Christie Knew About Lane Closings, Ex-Port Authority Official Says

[Kulindahr]

This is most emphatically NOT true.

While I am not surprised that a cop would think that their authority should be unquestionable and unregulated, rights exist specifically to protect honest people. If every accused person was always guilty, there would arguably be no need for rights at all. The sad history is that police forces often do NOT act impartially or fairly or even logically in the performance of their duties. Cops are people. They are lazy and prejudiced like the rest of us. They get rewarded for convictions, not justice.

Extremely well said. This very thing has been pointed out by more than one Supreme Court opinion, and it can never be repeated often enough.

 

[Kulindahr]

A police officer I know suggests, “Honest people don’t need ‘rights.’” He thinks folks should always be willing to talk to the cops, without hiding behind a “protected” veil of silence.

Perhaps the issue relates to basic matters of trust.

To revisit this . . .

he is a cop who should never, ever be trusted by any citizen at all. It's statements like that which tell us never to trust a cop. He shouldn't even be a cop, with that attitude -- it belongs in Putin's secret police, not in the United States of America.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Extremely well said. This very thing has been pointed out by more than one Supreme Court opinion, and it can never be repeated often enough.

This reminds me of a fantastic grad student instructor I had for a discussion section who opened the semester with putting out the question: "Police cars have 'to protect and serve' written on their sides. So why, when pulled over, does no one say YAY, the police!"?

 

[frankfrank]

Chicago police car:

"We Serve and Protect CHICAGO POLICE"

You bet your sweet ass they do.

 

[palemale]

A police officer I know suggests, “Honest people don’t need ‘rights.’” He thinks folks should always be willing to talk to the cops, without hiding behind a “protected” veil of silence.

Perhaps the issue relates to basic matters of trust.

I knew a cop in a small, suburban town. He was a friend of the family. He was the most ignorant and racist person I ever met. He bragged about pulling over every black driver he saw drive through the town. He also said he and the other cops on the force all carried an extra handgun with the serial numbers filed off in order to plant on someone in the event they shot an unarmed person.

A smart person would always keep their mouth shut.

 

[opinterph]

That's the lie they're trained to tell.

The individual I referenced is a law enforcement instructor. (i.e. He trains police officers how to do their job.)

 

[Alnitak]

I knew a cop in a small, suburban town. He was a friend of the family. He was the most ignorant and racist person I ever met. He bragged about pulling over every black driver he saw drive through the town. He also said he and the other cops on the force all carried an extra handgun with the serial numbers filed off in order to plant on someone in the event they shot an unarmed person.

A smart person would always keep their mouth shut.

You can't file serial numbers completely. The manufacturing process imprints the numbers such that the underlying metal is fatigued. That is detectable with strong neutron emitters such as Californium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_radiography#Neutron_radiography_.28film.29

 

[Alnitak]

Which is why a former and a sitting Supreme Court justice have both said one should never say anything to the police, ever.

I paraphrased from a few decisions. Had I done that in my coursework I would be facing disciplinary action So here are the citations.

Justice Frankfurter said in Ullman v. United States (1956):

Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege. Such a view does scant honor to the patriots who sponsored the Bill of Rights as a condition to acceptance of the Constitution by the ratifying States.

Justice Tom C. Clark said in Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City (1956)

As we pointed out in Ullmann, a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.

Justice John Marshall Harlan II also said in Grunewald v. United States (1957):

Recent reexamination of the history and meaning of the Fifth Amendment has emphasized anew that one of the basic functions of the privilege is to protect innocent men.

and per curiam the Supreme Court said in Ohio v. Reiner (2001)

Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth.

Then there is one of the most famous quotes in the entire practice of US law delivered by Justice Jackson

"Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances."

 

[palemale]

You can't file serial numbers completely. The manufacturing process imprints the numbers such that the underlying metal is fatigued. That is detectable with strong neutron emitters such as Californium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_radiography#Neutron_radiography_.28film.29

I never said they had sufficient brains to realize that.