NYT: Why Police Officers Lie Under OathBy MICHELLE ALEXANDER
New York Times
Feb. 04, 2013
1.Trump is Right: GOP Debate Audience is Packed Full of Republican Donors
2.Making InformationLiberation Great Again!
3.Miami Police Retaliate Against Female Driver Who Filmed Herself Pulling Over Cop
4.Texas Appeals Court Slams Forced DUI Blood Draw
5.22 Signs That The Global Economic Turmoil We Have Seen So Far in 2016 Is Just The Beginning
6.Paul Joseph Watson And Stefan Molyneux On The Real Agenda Behind The Migrant Crisis
7.'Multicultural Toilets' For 'Global Defecation' Seek to Stop Migrants Pooping On The Floor
8.Crewe Residents Accuse Police and School of Covering Up Abuse, Rape Threats by Migrant Kids
9.Code 291: Swedish Police Cover-Up Thousands of Crimes Involving "Refugees"
10.The American Dream Is Dead, and Now Even The Mainstream Media Is Starting to Admit It
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.