NYT: Why Police Officers Lie Under OathBy MICHELLE ALEXANDER
New York Times
Feb. 04, 2013
1.Angry Birds Movie is Red-Pilled Anti-Immigration Propaganda
2.The Huffington Post Is What Happens When There's No Men In The Room
3.The Guardian's Steven Thrasher Plays Victim After His Anti-White Hate Video Goes Viral
4.You Won't Believe Michelle Fields' Brilliant Advice to the Hillary Campaign
5.Hungary PM: Clinton is George Soros Puppet, Wants to Overrun EU With Millions of Muslims
6.LA Senate Passes Total Gun Ban After Radical Muslims They Let In Killed People
7.Trump Rips Bill Kristol: "All The Guy Wants to do is Kill People and Go to War"
8.The Guardian: 'Revolution' Possible in 2043 When Whites Become Minority in U.S.
Note, reading this New York Times article will disqualify you from jury duty. - Chris THOUSANDS of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit or two well-groomed police officers in uniforms who just swore to God they’re telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? As one of my colleagues recently put it, “Everyone knows you have to be crazy to accuse the police of lying.”
But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.