NYT: Why Police Officers Lie Under OathBy MICHELLE ALEXANDER
New York Times
Feb. 04, 2013
1.VIDEO: Crazed Feminists Harass Man For Filming "Whiteness History Month" Presentation
2.ADL Targets Trump: Saying "America First" is Anti-Semitic
3.VIDEO: This Is What a Social Justice Warrior Looks Like
4.WATCH: 'In the Name of the Profit' - Russia Exposes Turkey's 'Cozy Relations' With ISIS
5.The Guardian Says Correcting People On Their Grammar Is Racist
6.Hysterical Bloomberg Columnist: Trump's 'America First' Speech Reminiscent of 'Nazi Era'
7.Video: Black Man Waves Guns, Jokes About Shooting Racist Whites At Student Protest
8.Russians Blow Up Illegal Muslim Prayer Hall After Finding Explosives Inside
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.