this sort of stuff are the worst of the worst, but saying or implying that the rest are "good" given all of the above is quite a stretch.

there can't be good cops when they enforce unjust laws and put their gang above all of them. A good cop would be somebody that fights that corrupt system and we all know what has and can happen to the ones that do this, no they'll defend cold blooded murderers but one that won't play balls are persecuted by their fellow officers until nth degree.

You've queried all of them?

This thread is a classic example of faulty generalization.

It's not. It's an argument instead to have video cameras equipped on all police to help keep them honest, whether the officer is inherently honest or not.

It evidently is.


I highly support making body cameras mandatory.

At least we all can agree on something

True enough. Christopher Dorner was a good example of a cop who wouldn't tolerate bad cops.

Querying the cops isn't required; they demonstrate their complicity, or lack thereof, by their actions.

From other thread, you think its cool for police to shoot people for no reason because you don't want criminals running loose on the streets - no trials, no evidence, just shoot to kill. THAT's a faulty generalization if ever there was one and you have no credibility after that with which to accuse anyone of making faulty generalizations.

Beyond that, I don't need to 'query' anyone. Their behavior is self-evident. Unless of course you think that racist police or police who have that power-trip type of mentality can serve on a police force for years while keeping these traits concealed from their fellow officers.

So, their inaction is supposed to support the hypothesis?


I have never said anything like that.