What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
233 Comments
- WhiskeyWrites, on 01/29/2009, -1/+136Wow, it sounds like they are just trading off causes of the real problem: illegal searches. If police lie on the stand because they find evidence illegally but still want it to be used, then yes they won't lie if you allow that evidence to be admitted. By doing this though, you are weakening the protection of civil rights, and almost encouraging police to stop and search more often even without probable cause. We need to watch the line closely on this, as letting it slip too far can have major consequences.
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 01/29/2009, -7/+126I guess our "rights" aren't really that important when faced with the "greater" good.
- mac888, on 01/29/2009, -30/+145Police officers are the sociopaths that work for society and criminals are sociopaths that work for themselves. Obviously, there's going to be a fair amount of overlap.
- Polycarp87, on 01/29/2009, -2/+108The exclusionary rule is the only thing which ensures our rights regarding search and seizure are respected. The reason these officers are lying is because they broke the law and don't want to be penalized for it. Removing the exclusionary rule just so that officers don't have to lie is like legalizing a crime so that criminals don't have to lie.
The Problem: Many cops are breaking the law by denying citizens their rights and then forced to lie about it to cover it up.
The Solution: Instead of making the cops stop breaking the law, we should just legalize whatever it is they are doing so that it is no longer a crime!!!
WTF??? - Residents, on 01/29/2009, -12/+96Reminds me of 'those' police officers.... you know... the ones you can tell were made fun of really bad in high school.
- leitey, on 01/29/2009, -2/+77Protection from illegal search and seizure "is not an individual right and applies only where its deterrent effect outweighs the substantial cost of letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
O.M.G. He's a Chief Justice? - eastwood24, on 01/29/2009, -3/+67Corruption in our police forces? I refuse to believe these wild accusations. /sarcasm
- Klak, on 01/29/2009, -1/+44too bad when you or i do something "illegal" we go to jail. if a police officer "illegally" searches someone the worst that happens is the evidence gets thrown out
- republicker, on 01/29/2009, -3/+46http://www.kopbusters.com This ex cop claims that over 50% of drug convictions are from planted drugs and false alerts from drug dogs.
- korea, on 01/29/2009, -7/+46false, the bullies grow up to bully for a living.
- mikbunn, on 01/29/2009, -1/+31In the WSJ, apparently 'controversial' is a euphemism for 'completely unconstitutional.'
All police officers should be subject to regular investigation by panels of citizens. - kingofinternet, on 01/29/2009, -0/+29yep, that's one of the 9 people in charge of interpreting and upholding our constitutional rights.
heck of a job, robby. - swrostmore, on 01/29/2009, -2/+29"evidence obtained from certain unlawful arrests may nevertheless be used "
Weakening protections against unlawful searches and arrests is a fantastic solution to the problem of cops lying, especially in the first-world country that imprisons the highest percentage of its population (1 in 100). Clearly the Supreme Court's priorities are in the correct order (making it easier for cops to imprison more people, versus protecting individual rights). - SupaFlyTNT, on 01/29/2009, -2/+28Please; cops are compensated fairly for their service. They get great benifits, a pension and state security. My dad was a cop for 16 years and took early retirement at 55 with a real nice cashout. Not to mention the special details most cops get that get them OT that more than makeup for pay.
And also, most cops aren't running around shooting at people; the majority of their time is spent driving around, checking in with local stores and doing paperwork. If you want higher risk you join SWAT or go undercover.
Please know what your talking about if your gonna spout about what cops do. - bjnebraska, on 01/29/2009, -5/+29And if we legalized drugs all together, then the police would have no reason to lie either, and we'd save billions!
- ozymandias2012, on 01/29/2009, -11/+34They can't help it. Whether it's a speeding ticket or murder, they're going to make something up for their reports, it's NEVER the complete truth. Get good lawyer and have them challenge everything, it's our only weapon against this.
- InfiniteNothing, on 01/29/2009, -0/+23With the exclusionary rule they lie and you're busted. Without, they don't lie and you're busted. In both cases your civil liberties are being violated.
What we need is stronger deterrences for lying. For example, if you lie in a case you get punished with whatever the defendant would be punished with. - azureskies88, on 01/29/2009, -4/+26That's clearly an unfair assessment. Not all police officers are sociopaths, but more notably, not all criminals are sociopaths either.
- bromac, on 01/29/2009, -6/+26A "sociopath" working for "society" doesn't make any ***** sense.
Unless the bad cops also work for themselves, which seems to be my experience. - inactive, on 01/29/2009, -2/+21> these people go out risk their lives to protect people
Get real, "cop" isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous professions. Even a "truck driver" is more at risk:
Occupation Fatalities per 100,000
Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25 - RansomHoldiay, on 01/29/2009, -0/+19THE GREATER GOOD.
- Hot Fuzz - Hetman, on 01/29/2009, -1/+20I agree. And this would also stop 90% of organized crime. With out income from illegal drugs they would be out of business with in months.
- jeffiek, on 01/29/2009, -1/+20I loved it.
There's a difference between the movies and reality. - TheHayze, on 01/29/2009, -0/+18It sounds almost as if people are seen guilty until proven innocent, and not the other way around; which has been the staple of our Judicial system since conception. I personally believe that it's too slippery of a slope for our, or any, society to go down. I would prefer stronger penalties for Police Officers who lie whilst sworn in. Because clearly we cant trust those whom we have entrusted already an incredible amount of public trust already. Police Officers should be held to the highest amount of accountability, and every action should be reviewed.
By giving Law Enforcement even more power, we only provide incentive for misbehavior. - marcosagostos, on 01/29/2009, -1/+18Randy Kelton, from rule of law radio, is joining in the Yolanda Adams case. There were over 18 (probably many more) due process violations on that case. How can anyone expect justice when they won't follow the law?
Barry Cooper, from kopbusters, has done a great service by putting himself out there. - toxicshok, on 01/30/2009, -1/+18Thats it... EVERYONE GO TO YOUR ROOMS.
- Blue5234, on 01/29/2009, -6/+22Problem - cops lie to get around the rules.
Solution - change the rules so they don't have to lie.
wow - inactive, on 01/29/2009, -4/+19It's like this: The general public is like a brain, and criminal activities are like a tumor that's in the given brain. The police force is like a crazy surgeon who ineptly scalpels out a rough area in which the tumor is supposed to reside, screwing over plenty of healthy grey matter.
- jeffiek, on 01/29/2009, -2/+17You have no rights - George Carlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E&NR= ... - RockSlice, on 01/29/2009, -0/+15Here's an idea: issue police new hats/helmets with built-in cameras/mics
The technology is available, and would provide a very reliable source of evidence.
As for what to do when a police officer is found lying, the police officer *must* be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. They are in a profession where they are supposed to be upholding justice, so any breach of justice is worse than a regular citizen doing it. - AndrewMoyer, on 01/29/2009, -1/+16"An eye for a lie!"
I love it! - bekeleven, on 01/29/2009, -1/+16my NAME is OFFICER REVIERI!
- macsox, on 01/29/2009, -1/+15Someone should base a five-season dramatic HBO series on this concept.
Maybe set it in Baltimore. - toxicshok, on 01/30/2009, -2/+15[Citation Needed]
- snafflepaffle, on 01/29/2009, -0/+13"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This isn't an "individual right"???? Oh, I see, it only applies to "the people" not "a person". Great, makes perfect sense to me.
Actually I don't get it. How does "shall not be violated" become "applies only where its deterrent effect outweighs the substantial cost of letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free"??? - inactive, on 01/29/2009, -2/+15This is about cops breaking the law. It is a crime for a cop to lie to influence an investigation. It's about the law applying to the police as well as the civilians. When you get a few thousand cops to answer some questions anonymously, with no threat of punishment, a huge segment admit to lying to get convictions. The cops are saying that. They are admitting they belong to a culture of hyppocracy and "take care of our own at any cost". How can you defend cops admitting they are crooked by saying you know a few cool cops. Your unscientific anecdote is not a valid argument against an actual investigation.
- BridgeBurner, on 01/29/2009, -4/+16Got pulled over for driving the speed limit a couple weeks back. Little do they know that I'm unemployed and so have tons of time to fight the ticket. This and other more severe dealings with law enforcement has lead me to believe that cops are nothing but state sponsored megalomaniac thugs. They aren't concerned with your rights, it's up to each of us to protect ourselves from them. Protect and serve indeed...
- danconia, on 01/30/2009, -1/+13Sounds like most cops I know...
- mmittimm, on 01/29/2009, -0/+12I like how any shmuck can go through training to be a law enforcement official and as soon as they have a badge they will be automatically be trustworthy in court.
- angelgabe, on 01/29/2009, -1/+12Great analogy. It makes sense too. I'm Mexican but I look white, so when I was growing up in a Mexican neighborhood I got pulled over and searched at least once or twice a month. For the better part of a decade I just though this was what cops were supposed to do. Then I moved to a white neighborhood and now I'm finding out it's not the norm. In fact in the two years since I've moved out I've been pulled over twice, both times while I was visiting my old neighborhood. And people wonder why us Mexicans hate the popo.
- twiztidsinz, on 01/29/2009, -0/+11Who needs protection from unlawful search and seizure?
Who needs protection from cruel and unusual punishment?
Who needs the right to a trial by a jury of their peers?
Who needs "rights" and "freedoms"?
They just get in the way. - homercles337, on 01/29/2009, -3/+14"I know I'm going to get dugg down because all the pot smokers hate cops even though THEY are breaking the law."
No. Youre going to get dugg down for being a god damn retard. - haydesigner, on 01/29/2009, -2/+13Yeah. And sometimes as police officers.
- mikbunn, on 01/29/2009, -0/+11You left out the exorbitant storage costs of the removed area... that are paid for by the screwed-over gray matter.
- inactive, on 01/29/2009, -0/+11Don't worry, it's just part of the creeping fascism.
Just wait until the activist judges on SCOTUS rules in Abuelhawa v. United States ( http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-192.htm ) that a person who uses a cell phone to buy drugs solely for personal use (a misdemeanor) can be charged with the separate crime of using a phone to facilitate the sale of drugs (a felony). - UrbanVoyeur, on 01/29/2009, -2/+12Testilying.
- nomadxx7, on 01/29/2009, -2/+12Yeah it's a little different watching a movie versus real life however. I personally like zombie flicks but I know a) zombies don't exist and b) that it's unlawful to go out and shoot someone because they look like a zombie (may be a meth addict). So your point is moot. Lots of people like things that in society are deemed wrong or immoral. Doesn't stop someone from fantasizing or paying money to be entertained for a few hours.
- nomadxx7, on 01/29/2009, -0/+10By interpretation if you're deemed to be a dangerous person then your basic freedoms need not apply? Absolutely mind-boggling.
- snafflepaffle, on 01/29/2009, -0/+9/sarcasm
(I hope?) - jsffive, on 01/29/2009, -1/+10"... there's a tacit agreement among many officers that lying about how evidence is seized keeps criminals off the street."
They aren't criminals UNTIL they are convicted. It's called "presumption of innocence".
The problem is that police officers consider themselves to be "law enforcers"... NOTHING could be further from the truth! THEY... are supposed to be "peace-officers"... It's the COURT that is the "law enforcer".
The police are supposed to detain people whom they THINK may have committed a crime. No matter how "open and shut" the case may be, THEY aren't supposed to make JUDGMENTS about the people they are detaining... A COURT is supposed to do that. Police are merely supposed to gather evidence and detain people. And if they want to piss and moan about how hard their job is, then my suggestion is to quit their job! They can do a keyword search at career builder for "thug", or "punk with a badge", and I'm sure they'll find something to match their unique skill set.
If we keep blurring the lines between "police", and MILITARY, it will come back and bite us in the ass one day.
"Keep criminals off the street"? If the police are doctoring evidence, then THEY are "criminals"... but I suppose it's OK for THEM to keep roaming the streets. I mean, it's not like they're doing something SINISTER, smoking POT, right? -
Show 51 - 100 of 238 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is