You actually think this is a good article? Most of that case was also just testimony, this time people saying people are lying.
The article backs up its case with:
1) Article written by a former police commissioner.
2) Quote about one actual case that apparently had some videotape proving a lie.
3) Bronx district attorney decides that the means to deal with lying is to interview the cops who are supposed to be lying about whether they are lying or not.
4) Back to former police commissioner again.
5) Passing reference to 'numerous scandals'
6) Interviews with 'numerous officers' by Urban Justice Center's Police Reform Organizing Project
The former police commissioner writing an article, the supreme court justice, the police being interviewed about their lying, the folks investigating the 'numerous scandals', and the Urban Justice Center's Police Reform Organizing Project -all- have their own agendas, but everything they say is blindly taken as fact in the same article that claims humans lie every day. If you want to mistrust cops because their funding is tied to arrests, you should probably mistrust the urban justice police reform project because their very name is tied to proving the cops are wrong. Why is one side automatically trustworthy? Solely because they support the premise?
I feel like this could be an interesting topic, but approaching it from a he-said/she-said interviewing standpoint is laughable, it should be obvious that interviewing people about lying is downright counterproductive.
Ah yes, you're right. Anytime someone accuses cops of lying, those cops usually go straight to jail, and judges rip them a new one. That is most definitely how the system is stacked up, especially in New York.
And a few years ago, when an officer secretly taped his bosses deliberately fudging statistics, that was just another case of biased recording devices...chronic issue, for sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
I wonder why the author of that piece couldn't devote 30,000 exhaustive words for the article. Another conspiracy of course.
The article backs up its case with: 1) Article written by a former police commissioner. 2) Quote about one actual case that apparently had some videotape proving a lie. 3) Bronx district attorney decides that the means to deal with lying is to interview the cops who are supposed to be lying about whether they are lying or not. 4) Back to former police commissioner again. 5) Passing reference to 'numerous scandals' 6) Interviews with 'numerous officers' by Urban Justice Center's Police Reform Organizing Project
The former police commissioner writing an article, the supreme court justice, the police being interviewed about their lying, the folks investigating the 'numerous scandals', and the Urban Justice Center's Police Reform Organizing Project -all- have their own agendas, but everything they say is blindly taken as fact in the same article that claims humans lie every day. If you want to mistrust cops because their funding is tied to arrests, you should probably mistrust the urban justice police reform project because their very name is tied to proving the cops are wrong. Why is one side automatically trustworthy? Solely because they support the premise?
I feel like this could be an interesting topic, but approaching it from a he-said/she-said interviewing standpoint is laughable, it should be obvious that interviewing people about lying is downright counterproductive.