IANAL but my understanding was that lying to the police opens you up to obstruction of justice charges -- or perjury.
For instance, I learned from law professor James Duane's video that Martha Stewart would have completely avoided prison time if she had not lied to investigators.
Lying in court is always* illegal. Lying in general, e.g
"I didn't steal anything", "I only had 2 beers", "These aren't my pants", is not inherently illegal. All of these are lies I've been told.
As a cop, if you get caught lying, i.e. intentionally false testimony in court, your career is effectively over. Any defense attorney can bring that one time you got caught lying up in court, discounting your entire testimony on every case forever, making you useless. No matter how bad you screw up as a cop, the number 1 rule is don't lie about it in court.
*Maybe not in some jurisdictions? But realistically yeah, always
So if you plead not guilty to some crime, and they find you guilty, do you get prosecuted for lying in court with your plead as well as for the original crime?
I believe that entering a plea doesn't count as testimony, thus isnt subject to perjury laws. Most of my cases were plea deals before trial, or were cases where the defendant did not testify. Saying "not guilty" also doesn't necessarily mean you didn't do anything, you may honestly believe at that point, and make the argument, that the thing you did was not illegal.
What about Alford pleas? I thought they existed so that you could reserve the right to appeal or avoid a civil action by avoiding an admission of guilt while acknowledging that you will likely be convicted.
IANAL but from what my lawyer friends have told me an Alford plea is practically the same as a guilty plea for purposes of appeal. In other words, it's very difficult to appeal an Alford plea. Seek legal advice before considering an Alford plea.
> He denied having any ID, claimed he could not remember his Social Security umber, and said his name was “Mr. Horrell.”
> After police found a photo ID in the vehicle, he claimed the person pictured was his “identical cousin.”
---
He was arrested and charged with "privacy invasion and refusal to identify himself". He was acquitted of the former and convicted of the latter -- only to have it later overturned.
Never works. I was driving my friend’s car. I had a tire burst on me. I pulled over to the side of the road. Cops showed up in a few minutes and charged me with reckless driving. Made me take three different breathalyzers. I hadn’t been drinking so obviously it showed “well below the legal limit”. But my friend apparently had an empty beer can in the back.
You can never say it wasn’t yours, apparently. In any case, paid the fine. Oh well.
You have to understand, much of he law that pertains to using a motor vehicle in the US is a pretense to legitimize traffic stops, which are then used for some other purpose (mostly busting drivers for more serious crimes, or else extracting fines from out-of-towners/minorities).
What is the point of having traffic stops of this kind? For example, why can't you just have traffic checks as a normal activity? In some countries (Botswana is an interesting example) the police stop you on public holidays and give you flyers and tell you "drive safely".
Our system allows police to selectively apply traffic rules. This means that the people who find them onerous and can fight back against them tend to be avoided, while more vulnerable people are subject to them more often.
You might remember the protests in Ferguson, MO, after Michael Brown was m̶u̶r̶d̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ killed. A federal investigation later revealed the tense police/public relations under which that incident took place: the jurisdiction was essentially using the traffic laws to extract rent, overwhelmingly from black residents. A traffic citation would require attending court (often without access to a vehicle); if a court date was missed, additional fines and an arrest warrant were issued, which of course the person would only become aware of during the next traffic stop. Police were encouraged to increase stops and citations to make up for lowered taxes. It's regressive fiscal policy you see popular among American conservatives because it shifts the tax burden off of people who are then more likely to vote for them, onto people "deserving" of punishment.
The protection from unreasonable search and seizure is taken to mean that the police can't stop your car without a reason. Since the justice system really really wants to be able to stop your car at will, anything at all can be a "reason".
That would violate our constitution. These sorts of traffic stops are either a bug or a feature, depending who you talk to. I feel that in the absence of clearly reckless driving the police should be unable to stop you. I view these sorts of stops as government run amuck, and a police state. Many Americans would agree, which is why we have constitutional protections beyond most countries (in theory at least). The problem is that hinders the police's ability to solve cases, which is where the "hack" comes in.
Yea...US DUI laws are "interesting". I make every effort to not drink and drive, but I definitely don't let anyone in a car I'm driving have an open drink. I've seen way to many 'you just handed your drink to the guy in the back seat' scenes to risk that.
Not everywhere, and it should be nowhere. Which states don't specify that there needs to be alcohol in the container? That seems like a bizarre last, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Hitching in the 80s, I got picked up by this guy who was drinking beer while driving. That worried me some. But I was shocked when he threw the empty out the window. And when I commented on it, he pointed out that littering was the safest option.
"A common trope amongst police officers in the United States is the aphorism: "If you lie, you die." This is indicative of the essential need for trustworthiness in the job—police officers are society's observers, enforcers and professional witnesses—and a warning that any deliberate falsehood can undermine the officer's continued usefulness, resulting in termination. Such terminations have been judicially enforced.[20]"
I personally know of 3 cops who lost their job for dishonesty. It's not even stuff like planting drugs, but turning in fake tickets (court copies never submitted, just office copies).
Further, look up the Brady List. In everywhere I've worked, if you're on it, the Commonwealth's Attorney will not take your cases. Period. If your lawyer loses a case where the witness is a cop who has lied intentionally on record, you have a crappy lawyer or a terribly corrupt judge AND jury
I practiced in Virginia for about 6 years. I handled approx 150 DUIs there. It is in the officers best interest to exaggerate their findings while investigating a crime. So ok. Yeah. Most officers don’t “lie.” But they certainly don’t act objectively either.
You know the onerous discovery policies in Virginia. Prosecutors don’t have to give you much. Even the Constitutionally mandated stuff is impossible to check because the only people who could, defense attorneys, have no way of knowing what exists.
Last, and I think this was op’s point: a lie only becomes a lie if it can be exposed as a lie. Most statements are very difficult to outright prove as a lie. This goes for defendants claiming they have someone else’s pants and for officers who are VERY sure she had bloodshot eyes “which in (their) training and experience are consistent with intoxication by marijuana.”
As a note, the thought process behind the ‘if you lie you die’ theory is contingent upon one thing. The cop has be caught lying. This is primarily because the cop has now made it practically impossible to testify in court on any charge he may have investigated.
The early history of the LAPD (1860's to 1920's) is basically a history of systemic corruption, complete with many many accounts of perjury. I highly recommend The Dollop podcasts on the subject.
Since local or state don't prosecute securities violations, yeah, I guess your right. But there are perjuries that can be committed at the local level, depending on the jurisdiction. Don't assume you can blow smoke and get away with it.
It's not just those feds. Lying to the FBI is a very bad idea. And even if you're guilty of something, they may let it go if it's not their focus. When the feds were first looking for the source of recreational drugs found by the postal service, they interviewed recipients. And as I recall, they didn't prosecute many (any?) of them. Or at least, not end users.
As a Chinese American, I've noticed that propaganda is everywhere and we all need to be wary of it.
Tiananmen is often brought up, but did you know that the US experienced a parallel event? I didn't learn about this in US history class, but apparently soldiers fired upon unarmed student protesters in the Kent State shooting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
America has had so many shootings you can't really cover them all. For example the one I was never taught was the Greenwood Massacre despite its scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
I wouldn't say it's taught in almost all high school history classes. In my experience the history curriculum doesn't cover very many things past world war 2. For example the New York State social studies curriculum has everything from 1945-1990 in a single unit, with the Vietnam war being a sub-unit ( http://www.nysed.gov/common/nysed/files/programs/curriculum-... )
Sorry, I forgot that America is the only country in the world where a certain number of people need to die by shooting for people to care, and that number has never been attained...
You're putting words in my mouth and totally misrepresenting my point.
I never said we shouldn't care about Kent State, nor have I said that it was unimportant.
What I said is that Tiananmen was several orders of magnitude worse, and while anyone in the US can look up Kent State and other horrible occurrences in their history books, many of them found in schools, or in any other place they'd like, people in China cannot look up the Tiananmen Square massacre.
I am replying to someone claiming that the US has done the same with Kent State as China has done with Tiananmen Square and that the events were equal to begin with. So if you can show me where the US has tried to cover up the fact that Kent State happened at even 1/1000th of the effort that China has gone through to cover up Tiananmen Square, or that the loss of human life between the two is similar, this might be a productive conversation.
In the mean time, you're responding to a point I never made and words I never said.
Wow I haven't seen those before. The reddit images were really powerful and disturbing. There's no arguing that the Chinese government has committed atrocities and is trying to cover them up.
My point is just that, I feel like the Western dialogue is often "Look at these horrible things that happen in China. Isn't propaganda sad?" My point is that propaganda is happening everywhere. Yes, it's happening in China blatantly and fragrantly. But everyone needs to be wary and alert that it might be happening even in seemingly "safe" countries.
For instance, I enjoyed your vimeo link and it compellingly documented the obvious censorship of the issue. The video made clear that some people clearly know what happened on 6/4 but it's not socially okay to talk about.
Interestingly, there is a small and consistent mistranslation in the subtitles. What the video translates as "don't record it", is "don't record me". Aka, some of the subjects take issue with the videographer recording people without permission. In addition to the sensitive topic, (I imagine) some part of their discomfort on screen is due to being randomly interviewed and recorded. But this was seemingly mistranslated in the videographer's favor? I point this out, not to argue with the message of the video, but to show that there is nuance/spin happening everywhere.
Thank you for taking the time to share these very interesting links. I'm grateful that I live in a place where it's possible to have this open and reasonable dialogue.
> My point is that propaganda is happening everywhere. Yes, it's happening in China blatantly and fragrantly. But everyone needs to be wary and alert that it might be happening even in seemingly "safe" countries.
Yes, I totally agree. To scapegoat the CCP as "the" evil power center would not only be unfair and hypocritical, it would be dangerous.
For me as a German, I a lot of beef with "my" country, "the West" etc. But that doesn't make me like Putin or the CCP, etc. If anything, the more corruption or tyranny there already is, the worse any additional "amount" of it becomes, if you know what I mean.
Of course that also means I cannot excuse "our" crimes with that of the CCP. For me that'd be like using the misdeeds of others to excuse one's own, which is actually worse than just doing the misdeed. And criticizing elsewhere is easy.
But so is looking the other way, and I also must not do that, I can't. If I want to secure and deserve what freedom I have, I have to support that of others, at least in principle, always.
> But this was seemingly mistranslated in the videographer's favor? I point this out, not to argue with the message of the video, but to show that there is nuance/spin happening everywhere.
No disagreement here either. And it really disheartens me when causes with legitimate grievances "give it a little extra". I wish people were more strict about that, it's a real problem. And making such small corrections, no matter how benign or factual, gets people labeled as "being in the other camp" so quickly, which is the worst part, apart from people thinking in terms of "sides" alll the time in the first place. So thanks for pointing this out.
You are free to talk about Kent state, it is covered in a lot of documentaries. There is even a monument at Kent State about it (as opposed to the “nothing happened here 6/4/89” plaque at Tiananmen Square). It isn’t taught in HS history class for the sake reason that Vietnam war is not taught (there is simply too much history and not enough time to cover it all).
A reasonable comparison might be Black Wall Street, but even then discussion about the event isn’t suppressed, just at the time the event was covered up by the local government of the area. But the CCP doesn’t remember the Siege of Changchun either.
Kent State is incredibly famous and covered in the context of the US's wars in Southeast Asia in any US History class. I definitely learned about it in high school. It also isn't actively scrubbed from the internet or other sources of information like Tiananmen square is in China. If you are unaware of Kent State, it isn't due to propaganda or censorship, it is due to your own ignorance.
It is the cover up - not the crime essentially. China shuts down stock markets when they come up with shared dates to Tiananmen Square. The US teaches it in textbooks and acknowledges impacts like radicalizing domestic terrorism groups. If not for premature detonation of an apartment it would have lead to another school massacre of a ROTC in retaliation.
I was super happy to see this article and excitedly opened up the HN comments. Really disappointed by these comments.
What is unscientific or extreme about Inslee's position?
Ending fossil fuel subsidies does not mean fossil fuels are disappearing overnight. It means that the prices on fossil fuel derivatives will reflect their true prices, and consumers and the free market will adjust their consumption accordingly.
Don't feel sorry for the status quo. It has plenty of momentum, lobbyists, and big money to keep going the way it's going.
Inslee proposes to shift government incentives to what we wish to see more of. The fact that the technology does not exist now, is an even STRONGER reason to provide government incentives and deadlines for R&D.
How we get on the moon in a decade? A leader shared a vision. People had the courage to believe and make it happen.
We should EXPECT positive change and big vision from our leaders. Don't give up on the system!
“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any.” ― Alice Walker
Agreed on probably all points. Though I’m reasonably convinced that the technology does exist.
On price, oil prices have a significant, direct, and negative effect on market productivity. We could actually put ourselves into a depression by raising prices highly. This is both a reason to get ourselves off fossil fuels ASAP and a hurdle to doing so.
Politically, possibly the strongest and quickest change to the political system in the US would be passing the side stepping of the electoral college system across the states. It’s already over half way there. The House is more responsive to the democratic vote than the senate. The electoral college is the undemocratic influence on the President. So that change would make the 2/3rds of the federal government more democratic than current.
My feelings exactly. Depressing to see so many smart people here on HN saying "We need to do something about climate change!" But then when a presidential candidate rolls out an ambitious, comprehensive, soup-to-nuts proposal that fixes the problem, they say "No, not like that!"
For instance, I learned from law professor James Duane's video that Martha Stewart would have completely avoided prison time if she had not lied to investigators.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&feature=emb_titl...