Five Illinois Cops Are Caught Lying On The Stand When Defense Produces A Recording Contradicting Their Testimony

from the liars-apparently-still-trustworthy-enough-to-run-a-desk dept

Cops lie. Citizens know this. Defense attorneys know this. Prosecutors know this. Most importantly, judges know this. But rarely does it have any effect on the outcome of the case at hand. But in what has been described as a “Perry Mason moment,” five Illinois police officers were caught lying on the stand. (h/t to Trevor Debus)

A seemingly routine suppression hearing in a suburban Chicago courthouse last month took an unexpected dramatic turn when video from a police car was introduced that disproved the testimony of five police officers.

They had said Joseph Sperling was arrested after officers who pulled him over in a traffic stop smelled marijuana, searched the vehicle and found nearly a pound in a backpack lying on the back seat of his car. But the Glenview police video showed the search occurred only after Sperling was taken from his car, frisked and handcuffed, reports the Chicago Tribune (sub. req.).

I suppose once the film rolled, there was little the judge could do but address it. It’s one thing for a cop to lie in the courtroom and have it discovered months, weeks or even years later. It’s quite another when the testimony is rebutted by video evidence during the same hearing.

“All the officers lied on the stand today,” said [Judge Catherine] Haberkorn, who herself is a former prosecutor, at the March 31 hearing. “So there is strong evidence it was conspiracy to lie in this case, for everyone to come up with the same lie.”

The officers, currently on desk duty, apparently did conspire to lie about the specifics of the search, at least according to the lawsuit filed by the arrestee shortly after this suppression hearing went sideways.

Joseph Sperling says in his suit that Chicago police asked Glenview officers at the scene of his arrest last June to turn off their squad car dashcams. At least one Glenview officer didn’t, resulting in video footage that persuaded a Cook County Circuit Court judge to grant a motion to suppress seized evidence, because police testimony contradicted what the camera showed.

This case has obviously provoked quite a bit of discussion as to how often cops lie and what the final arbiters — the judges — do when they take this knowledge into consideration. The answers, unfortunately, are depressing. Even if these temporary desk jockeys manage to retain their jobs, one would think their days as credible witnesses are over. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Scott Greenfield talks about one judge he heard discuss why he kept on pushing defendants into the maw of the prison system, even while knowing those on the law enforcement side weren’t necessarily any better when it came to truth-telling.

After a cocktail or two, Harold talked about how his experience as a judge changed him. Case after case, defendant after defendant, victim after victim, made it all a blur. Sure, cops lied. Everybody knew cops lied. Everybody knew cops lied in every case. That was the game. It was their job to put the bad guy away, and the way to win the game was to speak the magic words that the system accepted as necessary…

What was he supposed to do, Harold asked? They may not all be guilty, but they all were guilty. No one could pluck out the one in a hundred who didn’t deserve to be there, and he wasn’t going to cut everyone free because he couldn’t tell who was who. […] He had a job to do, to keep the cattle moving toward the slaughter. Harold could be a rather charming guy, personally. As a judge, he was utterly despicable.

Judge Richard Kopf, prompted by Greenfield’s post, offered his own thoughts as to why he finds cops credible witnesses, despite loads of evidence otherwise. It’s a bracing read and admirably soul-baring, but it’s not going to make anyone feel any better about their odds against a lying law enforcement officer. While he makes several points that indicate he’s still more careful in his selection process than the Judge Harold mentioned above, he does make the following indictment of his own beliefs and behavior.

I am a shitty judge of credibility. Truly, I am. See here for what happened when I believed a defendant and it blew up in my face with an editorial cartoon and the whole nine yards. Thus, when forced to judge between a cop and a defendant it is safer to believe the cop than the defendant particularly if a judge cares about his or her reputation. While pleading the subconscious in mitigation, there was a period of time when I really thought I might make it to the Circuit if I were a good little boy. See what happened to Judge Baer when he “screwed” up.

Will Baude at the Volokh Conspiracy, who originally questioned whether these five cops would be unable to offer believable testimony in the future, gathered some notable comments from Judge Kopf’s post that lend credence to the belief that everyone in the courtroom knows cops lie, but there’s very little anyone’s actually willing to do about it, partly because the system destroys judges who refuse to play along.

Lorin Duckman, a former New York judge, noted how the system lends itself to accommodating lying cops, if only to keep the system moving at the pace that pleases most of those involved.

It’s not just about the trials. Jurors don’t want to sit, don’t understand the instructions and cannot consider what the sentence should be. They cannot tell if a person is lying or not and tend to believe those who look like them or wear badges, despite instructions to the contrary. It’s not about did the accused did it or didn’t do it, most of the time. It’s about the penalties, the sentences, and the lack of a future when one tries to put a life together after doing time. It’s about judges who need to move calendars, jailers and bailiffs, court reporters and clerks who depend on a steady stream of defendants for their livelihood …

But Duckman also points out that judges have their own livelihoods to consider, and speaking aloud about the fact that cops lie on the stand tends to short-circuit their futures.

[M]ost of all it’s the Judges who sit silently, listening to the bartering, accepting the stories for fear that they will be removed if they question, dismiss or offer justice. Break my hear[t], they did.

A comment I made, “cops lie all the time,” was introduced as evidence at my removal hearing and served as the basis for finding me biased. I couldn’t have been the only judge who believed that, could I?

The system is broken all the way up and all the way down. These five cops were very possibly only called out because it was unavoidable. Their punishment for being caught perjuring themselves has been desk duty, something that may seem tedious compared to pulling people over and illegally searching their vehicles, but can hardly be considered a true punishment. It’s not as though the facts are disputed. The cops are being “investigated” after lying in court in front of a judge and several witnesses. There’s literally nothing to “investigate.”

This is just two police departments (Glenview and Chicago) buying time until they can weigh possible punishments and outcomes. As few judges are willing to confront the fact that cops lie with the same frequency as other human beings, just as few PDs are willing to terminate officers (partly due to pushback from officers’ unions), no matter the wrongdoing.

But before all hope is destroyed, another judge (Alabama’s Judge Joseph Johnson) commenting at Kopf’s blog noted the status quo is changing, at least in his courtroom.

Yesterday I met with our new police chief (city of 250,000) I I told him I was getting tired of not having video or audio recordings of defendants statements. I said I felt juries disbelieved the rendition by the officer (especially a narcotics officer). I added, I was not sure I was going to believe another citizen consented to the search of his vehicle unless I had a written signed consent to search (which they have). The Chief looked like I had kicked his dog. I said “Hey, the jurors expect this in this age of technology.” We will see.

Looking at this and another set of isolated incidents — the pushback by two judges against overly-broad search warrants — gives a modicum of hope that law enforcement will be finally forced to play by the rules that have been existent since shortly after the founding of this nation. It’s too little, far too late and it’s marked by outliers rather than exceptions to the rule. But at least it’s something. And the more the public is informed about the routine abuse of civil liberties by law enforcement, the less those tasked with handling the intersection of cops and civilians will be able to ignore the reality of the situation and blithely (and blindly) believe badges denote a more trustworthy class of human.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Five Illinois Cops Are Caught Lying On The Stand When Defense Produces A Recording Contradicting Their Testimony”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Jay (profile) says:

Phoenix Wright tells the story...

A seemingly routine suppression hearing in a suburban Chicago courthouse last month took an unexpected dramatic turn when video from a police car was introduced that disproved the testimony of five police officers.


They had said Joseph Sperling was arrested after officers who pulled him over in a traffic stop smelled marijuana, searched the vehicle and found nearly a pound in a backpack lying on the back seat of his car. But the Glenview police video showed the search occurred only after Sperling was taken from his car, frisked and handcuffed, reports the Chicago Tribune (sub. req.).

They’re in pursuit!

Sadly, the world of Phoenix Wright has become even more true… You are guilty until proven innocent.

Anonymous Coward says:

Recording cops should be illegal because it makes them look bad and undermines their legitimacy. How can law enforcement expect to enforce laws with the cooperation of the citizenry if no one trusts them. We will have lawless anarchy.


While I think most cops are good the biggest issue for me is that the bad ones either avoid getting punished or the punishment is not nearly sufficient and is far less than what a citizen would receive had it been the other way around. Until this changes trust in the system will be low and this makes it more difficult for the honest cops.

art guerrilla (profile) says:

Re: Re:

nope, not buying it:
WE commoners are ‘guilty’ if WE MIGHT have knowledge of someone, somewhere, maybe committing something that might be merely offensive to the powers that be, never mind an actual, real crime…
HOWEVER, suddenly, that ‘principle’ is ignored or turned on its head when it comes to donut eaters, and i refuse to accept that: if ANYONE should be MORE responsible, MORE truthful, MORE willing to expose lies, it is the people given a badge, a gun, and INFINITELY WIDE LATITUDE to jack up ANYONE AT ANYTIME…
yet, the opposite is what happens: piggies get away with crap a MILLION times more than they get caught at it…
further, close to 100% of the kops KNOW who are the marginal/bad kops, but they don’t say shit, do they ? ? ?
THAT tars them ALL with the same corruption brush, as far as i’m concerned…

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Furthermore, there are FIVE cops and only ONE recording. Would five cops lie? Would they conspire? Such a thing would be so evil that it simply cannot be true(*).

Remember: the cops are the good guys().

* Just like John Steele arguing that he could not possibly have done all of the things he is accused of and that courts have said that he actually did.

Protip: when you have to tell people you are the good guys, you aren’t.

Anon E. Mous (profile) says:

And folks wonder why there is a dis-trust of the Police. When you a child you are taught that the police officer is your friend and their to help.

Now a days you have to be wary of some police officers and their intent. It used to be your were presumed innocent until found guilty, in reality your are guilty until you can prove your innocent.

Technology is a wonderful thing, the public knows as does law enforcement. The problem now is law enforcement has and will abuse technology if they think it will be used to show behavior they do not want the public or the court to know about.

It is sad to see the deck is stacked against you in a court and that Judges decide that instead of being impartial, they would rather go with flow rather than the law.

Someantimalwareguy says:

Re: Re: Cops and Perjury

Whoa there cowboy. This is not treason, just run of the mill perjury. Let the punishment be relevant to the actual crime with average sentences or you open the door to overreach and backlash.

From what I can tell, the average sentence for this is somewhere between 1 – 5 years which I think is appropriate as a deterrent going forward.


JBDragon says:

Re: Re: Re: Cops and Perjury

1 to 5 years? No, Lets start at 5 years and go to LIFE if that is what they are trying to get a convection on the Criminal for 10 years to LIFE and LIE, those liers should get 10 years Minimum to LIFE is it’s a whopper of a LIE.

Otherwise it’ll just continue as always. It’s not only the lies, it’s the taking the camera’s from people also showing what’s really happening and trying to cover things up!!! That’s just as bad if not worse.

Someantimalwareguy says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Cops and Perjury

How biblical of you to seek an eye for an eye. But is that really a just punishment; even in this case? The talking heads convinced us that mandatory sentencing was essential and it led to the mess we are in now.

Be careful what you ask for because what goes around has a funny way of coming back around and it might be good to think about the cost/benefit analysis here…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Cops and Perjury

What might be better than disproportionate sentences for perjury is what they do to everyone else – pile on whatever charges might be relevant.

For example, not just perjury, but how about obstructing justice, falsifying police reports, etc. (IANAL, but you get the idea)…

Make them face what the rest of us would face, should we have tried to pull the same shit. Equal treatment under the law is a concept that is fast going the way of the dodo.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Cops and Perjury

How about making the sentence for perjury the same as the sentence for accused crime that the person committed perjury on?

Perjury on a drug trafficking? Hope you enjoy your 3 to 5 years in prison.

Perjury on involuntary manslaughter? Enjoy your 1 to 2 years.

Perjury on first degree murder? Enjoy life without parole or execution.

In a nutshell, for perjury you should serve the same sentence as the person being tried is threatened with.

Beta (profile) says:

Re: Cops and Perjury

If (when the evidence is incontrovertible) they will be tried, convicted and punished like anyone else, then I think perjury is good enough, and appropriate.

If (when the evidence is incontrovertible) no prosecutor will prosecute them, no court will convict them and no judge will send them up the river, then I don’t see the point of increasing the penalties.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Cops and Perjury

They don’t mind ignoring the rest of the constitution… why should it now matter when it comes to defending them?

Treat others as you would like to be treated. When the government has taken the path of excessive punishment for petty crime (IP infringement being a GREAT EXAMPLE) then they should likewise experience a disproportionate response when they are caught breaking the law too.

The US constitution for all intents and purposes is now trash. The absolute reality is that the Government can and will toss your arse into jail for any reason. History shows that the American people really don’t care as much as we say we do or it would have never gotten this far.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Cops and Perjury

Exactly slick!
Everyone should want undue and repressive punishment for people in Power that ABUSE that Power!

Further more…
Once you have committed an offense for which you are not repentant you have forfeited your right to that which you have taken from another.

Take a life, you forfeit yours.
Take possessions, you forfeit yours.
Lie and you forfeit truth.
Remove the Constitution from the people, and it should be removed from YOU!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Cops and Perjury

Tell me, whom is suffering tyranny?

The government or the people?

With your mindset, there will never be another free nation. But that suits you fine right? All the slavery, oppression, rape, and murder are fine with you, because we can’t lower our standards to stop them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Cops and Perjury

True, that happens all to often.

But once we devolve to that level… it is very hard to get people to wrap up their vitriolic hate.

We call this upon ourselves by letting government get so far out of hand that we can only become what appears to be tyrants to resist them. You must become a criminal to overthrow and in some cases even resist your own tyrannical government. Well, today we call those guys terroists (like Reid did)… didn’t take long to apply that label everywhere huh?

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Cops and Perjury

“With your mindset, there will never be another free nation.”

History proves you wrong.

“All the slavery, oppression, rape, and murder are fine with you, because we can’t lower our standards to stop them.”

Wow, talk about hyperbolic! All I am saying is that there is no point to using slavery, oppression, rape and murder to stop slavery, oppression, rape and murder — because nothing has actually been stopped if you do. You’re just changing the names of the criminals (and becoming one of them.)

Zonker says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Cops and Perjury

You are mistaken, as what you describe is clearly “Treat others as they would treat you “. This leads to the inevitable result that everyone would be treated as the worst would treat us. This would destroy our constitutional protections and rights far faster than anything else.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Cops and Perjury

Then you shall enjoy a government of the corrupt, just like it is now and only getting worse. Sir, you are mistaken.

Human nature does not change with high ideals. It changes when someone has something to fear.

Like how people are continually held in servitude by their oppressive governments… they are AFRAID of losing their life if they stand up for their rights. Same reason we throw people in JAIL! There must be teeth behind punishment or it is no punishment at all.

Government is in power. They do not follow the constitution. Tell me where and how you will be able to bring an out of control authority to heel? Follow the law? They ARE the law! It is not being followed… the ONLY option left is to ignore it because it has become a useless tool to the people.

If the government was actually following the law and showed that it delivered recompense and retribution according to the Constitution then your argument would have a leg to stand on. A Government not obeying the Constitution should be thrown off.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Cops and Perjury

I definitely agree with you… yes it is possible. I hope we can recover from this mess without becoming like the police.

But how can this happen if the people we need to combat it are the very ones not helping. I am not saying we need to do the EXACT same things to them that they are doing to us, but I am saying we should no longer allow the constitution to bar us from a response. Should they return to the constitution, I would welcome returning the same.

The Constitution is not explicitly a moral law… I only follow a moral law. Any moral value you destroy cannot be used in your defense.

The Government has destroyed that moral value, therefore they should not be afforded its defense.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Cops and Perjury

“The Government has destroyed that moral value, therefore they should not be afforded its defense.”

For someone who claims to follow “moral law”, it’s a little scary that you can shed them so easily. Behaving morally is not a reward you grant to others, nor something you do to gain a reward.

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Cops and Perjury

What John Fenderson said. Morality is a solid, absolute set of principles rooted in the very fabric of our civilization. We couldn’t have an ordered society unless everyone broadly agreed (at least in principle) on what morality is and how to enforce it.

I’d advise against relativism as a guide; in such a case, morality would be determined by whoever is in power at the time. Not a good idea.

PaulT (profile) says:

1785: “That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.” (Benjamin Franklin)

2014: “No one could pluck out the one in a hundred who didn?t deserve to be there, and he wasn?t going to cut everyone free because he couldn?t tell who was who”

Yeah, good job, guys…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Only good cop

First off, I know plenty of cops that are honest. Power is defined as the ability to influence people in order to get tasks accomplished. Power in and of itself is not bad. Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King…they all had power. Power in and of itself is not bad, but how it’s used determines if it as bad or not. BTW, you’re power to express your opinion on how you view cops could also be construed as an abuse of power since you are stereotyping an entire group of people based on the actions of a few.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Only good cop

How honest are those cops when one of their badge buddies crosses the line? You know “plenty” of cops that value integrity so highly that they’re literally willing to destroy their livelihoods and alienate their friends in the interest of honesty?

This is not about individual LEOs and their moral fiber. This is about a systemic, nation-wide corruption of law enforcement and the administration of justice. This is about the consistent and growing violation of universal rights we once held dear. The honest cops you know…they’re irrelevant.

Zonker says:

Re: Only good cop

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men. — Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Bt”

The key distinction here are the words “tends” and “almost”. Although this is the rationale behind the “limited powers” granted under The Constitution. Limiting the powers of each branch of government and attempting to balance those powers between the branches was intended to limit the corruption of power, but when two or more branches work together (executive, judicial, and legislative) the balance is broken.

There are good and bad cops, good and bad judges, good and bad Presidents, and (believe it or not) good and bad legislators and lawyers.

JBDragon says:

Re: The cops shouldn't be allowed to turn off squad car cameras...ever

Exactly, there is ZERO reason to turn the camera off unless you’re trying to hide something!!! The Camera is not only there to protect the Citizen but more so the Cops that get accused for things that didn’t happen.

Funny how any Video that makes them look Bad gets taken from people, lost, deleted, etc. Every once in a while they slip up like in this case!!!

Adam (profile) says:

Felony Charges

Under Illinois law perjury is a Class 3 Felony punishable by two to five years in prison. If I lived in the area this happened I know I would be writing to every politician and local official demanding that the officers be put on trial and held to the same laws as everyone else.

The only way a police force can maintain any credibility in my mind is that when a situation like this happens is to immediately have the perpetrators face prosecution for their crimes. Unfortunately most police departments in the US have developed an ‘Us’ vs ‘The Public’ attitude. They have to realize that they are citizens themselves and we are their peers with equal rights.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Felony Charges

They have to realize that they are citizens themselves and we are their peers with equal rights.

Nice idea on paper, unfortunately not so true in practice.

They aren’t, and you don’t. A cop can do things that would get your average person thrown in jail without hesitation(like say, beat a homeless man to death on camera), and at most they might face a ‘And don’t you get caught doing that again!’ tossed their way.

When you’ve got a job that allows you to do anything you want, with zero real repercussions, gives you power and authority over everyone around you, and you know that fellow ‘officers’ will back you up no matter what you do(or if they happen to have morals or a conscious be pressured out), is it any wonder that it attracts the worst scum out there, and acts like a sociopath magnet?

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: A pattern in this state

Illinois is hardly unique in that respect. But my point is that casting doubt on a public official’s honesty simply because of the state he came from is nothing but lazy stereotyping, and doesn’t really make a valid point. Especially when you’re talking about Obama, who has an actual track record in the White House that you can easily use to attack him with.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 A pattern in this state

Oh right – yes I wasn’t trying to use these corrupt and lazy law enforcement and judges as proof that our President is also a lying, corrupt politician. He has proven that all on his own.

But your point did not get lost on me – as I sat here trying to think of a state in this union that was a pinnacle of non-corrupt government, I realized there probably isn’t one any longer.

The one I live in, California, demonstrates immense corruption on a daily basis. Also, most hippies do come from California – if you also turn that around 😉

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

So what I’m getting out of this article is that there is no nation wide government conspiracy, no police state. It’s just one giant cluster-fuck. Every part is broken in a tiny way, and it all adds up.

Well, conveniently, those tiny parts are made up of (supposedly) intelligent people. The broken bits should be able to fix themselves once they realize it’s not one giant problem, but a bunch of tiny ones.

People are scared of big problems, they think they can’t do anything about it. But one person can fix their own tiny problem.

Long story short: Your a judge, this is what you signed up for, do your damn job. Same with the cops, same with the agents, same with everyone. Fix your own little problem and the whole will fix itself.

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re:

Uh, sort of. People want a quick solution that doesn’t make them think too much or put a lot of effort into dealing with, preferably outsourced to others to they can blame them for any failings. I’ve seen enough comments here to back that up.

Fix your own little problem and the whole will fix itself.

Not quite. I’m sure there are plenty of conscientious judges out there, we just don’t get to hear about them (unless we’re talking about the Prenda boys getting slapped down. Again.). The trouble is systemic and can’t be resolved by conscientious judges hoeing their rows effectively. There’s no quick fix or simple solution.

It?s about judges who need to move calendars, jailers and bailiffs, court reporters and clerks who depend on a steady stream of defendants for their livelihood

That’s the problem; the system is set up to find someone ? anyone ? guilty, so they can lock them up, tick the boxes, fill in the paperwork, and collect their paychecks. We the people put up with it because we have convinced ourselves that they’re being tough on crime, which makes us feel safer.

Ultimately, we’re going to have to campaign for or support a candidate who is willing to take this mess on and deal with it. Given the vested interests involved, it’ll be an uphill struggle. But it’s worth struggling for, even if it does take a long time to resolve.

Anonymous Coward says:

Lying isn't necessarily bad

Lying about the probable cause to search is often ok. Sometimes you know the guy is guilty of transporting drugs or guns but you don’t have the probable cause to pull them. Lying about their not using a turn signal when changing lanes or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign or whatever is perfectly ok if that’s what it takes to get to the car and then ask for consent to search or “smell” drugs. You do what it takes to get the bad guy off the street. It’s not like the guy wasn’t a drug dealer. Would you rather the dealer got away? They’re not arresting innocent people. Innocent people have nothing to fear, despite everyone’s paranoia.

beltorak (profile) says:

Re: Re: Lying isn't necessarily bad

I’m going to say this is a parody:

> They’re not arresting innocent people.

That is the part it all rests on, and is demonstrably false. In fact it’s proved false all the time. Especially here.

But there’s another more subtle fallacy this “argument” rests on:

> You do what it takes to get the bad guy off the street. It’s not like the guy wasn’t a drug dealer. Would you rather the dealer got away?

Equating drug dealers with “bad guys” without condition. There are some that believe that pot dealers are the scum of the earth, but there are many that do not.

Heading that off is also the assertion “You do what it takes”. Our founding fathers realized that there are many things that could be done to stop bad people from doing bad things, but that way lies despotism and a complete abandonment of the rule of law. We may as well forgive the prosecution of any procedural missteps in the pursuit of a conviction. After all, innocent people are never brought before a judge, are they? We may as well forgo warrants and let the police conduct inspections of any thing in any place at any time. After all, the police are only interested in “getting the bad guys off the street” and won’t take an interest in anything else.

What is implied by “They’re not arresting innocent people” is something that flies in the face of human nature; that there there is no such thing as a bad cop, that there is no such thing as a corrupt judge, that these people who are in positions of power never abuse that power. And furthermore it implies that they are infallible, that they always make the right choice and never make mistakes.

Anyway I have a hard time believing that someone actually thinks this way.

So I believe that it is a parody, but I do fear that it might not be.

Zonker says:

Re: Lying isn't necessarily bad

You sir are the very definition of a bad cop.

You should not do these things because of the harm done to the rights of the innocent: privacy, security, freedom of movement, etc. You don’t get to stop people you believe must be guilty without evidence to support it. If you’re so sure they are guilty, what’s stopping you from planting evidence to prove your case? After all, you couldn’t be wrong and not finding evidence just means the person you stopped must be really good at hiding it. And we must believe you because you’re in a position of authority.

But what happens when you’re the bad guy? Do your victims get to charge you with a crime and prosecute you in court? No, because they don’t have the authority to, you and your District Attorney do. Your power is not limited or balanced enough to afford the public protection from your abuse.

Anonymous Coward says:

What bugs me....

Is no matter what City…any Government agency…have the newest cars…nicest equipment…finest retirements….all paid by the payroll taxes of us lowly citizens who drive around 10 year 200,O00 miles beat up cars while we pull in the drive- through to order off the dollar menu….somethings wrong with that picture

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...