Consider some thoughts:
- The state's purpose is to preserve it's own position. As such, actors within the system will do whatever to please their superiors and to uphold said system.
- Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
- The life of a single individual is not important in the context of a state.
- Police are the law, and as such the actors in such a system can get away with the most shocking acts, often knowingly approved by superiors.
- If you act against the system, perhaps because you're a good human and will not participate in wrongdoing, you might be losing your job.
Imagine being a group of 15 cops, all of them wants to tell the small lies, you as a single cop reject to do it, and might even tell a superior. Guess who's going to have shit shoveled down their throat the next months..
Personally, I would be surprised if there's in any larger case in any country wasn't lies put forth by officials.
Topic: The extent of police corruption in the U.S. (Read 279 times)
Found this interesting evidence posted somewhere:
"I was a juror on a murder trial. Gruesome murder and the defendant definitely did it.
We heard testimony from more than 50 different people. The trial took 5 weeks. We knew every second of both the victim and defendent's lives. We knew his drug dealer's phone number, we knew which corrections officer was with a hooker in the neighborhood when the murder happened.
I think the prosecutor decided to put all 15 of the state police patrolmen and detectives at the end to really impress the jury just before we deliberated.
The problem was that 2/3 of the police officers lied. They were all tiny little lies that they thought would bolster the state's case. Some officers rembered little details that hadn't happened until after they had left the scene (we had the crime scene logs). Some officers saw someone looking out a window in a nearby house - except there was an RV parked in the driveway on that day blocking the view.
All little lies.
We ended up convicting the guy based on the physical evidence but everyone in the jury room agreed that if it was only on the police testimony, we would have had to acquit."
At this point I guess it's not surprising.
"I was a juror on a murder trial. Gruesome murder and the defendant definitely did it.
We heard testimony from more than 50 different people. The trial took 5 weeks. We knew every second of both the victim and defendent's lives. We knew his drug dealer's phone number, we knew which corrections officer was with a hooker in the neighborhood when the murder happened.
I think the prosecutor decided to put all 15 of the state police patrolmen and detectives at the end to really impress the jury just before we deliberated.
The problem was that 2/3 of the police officers lied. They were all tiny little lies that they thought would bolster the state's case. Some officers rembered little details that hadn't happened until after they had left the scene (we had the crime scene logs). Some officers saw someone looking out a window in a nearby house - except there was an RV parked in the driveway on that day blocking the view.
All little lies.
We ended up convicting the guy based on the physical evidence but everyone in the jury room agreed that if it was only on the police testimony, we would have had to acquit."
At this point I guess it's not surprising.
Jump to: