I'm Curious. What Do You Think?

[Andrew D]

This is not about evidence. That's all going on in various other threads. This is about people's subjective assessments of things.

All of us have opinions which we cannot prove. We act on them every day. I do not intend to ask anyone in this thread, should it become a thread, to prove anything. I am just asking for people's subjective assessments.

Personally, subjectively, I am flabbergasted that many people apparently think that it is not common for the police to lie. In police reports, in sworn affidavits, on the stand, etc. I am flabbergasted that many people apparently think that it is not common for prosecutors to put police officers on the stand knowing, subjectively, that what is going to come out of those officers' mouths is a bucket of horseshit.

Really?

Again, I am not asking anyone to prove anything. I am just curious to know what people's subjective, unproved, unprovable opinions are.

Do most people here believe that most prosecutors would rather let a serial rapist-torturer-murderer go free than suborn perjury to land his disgusting ass in prison?

Do most people here believe that most police officers would not say that the evidence was in plain view, even if it was not, rather than let some guy back on the street to continue selling helpless young girls to perverted old men?

Do most of us here really believe those things? And similar such things? Really?

[Gob]

I work with the police frequently (all too frequently) in my line of work. While I do not believe them to be angels or paragons of virtue, I have a deep respect for them and the work they do.

Having been scraped up off the road by them lately, and had all my needs met, including helping me into an ambulance, taking all the information I needed to get the other (culpable) driver to pay his due, I am glad of their service.

Having been bailed out of trouble by them in violent situations, I am glad they are prepared to take risks on my behalf.

Having had my wrist slapped by them, (you were doing 137 kmph, I'll put it down as 130 to save you losing 6 points,) I know they can bend the law in ore ways than one.

Having gone to the assistance of a female copper who was being threatened, (I would have happily put the "big boy" coming the clever bugger into hospital for a good spell if I had been allowed,) I know they are aware that some of the public look out for them.

I know I'm not answering your actual; question; my answer is really, cops are people, some are good, some are bad, some are average, some are nice, some are fuckable, some are corrupt.

Would coppers; "say that the evidence was in plain view, even if it was not, rather than let some guy back on the street to continue selling helpless young girls to perverted old men", some would, some may not,.

[Andrew D]

Thanks, Gob.

For a serious response.

I agree: Cops are people, and like the rest of us, they come in all shades.

I've been on just about every end of interactions with the police. I've been protected by the police, and I am grateful. I've been rescued by the police, and I am grateful.

I've also been cuffed and thrown into cells by the police. I am not so grateful. I've been smacked around -- while my hands were cuffed behind my back -- by the police. I am not so grateful.

I've been arrested for things I didn't do. I've been arrested for things I did do but which are perfectly lawful. (I've never been convicted of anything more serious than a traffic ticket.)

What I am interested in learning, though, is what people think about what is more common. We all agree, I think, that there are police officers who would not lie, and there are police officers who would lie. We all agree, I think, that there are prosecutors who would not suborn perjury, and there are prosecutors who would suborn perjury.

But which ones are typical, and which ones are exceptional?

[Lord Jim]

some are good, some are bad, some are average, some are nice, some are fuckable, some are corrupt.

That seems inarguable to me.

It has been my impression that the vast majority of police officers (like the vast majority of most people generally) are ethical folks. They do a a very tough and dangerous job professionally and honestly.

Those who don't get more publicity then when the average person doesn't, and this is as it should be. As I've pointed out a number of times, since we entrust the police with power and authority the rest of us don't have, they need to be held to high standards, and punished severely when they violate that trust, and undermine confidence in our justice system.

That having been said, when someone wishes to smear an entire profession by claiming that most members of it are corrupt and/or engage in criminal activity, (as Andrew did repeatedly regarding police officers) the burden of proof obviously lies entirely with the person who issues forth with such blanket charges, if they wish to present this charge as a fact, rather than as an opinion. (As Andrew has also done)

And as we all know, to date he has not presented any such proof whatsoever. Without having read the OP, it appears from Strop's response that for some bizarre reason, Andrew has decided to start a thread casting a spot light on his failure to do this. (I guess it's part of the Forum Diva role he's carving out for himself)

One might think that a person who is a member of a profession that itself is frequently the target of blanket charges of unethical behavior among it's members, would have a particular reticence and caution about hurling such proof-free charges against members of another profession. Obviously this is not true in Andrew's case.

[Reality Bytes]

My father was a career police officer, my uncle was a career police officer, various cousins are still serving police officers, I myself trained police officers for many years right through from baby plods undergoing their initial training to those promoted to detective and investigating serious crimes (rape, murder etc.). I have spent virtually my entire life around coppers and a great deal of my working life around the criminal justice system, even working in the Crown Court for quite a while. In my opinion the justice system at least in the UK is utterly biased in favour of the criminal.

I have seen FAR too many of them get off despite the CPS having put the case through the % check before even bothering to try it in court, if perjury were commonplace or easy to solicit then surely there would be many more cases in court and far greater conviction rates. I worked with the victims of crime, for most of them it is like trying to herd cats whilst riding a goldfish to even get their "day in court" let alone any "justice" if they are one of those fortunate few.

There will be unethical coppers, and unethical prosecutors, along with unethical defense solicitors, unethical judges and unethical witnesses, victims will lie, cops will lie etc. cos every one of them is a fallible human being, however it is my subjective opinion that those who lie are in the minority.

[SisterMaryFellatio]

Theres good and bad in any profession. Why would Cops be any different? Some would be lying bastards. Others straight as.

[BoSoxGal]

More cops are honest than not; that's been my opinion all along.

When there is a legal challenge to be made successfully to the evidence they've gathered, it's more likely due to mistake or carelessness in the investigatory process, IN MY EXPERIENCE as both defender and prosecutor, than it is due to willful misconduct by law enforcement.

[dales]

Been arrested and placed in handcuffs for a ride to jail twice.

No problems for me or the arresting officer.

Attitude is everything I suppose.

[Long Run]

I agree with most here, the large majority of police are ethical and try hard to do their job right. They are human and make mistakes, especially in the few seconds they have to make certain decisions. Given how tough their job is and that most do it to the best of their ability, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt until I'm shown that someone actually crossed the line. Then there are the oops moments:

[Liberty1]

Cops and prosecuters are just people, they are no more special than any other people. There will be good ones and bad ones. I generally give everyone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, it's just my nature.

[Rick]

Personally, subjectively, I am flabbergasted that many people apparently think that it is not common for the police to lie. In police reports, in sworn affidavits, on the stand, etc. I am flabbergasted that many people apparently think that it is not common for prosecutors to put police officers on the stand knowing, subjectively, that what is going to come out of those officers' mouths is a bucket of horseshit.

"Many people"--This board or people in general?

I don't think ALL cops lie ALL the time.

In any given situation MOST folks will do what it takes so the outcome is what they were looking for.

Their vocation is their choice true but that is not a vocation that sprang up in a vacuum, it came about as a necessity.

Unfortunately cops have to think like lawyers before they can think like cops.

I'm not so certain the problem lies soley in the cops domain.

To be sure I have been woken up by a stick to the gut well after midnight, handcuffed and thrown face down in someone elses front yard (I sleep nekked, it was only after a considerable amount of asking that I was allowed my jeans) spent the remainder of that night and 2 other nights in jail because someone else was smoking hooter in the living room of a house that was not mine.

I don't have much respect for the yahoos that arrested me, they were fired a couple months later, but I don't judge all cops by their behavior...

[Andrew D]

I don't think ALL cops lie ALL the time.

Nor do I.

In any given situation MOST folks will do what it takes so the outcome is what they were looking for.

That seems plausible. Say it about most people, and you won't have a problem. But say it about prosecutors and/or police officers, and panties get bunched in every direction.

[Lord Jim]

In any given situation MOST folks will do what it takes so the outcome is what they were looking for.

I'm sorry but in that unqualified condition, I have to completely reject that....

That implies that most folks have no conscience or moral restraints (or even fear of punishment) about doing anything so long as it gives them "what they were looking for" no matter how extreme the methods or petty the goal....

Most folks are not like that. Most folks are not agent of pure venality...

And neither are most cops or prosecutors....

[Rick]

I'm sorry but in that unqualified condition, I have to completely reject that....

White lies, lies by omission, selective memory, the end justifies the means.

A lie is a lie is it not?

Very, very few if any think these are immoral.

[rubato]

If you actually have an interest in this subject I would recommend:

http://www.michaelshermer.com/the-believing-brain/

The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer. 18$ used hardcover from Powell's Books in Oregon.

"...
We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations. Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow.

Dr. Shermer also provides the neuroscience behind our beliefs. The brain is a belief engine. From sensory data flowing in through the senses the brain naturally begins to look for and find patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning. The first process Dr. Shermer calls patternicity: the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless data. The second process he calls agenticity: the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency.

We can’t help believing. Our brains evolved to connect the dots of our world into meaningful patterns that explain why things happen. These meaningful patterns become beliefs. Once beliefs are formed the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which adds an emotional boost of further confidence in the beliefs and thereby accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive feedback loop of belief confirmation. Dr. Shermer outlines the numerous cognitive tools our brains engage to reinforce our beliefs as truths and to insure that we are always right.

Interlaced with his theory of belief, Dr. Shermer provides countless real-world examples of belief from all realms of life, and in the end he demonstrates why science is the best tool ever devised to determine whether or not a belief matches reality. ... "

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

And as we all know, to date he has not presented any such proof whatsoever.

As numerous people have pointed out, I have produced evidence to support my assertion. To Lord Jim, whose entire knowledge of the criminal "justice" system would fit easily on the back of an envelope, that evidence is insufficient. But it is still evidence. He just doesn't like it.

Anyway, this thread, as clearly stated in the opening posting, is not about evidence. It is not about proof. It is about people's subjective perceptions. And to those who have provided serious responses, thanks.

[Lord Jim]

White lies, lies by omission, selective memory, the end justifies the means.

Not always...

There's a huge difference "no honey those pants don't make your butt look fat" and lying under oath, (a crime) or violating your oath as an officer of the court and suborning others to lie under oath, (an even bigger crime)

So no, all lies aren't equal; some are far worse than others....

In any event, your original statement isn't limited to lies...You said, "what it takes"....

Which theoretically could include murder, torture, armed robbery, etc...

To provide a hypothetical for illustration:

Given this broad, unqualified statement: "In any given situation MOST folks will do what it takes so the outcome is what they were looking for."

If the "outcome" one wants is to have a 48 inch flat screen TV, and "what it takes " to achieve that outcome (since the person in this example can't afford one) involves whacking your neighbor over the head and stealing his, your statement predicts that "most folks" would do it...

Another example:

If the "outcome" one wants is to have sexual relations, and no willing partner is available, then "what it takes" to get "what they were looking for" would be forceable rape...Again, that statement predicts that in this situation "most folks" would do it...

You see the problem here...

The fact is, the vast majority of the time, "most folks" do not "do what it takes so the outcome is what they are looking for"....if they did, the crime rates would be geometrically higher than they are....

[Andrew D]

So how about "Most of the time, most people will do what it takes so the outcome is what they were looking for if they think that they can get away with it and if they believe that what they are doing is less bad than the alternative"?

Does that seem plausible?

[Rick]

One can deny it if one wishes but the human animal justifies every action it takes.

It's the nature of the beast...

[Lord Jim]

One can deny it if one wishes but the human animal justifies every action it takes.

Keld, justifying the actions one takes is not the same thing as being willing to take "any" action.

Additionally, people feel "justified" to take actions all the time that they restrain themselves from taking. (Hardly a day goes by when I don't do this)

To use an example that is currently dominating the news, many people might feel "justified" to storm the Orlando Court House, grab Kasey Anthony and string up the child murdering bitch. (I've had that impulse myself)

But they don't do it.