Former Police Commissioner Explains Why Cops Lie

In response to a scandal involving fabricated and unconstitutional drug searches by plainclothes San Francisco police officers, Golden Gate University law professor Peter Keane explains "Why Cops Lie":

Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.

Keane, a former San Francisco police commissioner, cites three reasons for this state of affairs: unsympathetic suspects, judges who bend over backward to admit evidence except when the signs of falsification (such as the surveillance footage feeding the current scandal) are impossible to ignore, and the incentives created by the war on drugs:

It is simply additional collateral damage from using the American criminal justice system as the battlefield of that war. It stands alongside the wasteful wreckage of hundreds of thousands of imprisoned Americans locked up for drug use, and the destruction of Mexico as a functioning state because of criminal cartels enriched through outlawed American drug use. The corruption of America's police officers as the most identifiable group of perjurers in the courts is one more item on that list.

More on "testilying" here, here, and here.

[Thanks to Richard Cowan for the link.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    To offer a (weak) defense of their moral character, they probably think they're doing the right thing.
    http://www.mistakesweremadebutnotbyme.com

  • ||

    Cops lied, justice died.

  • Pip||

    The lying starts as soon as they begin to recite this:

    Ethical oath for police officers:

    I DO SOLEMNLY DECLARE UPON MY HONOUR AND CONSCIENCE THAT I WILL ACT AT ALL TIMES TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE IN A MANNER BEFITTING A POLICE OFFICER

    I WILL PRESERVE THE DIGNITY AND WILL RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS

    I WILL DISCHARGE MY DUTIES WITH INTEGRITY AND WILL PROMOTE UNDERSTANDING AND CONCILIATION

    I WILL EXERCISE MY AUTHORITY AS A POLICE OFFICER IN THE MANNER INTENDED BY THE LAW

    I WILL FAITHFULLY OBEY THE ORDERS OF MY SUPERIORS AND WILL BE READY TO CONFRONT DANGER IN THE LINE OF DUTY

    I WILL ACT WITH HONESTY, COURTESY AND REGARD FOR THE WELFARE OF OTHERS, AND WILL ENDEAVOUR TO DEVELOP THE ESPRIT DE CORPS

    I WILL ACT JUSTLY AND IMPARTIALLY AND WITH PROPRIETY TOWARDS MY FELLOW OFFICERS

    I WILL CONSTANTLY STRIVE TO HONOUR THIS OATH IN MY SERVICE AS A POLICE OFFICER

    The ethical oath for police officers is taken by all police officers on completion of the Diploma in Police Studies. The oath is normally taken at the Police School in the presence of the National Police Commissioner. Family members, friends, teaching staff and other representatives will also be present.

    The ethical oath was introduced at the beginning of 2001.

  • ||

    It's a trick to fool all of us. Note the British spelling of "honour."

  • ||

    Also, note the lack of any fealty, or fuck even an acknowledgement, to the U.S. Constitution.

  • ||

    Actually, that is exactly the worst problem: A self-righteous conviction that "this is a bad guy we've got to put away by any means."

    It is worse than the cops who are trying to pad their conviction stats.

    A self-righteous authority believes that their evils are done 'in a good cause'. Worse still, the general public is willing to forgive it for the same reason.

  • ||

    It's frightening, but understanding how and why these things happen is key to correcting the problem. And, although their actions may have more destructive consequences than ours, we all do the wrong thing at times and justify it to ourselves.

  • ||

    we all do the wrong thing at times and justify it to ourselves.

    True. But neither of us has nearly the power to wreck the life of another person that a cop does.

  • ||

    ..or kill someone without serious consequence.

  • ||

    "although their actions may have more destructive consequences than ours."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It means he gets results, you stupid chief!

  • Lisa||

    Sit down, Dad!

  • Sexy Grandpa Time||

    I'M NOT YOUR DADDY, I'M YOUR GRANDPA!

  • Evelyn Mulwray||

    You're my Daddy and my Grandpa

  • Phillip Fry||

    Have we met?

  • sarcasmic||

    Different profession have different perks.

    A perk of restaurant work is free or cheap food.
    A perk of airline work is free travel.
    A perk of law enforcement is being rewarded for ignoring the law.

  • robc||

    Because they can?

  • ||

    The question was not "Why do cops lick each others' balls?".

  • ||

    round-up the usual suspects!

  • DNS||

    Ever heard of the saying, "The end justifies the means?" The most statist of Old Statist Proverbs.

  • Old Mexican||

    Bernard von Nothaus, the man behind the Liberty Dollar coin, was sentenced today by in Federal Court on two counts: trying to do what the government does every day (i.e. counterfeiting) and intending to do what the Fed does every day (i.e. intent to defraud)

    Disclaimer: I did not agree with the idea of the Liberty Dollar as it allowed too much arbitrage between the price of silver and the indicated value, but still, the Feds made him a political prisoner despite the fact his business was entirely voluntary and legal.

  • tarran||

    Well, there was some fraud in that he represented that the Liberty dollars were redeemable for FRN dollars at face value, which at that time they most assuredly were not.

    On the other hand, the way the Treasury Department cited "money Laundering and facilitating white collar crimes" as justification for shutting down E-Gold despite the fact that the company had been proactively working with the Justice Department to eliminate those very issues, coupled with the fact that the Treasury Department arguing in its affidavit that the Liberty Dollar was casting doubt on the reliability of the Federal Reserve Dolar kind of gave away the game.

    There is a bunch of evidence that points toward the Treasury Department being afraid of people having access to alternatives to the dollar.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: tarran,

    Well, there was some fraud in that he represented that the Liberty dollars were redeemable for FRN dollars at face value, which at that time they most assuredly were not.


    The website indicated that the medallions were intended only for barter, not as legal tender. And the charges brought against him had nothing to do with legal tender laws.

    Anyway, there was nothing immoral or even illegal in what he was doing. The "counterfeiting" charges were entirely made up, as the coins only looked like Treasury liberty coins, but were NOT straight copies of them.

  • ||

    Oooohhhhh fuck....i have a piece of white paper that i used a green pen on. Not-counterfeiting is fucking tough!

  • Dave||

    Solution for next time: make 'em square instead of round.

  • ||

    It goes beyond this. I had a cop lie about the amount of time a light was red directly in front of a judge. Pointlessly. He had me. But he still felt compelled to lie, and the judge threw it out. Lying is what cops do.

  • DNS||

    It didn't matter to him. The victory, in his mind, is that "He had you." He succeeded in screwing up your day and dragging you off to court, regardless of outcome. And if he wants, he'll have you again. Justice is a joke.

  • ||

    Actually, it was pretty awesome. Yes, I had to go to the DMV court on Coney Island, but when the judge threw it out, the entire courtroom erupted in applause.

  • dhex||

    that is pretty awesome.

    is that place as cool and dingy as it looks on the outside?

  • ||

    Yes and no. It's not cool, but it is dingy.

  • ||

    tear, eye, wiping away, etc

  • Jame J. B.||

    I had a real winner. Bar licensed since 1998. In 2000-2001 I had an SUV rollover accident after hitting black ice. I was ok. When the state police came (PA) were really professional and nice. Then a few days went by, I got a ticket for the offense of Failure to Keep Vehicle on Roadways lined for traffic. I was livid - only 100 fine, I felt that the state shouldn't profit from my loss. So I called the cop. I talked to him like a human being. He viewed it as doing me a favor - no points.

    So I went to court and won. I "lost" a 1/2 day - he lost a case and an afternoon.

  • ||

    This damn dusty room keeps making my eyes water, wtf.

  • Ted S.||

    The cop didn't lose an afternoon; he got paid.

  • ||

    Time and one half.

  • cynical||

    "So I went to court and won. I "lost" a 1/2 day - he lost a case and an afternoon got some overtime pay for easy work."

    FTFY

  • ||

    Yes, but it kept that cop off the streets. Win-win.

  • Jame J. B.||

    Exactly. I kept him on the stand for a half hour to 45 minutes. We talked about the weather that night, his practices etc. I use that as a dress rehersal for when I have real (not me) clients. The DJ loved it.

  • Jim||

    That is a win, Epi. When I did door-to-door sales for an alarm company years ago, some cops busted me for soliciting without a license. I carried a copy of the law showing that security monitoring companies (along with a few others) were exempt, but I had printed it off the internet. They saw the web address at the bottom of the page, and just dismissively stated that since it came off the net, I could have been making it up.

    Well it turns out it is a real law, and after going to court, having my "public defender" show up 5 min. before the trial, introduce himself, and ask me if had any evidence to help my cause, we were able to find it in the Big Book of Laws. Judge dismissed, and I waved at the two cops on my way out the door.

    I do NOT believe in tempting fate, however, so I try not to stop in that town for anything if I can possibly help it. If they ever saw me again, I'm sure I'd get a nightstick in the rectum while they yelled, "stop resisting!"

  • DNS||

    If they ever saw me again, I'm sure I'd get a nightstick in the rectum while they yelled, "stop resisting!"

    Yes, Jim, how dare you actually participate in your own defense and exonerate yourself! The temerity! The impudence! Cops love to say "Igonorance of the law is not an applicable defense," and then get pissy and vindictive when a defendant, like you, proves their case and wins. Gee, I wonder why?

  • Jim||

    You are exactly right, DNS, and I can only explain it as some authority fetishism.

  • 0x90||

    One beautiful weekend evening, it was me and a married-couple pair of friends, heading out to catch a flick, and making our way to the theater by means of my '64 Skylark. My '64 Skylark with no front plate, that is. Which should have been no problem, since it doesn't, due to its vintage, require one. Enter State Trooper #1 who, being ignorant of the law, decided to pull us over, and was joined a couple of minutes later by State Trooper #2 (also legally illiterate, apparently), us presenting a dangerous flight risk, no doubt.

    So I debated the issue with these two outstanding specimens a bit, my argument resting primarily on the fact that it would've been rather difficult for me to display a front plate when the DMV had not only told me there was no need, but had indeed neglected to provide me with one. Perhaps I could've avoided the incident entirely by displaying my lone plate on the front bumper, rather than the rear, but I suspect that the friendly officers would not have found that solution to have been any more acceptable.

    So one movie missed, one trip to the DMV to obtain evidence, and one pointless trip to the courthouse later, I was tempted to consider that my time had been wasted. But I chose not to think of it that way; after all, how often is it that you get the opportunity of learning, firsthand, just how safe you really are being kept, from danger of people driving around without enough license plates. You can't put a price on that kind of security.

  • robc||

    I dont think I would ever willingly move to a front-plate-requiring state.

  • Ray Pew||

    Front plates are the price we pay for civilization.

  • ||

    Yeah, first we're taking off the front license plate. Next thing you know, we're living in fucking SOMALIA.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Taking off your front license plate means you don't want ROADZ!!!!!!

  • Mensan||

    Back in '02 I got two citations in Virginia for not having a front license plate on my truck, and for illegal tint. I was a Florida resident on temporary duty in Virginia with the Army, and my truck was registered in Florida (where the tint was legal, and only one plate is required), but that didn't seem to matter to the cop.

    I wanted to fight the tickets, but the Fairfax County Clerk of the Court told me the only way was to go back to Virginia to appear in court, or to hire a lawyer to appear on my behalf. It would have cost me a lot more money to do either one, so I just paid the fine. I'm still pissed about that.

  • ||

    That clerk is full of shit. You could have sworn an affidavit and had it presented at your trial (in absentia).

    That's actually pretty common in VA, especially in the tidewater area where there's a lot of military. That clerk was just being a cock.

  • ||

    My wife got a ticket from a cop who was several cars behind her, and did not see the reason that there was a bakc-up, and why my wife had to go around a car that could not start. He completelymade up a story about seeing her illegally cross into a lane to cut off another car. Never happened. No accident, no one was hurt. Nobody even beeped a horn. The judge believed him. That's that.

  • ||

    My wife's incident is not a big deal, but just to say, cops will lie about anything. And there are many in jail as a result. Legalizing many "crimes" expecially drug crimes, would make the system much better. Primarily because we would need fewer cops.

  • DNS||

    Primarily because we would need fewer cops.

    Not necessarily. What is the surefire plank in a local politican's platform? Public safety. The state would find other chores for them to do and justify their existence. Cops are symptomatic of the public mindset, "I want more cops, I want public safety and laws enforced. Just leave me alone."

  • ||

    Yeah, i don't want to see cops fired when the white flag is finally flown on the WoD. I'd like to see them out canvasing for murder or rape suspects. Lots and lots of walking. And talking to people. Lots of it.

  • Dave||

    I too yearn to be accosted unnecessarily by a cop with way too much free time on-duty. Should the WoD finally end and the quantity of LEO's stay the same, not nearly all of them are going to transfer to homicide. That goes double for Federal drug warriors.

    Look forward to WoD ending; do not look forward to the mass number of suddenly unemployed state and federal agents.

  • SFC B||

    I saw something about there being a shortage of crossing guards.

  • db||

    My house was burglarized last year while I was at work. Called the police; and they showed up about 20 minutes from when I called 911. When I asked them their recommendations regarding alarm systems, they proceeded to say it would be pointless, because they only have two guys "on the street" at any given time, and at that moment, they were right at my house. So their ability to respond to an alarm would be hampered by the fact that there just aren't enough cops patrolling the streets.

    Of course, after hearing this sad-face story, I started paying more attention to what the police are really doing (they still haven't even found my stuff, much less prosecuted anyone for the burglary). Wouldn't ya know it, in the evenings, there are at least 5 cruisers + a K-9 unit parked in front of the Township police dept. During the day, they spend most of their time sitting in speed traps. So in this little podunk township, they can't take enough time off of tagging speeders to go catch actual property criminals. Nothing new, I guess.

  • ||

    My wife was driving a rental car out of the airport in Florida when the front end started violently shaking, she lost control and hit another car. A woman behind her was kind enough to stop, and confirmed the wife's story. Cop says, maybe you were changing the radio and not watching. Woman says, no, she was right behind, and could see that wife was doing nothing but driving the car, fully corroborates what my wife was saying. Cop finally says, well there's an accident, so someone's got to get a ticket. Dick.

  • Whappan?||

    Correction:
    The judge pretended to believe him. Most judges are former prosecutors, and in any event are quite familiar with and approve of "testilying."

  • tarran||

    I got called to jury duty one week. They were empaneling a jury to hear a witness intimidation case, and it appeared that most of the witnesses were cops.

    So they asked a bunch of yes no questions to the whole pool of prospective slave-jurors, and individuals for whom the answer was "yes" were to raise their hands.

    If it weren't for the fact that I'm embroiled in a nasty custody dispute, when they got to the part where they asked if we were prejudiced against cops or found them less credible than non-cops, I would have asked in a loud voice "if I know what cops call 'testilying', should I raise my hand?"

    It was sooo tempting - especially after that judge had the temerity to quote Adams on the role of jurors in guaranteeing freedom just before lecturing us that we had better limit ourselves to considering the questions that she, and only she, thought were relevant. Knowing what Adams really meant, and knowing how thoroughly the state has corrupted the jury system, to the point that juries have been nearly reduced to mere rubber stamps aiding dictatorial prosecutors, my disgust and belief in justice cried out for some form of protest.

  • robc||

    You should have quoted Jay back at her. After you hung the jury.

  • tarran||

    Unfortunately, the same court system controls the fate of my kids. Being vaginally challenged, I already face an uphill battle, and am trying to avoid any excuse they may have to award the kids to my ex-wife.

    I did, however, find their nervous attempts to threaten and trick slave-jurors into quiescence kind of inspiring. I honestly think that the judges and cops fear, at some subconscious level, people outside the law enforcement system. There eyes were full of that fearful watchfulness that thieves who are afraid of getting caught get when trying to brazen their way past their victims.

  • ||

    I honestly think that the judges and cops fear, at some subconscious level, people outside the law enforcement system.

    I thought that was the easiest explanation for their behavior.

  • ||

    "Why cops lie" has two answers, from different perspectives.

    In one sense, they do because they can and get away with it.

    In another sense, they honestly believe that "the guy is guilty anyway, and even if he's not guilty of this he's guilty of something else so no real harm done."

  • ||

    It always strikes me as odd that cops aren't better educated as to why we have a legal system.

  • ||

    Having guest taught a few courses at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, I think I can give an answer to that. First, they are not interested in knowing. They don't want to know the reasons behind the rules. They just want the rules in the most straight forward monkey see monkey do format possible. In short, they are not deep thinkers. Second, they sadly seem to have a bully mentality. They all seemed like people who had little man syndrome and got off on having the power of being a cop. Considering bigger questions just gets in the way of the fun.

  • ||

    I've known a few cops who weren't that way, but I do think the job attracts bullies. Like law, sales, and politics attracts the venal.

  • Ragnar||

    This is true. There are sound psychological reasons some people become cops and some become ballerinas. People who become cops are more likely be comfortable with authority, rules, and adherence to procedures and checklists. In other words, like John said, not deep thinkers. Such people, coupled with convoluted laws and a less than optimum legal system, are made for each other. Lawyers and Judges, who at least in theory are deep thinkers, have no problem with cops lying because it makes their jobs easier than it would be to reform the system.

  • ||

    We get what we reward.

  • DNS||

    Either way, "The end justifies the means." (Cue dunphy to tell us that if cops didn't do this, then crime would run rampant and unchecked 24/7, which is his standard rationalizing rejoinder.)

  • ||

    I always express it as "Cops view it as their duty to frame the guilty".

    My eyewitness story is from when I was with a group of students observing a Philadelphia criminal hearing. The cops had bought in a cab driver for allegedly possessing a packet of cocaine that he'd paid a prostitute with.

    The defense attorney, who knew our instructor, came over at a break and confidently told us he was going to shred the arresting officer's testimony on cross. Indeed, it was ridiculous for the officer to claim that from two car lengths behind, at night, he'd been able to see that the cabbie had given a packet of a white powdery substance to the woman through the cab window. The cop stuck to the story, though, because he knew that's what the arrest required, and the judge accepted it, because he knew that's what the arrest required.

    I'm sure the cab driver was guilty, and I'm sure the cop saw little if anything of what he claimed, but that's the little dance that has evolved to work around probable cause.

  • DNS||

    I'm sure the cab driver was guilty, and I'm sure the cop saw little if anything of what he claimed, but that's the little dance that has evolved to work around probable cause.

    If I was on that jury, I would have nullified that case in a heartbeat. First, I don't believe that the cabbie and the alledged prostitute did anything wrong. Second, the officer was full of it. As you described, there was no way beyond reasonable doubt that the cop's eyewitness testimony was immutably true. Just because a shiny badge on one's chest does not mean that the dubious veracity of eyewitness testimony does not apply. Sorry, the "infallible word" of a sworn officer doesn't cut it anymore.

  • sarcasmic||

    No prosecutor would ever let you onto a jury.

  • Strawberry Alice||

    You just kicked the shit out of an innocent man.

  • Little Bill||

    Innocent? Innocent of what?

  • Will Munny||

    Deserve? Deserve's got nuthin to do with it.

  • Almanian||

    only one of the greatest lines EVER

  • ||

    ..from one of the greatest scenes ever. Every line is great.

    Well, he should have armed hisself if he's gonna decorate his place with my friend.

    Any man don't wanna get killed better clear on out the back.

    I've always been lucky when it comes to killin' people.

  • Almanian||

    ...I'll come back, and kill your families...

  • WTF||

    Hell yeah - one of the greatest movies ever.

  • Almanian||

    Sorry - he LOOKED guilty

  • Max||

    Rent- a-cops never lie. They don't have to. Private cops answer only to the boss.

  • ||

    Actually, rent-a-cops are even worse than regular cops.

    Mainly because they weren't smart enough to make the (low) bar to get into the police force.

    So they get a uniform and try to play cop by exerting their "authoritah".

  • Almanian||

    Hmm, yeah. Well, it's not like cops are EXPERTS at telling the truth, so this is to be expected, I suppose.

    Thin blue line, not experts, isolated incidents, a few bad eggs. The End.

  • 1980 Redux||

    So you'd all prefer the alternative, with child molesters, rapists, murderers, and cut-purses roaming the streets? Of course cops have to lie, because our justice system is so disgustingly tilted in favor of defendants.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm guessing you've never been a defendant, or you might not feel that way.

  • ||

    Comrade Putin? Is that you? How are the rest of the old Kommitet Gosudarstvenoye Bezupastnosti (sp?) boys doing? I thought you got them all jobs in the FSB?

  • ||

    I think 1980 Redux was having fun with sarcasm.

    But I could be wrong.

  • ||

    Yeah, it's possible, though his 2:41 comment below makes me wonder if he's the Team Red equivalent of Chad.

    Even if he is being sarcastic, I've run into too many cop-suckers who think exactly that way.

  • MWG||

    Go look at his comments on the Stossel/WOD post. He's serious.

  • ||

    I guess he is the Team Red equivalent of Chad.

  • 1980 Redux||

    You're right, I've never been a defendant. Because I neither break laws, nor give reasonable suspicion that I broke laws. I behave as a citizen should: law-abiding and God-fearing. And much as you folks don't want to acknowledge this, the easy concept of just doing what you're told, when you're told to do it (by legitimate authority, I mean) has done a remarkable job of keeping me out of police crosshairs. Man, who'd have ever thought that not being a criminal was the solution to staying out of the justice system? The mind boggles.

  • sarcasmic||

    "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."
    --Bastiat

    I kept my moral sense.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Because I neither break laws, nor give reasonable suspicion that I broke laws."

    Due to the sheer volume of legislation and regulation hat is nearly impossible.

    If you for some reason angered a cop, say you didn't give him what he felt was a proper amount of respect, he could get you for something. If he couldn't find anything on you he could make something up, lie about it in court, and under normal circumstances get away with it.

  • ||

    Yeah this guy is living in denial. I gaurentee you he has broke plenty of laws. He just didn't know he was breaking them.

    If we had a reasonable legal system, he would have a point. Sadly we don't and he is just kidding himself.

  • sarcasmic||

    I didn't know that OUI laws applied to bicycles until I was hit by a car that ran a red light while riding in the crosswalk.
    The threshold for OUI was .08 so after I blew .05 the cop wrote me up for OUI. The kid who hit me did not receive a ticket, even though a witness told the officer what he saw. The court ended up ordering me to fix the car. At least the cop was nice enough to drive me home after giving me the citation. I couldn't ride because my tires were tacoed. My shoulder has never been the same, but I never went to the hospital because I couldn't afford it. That and because the cop flatout refused to ticket the kid who hit me (his words were "I'm making it easy for the judge") I couldn't sue. Needless to say I lost a lot of respect for police and the justice system in general that day.

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh, and the cop also told me I was lucky that he didn't also cite me for riding in a crosswalk at faster than a walking pace. I'm surprised he didn't threaten to give me a ticket for lying unconscious in the middle of the road after going over the hood of a car that ran a red light. Bastard.
    Not that I'm bitter or anything.

  • kinnath||

    Evryone sins; everyone breaks the law.

  • ||

    You're right, I've never been a defendant. Because I neither break laws, nor give reasonable suspicion that I broke lawsam a giant pussy. I behave as a citizengiant pussy should: law-abiding and God-fearing. And much as you folks don't want to acknowledge this, the easy concept of just doing what you're toldbeing a giant pussy, when you're told to do it (by legitimate authority, I mean) has done a remarkable job of keeping me out of police crosshairsa giant pussy. Man, who'd have ever thought that not being a criminalgiant pussy was the solution to staying out of the justice system? The mind boggles.

    Fixed it up fer ya.

  • Big Brother||

    1980 Redux|3.18.11 @ 2:41PM|...the easy concept of just doing what you're told, when you're told to do it (by legitimate authority, I mean)

    That's a good little subject.

  • 1980 Redux||

    You guys are pathetic. As long as it's an elected gov't, then it represents us, including myself, meaning I'm not a subject. Don't like the "Teams" as you call them? Wage a write-in campaign. Vote for a different party. But if you can't convince enough people to do so, then it just exposes the worthlessness of your ideas.

  • ||

    That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that you are a bitch cunt.

    You were born a mouse and will die one.

    Sorry.

  • sarcasmic||

    Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

  • barfman||

    *barf*

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Reading this makes me want to try heroin.

  • Poul Anderson||

    And how many people today is domestic animals at heart? Wanting somebody else should tell them what to do, and take care of their needfuls, and protect them not just against their fellow men but against themselves? Why has every free human society been so shortlived?

  • ||

    Nick van Rijn.

    One of the great SF characters of all time.

  • ||

    I was confused by the reference. So I put the information into the google and found a new author to read.

  • ||

    When I was 19 (many years ago) I was a defendant for felony vandalism. To make a long story short, the detective (I'm being nice) was scolded by the judge for developing false affidavits from his informers, who where the ones who probably did the vandalism. The jury returned a not guilty verdict in 10 minutes. I had concrete evidence that I was over 50 miles away from the crime and had no connection. How it ever got to trial, no one knows. If I wasn't from a dirt poor family we would have pursued recourse, but we didn't have the means. Which I also believe the cops realized which made it easier for them victimize me. I lost income, attorney fees, distrust from my new employer all because some dicktective found a patsy.

  • ||

    Let me add that I guess I was fortunate to be the victim of a cop that was so bad at lying, and getting his story straight with his "informer" or I would have been sent to prison at 19 and would unlikely to have the successful career I have had.

    FUCK THEM!

  • ||

    1980 Redux. You are a sanctimonious shit. There were over 40,000 new laws inacted in 2009. If you think you haven't broken laws. You are wrong.

  • sarcasmic||

    I assume the judge then charged the detective with perjury and he was sent to prison after being stripped of his pension.
    .
    .
    .
    Haaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha!

  • ||

    They didn't even bother charging the informers with perjury when they admitted, on the stand, they lied in their affidavits he gave to the dicktective.

  • barfman||

    I behave as a citizen should: law-abiding and God-fearing.

    *barf*

  • ChicagoSucks||

    "a citizen should [be] God-fearing."

    All I needed to hear.

  • 0x90||

    What about when I was pulled over and patted down because my name (the officer had looked up my registration, and ignored everything but the name) was similar to that of someone else? Maybe the guy he was looking for was not trying hard enough at not being a criminal, but I honestly thought that I was.

    Or, when the county screwed up their data and it resulted in an officer pulling me over and approaching my vehicle with gun drawn (is that really necessary, even if my license were suspended?), does it mean that I just wasn't trying hard enough at not being a criminal?

    Or, when the same thing happened two weeks later, but this time with four officers? Tell me what I did wrong, because it was not really a pleasant situation.

    Or, as in the anecdote I related further up in the comments, where I was detained over violation of a non-existent law? Was this also due to my not trying hard enough at not being a criminal?

    In nearly twenty years of driving, I have yet to receive a moving violation, but apparently that's insufficient for you. So please tell me how I can do better at not being a criminal, because my current strategy of NOT BEING A CRIMINAL seems not to be working.

  • 1980 Redux||

    Did you go to prison for any of those offenses? If not, then I'd say it's working out just fine for you. If you haven't done anything wrong, or the county made a mistake, then what are you worried about? The only people who want to limit the power of police, are the people who have a vested interest in limiting the power of the police: criminals.

  • 0x90||

    Offenses.

    Disturbing, because you never could've come up with that if you were the troll I'd assumed you were.

  • ||

    The only people who want to limit the power of police, are the people who have a vested interest in limiting the power of the police: crimials.

    or black people in the old segregationist South.

  • ||

    1980 redux must also believe that "the Bill of Rights", which seriously reduces the power of police, was written by and for criminals. As well the 14th that insures due process.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: 1980 Redux,

    So you'd all prefer the alternative, with child molesters, rapists, murderers, and cut-purses roaming the streets?


    Can you spell "False dichotomy"?

  • 0x90||

    No, that was projection.

  • Kristen||

    Baaaaaaalk - oh, wait.

  • ||

    The corruption of America's police officers as the most identifiable group of perjurers in the courts is one more item on that list.

    I wish I could put that quote on a big billboard. You hear that people? If someone is lying in a Court, it is probably a pig.

  • sarcasmic||

    Or a lawyer. Or a judge.

  • ||

    I'm appalled at how lawyers are basically allowed to lie for their clients in court. Strictly speaking, that is totally unethical and should result in sanctions. But it rarely does. Ditto, by the way, letting your client or a witness lie on the stand (when you know in advance he's going to lie, anyway).

  • Jame J. B.||

    How do you ever know that your client was (is) lying. It isn't like tv. Were you there? Did that client omit facts before or add them now?

    I don't lie for my clients. But, I don't work for the other side, the judge, etc. I am honorable and zealously advocate for my clients. If you expect me to be an apologist for my clients - you've got the wrong lawyer.

  • ||

    I will point out that, after his client's execution, Timothy McVeigh's lawyer explained how he had known from the start that McVeigh was guilty. (Indeed, it had been agreed as part of his compensation package that, once his client was dead, the lawyer would be able to tell the full story in book form.)

    I am not sure that the lawyer actually said McVeigh was innocent, but he clearly was aware that his client was guilty during the full time he was defending McVeigh in court.

  • Jame J. B.||

    Um, no. While the trial was going on - his client was accused - the JURY FOUND HIM GUILTY. As the defense lawyer, you are not the judge. You advocate for your client. That is the job. Do we want a system where the defendant's lawyer can turn him in - That would discourage clients from being forthright with their counsel.

  • ||

    The fact that the Canon of Ethics for lawyers demands that a lawyer act in the best interests of his client - to gain him an acquittal or deny compensation to a plaintiff who has wronged him (or contrarily, to seek compensation for torts when his client is the plaintiff) - does not alter the fact that a lawyer may be tacitly lying by defending someone he beleives or even knows to be guilty or making a false claim.

    I would not have it any other way: First: for the simple reason that even the client's own lawyer may be wrong in his belief and Second: To act otherwise is to make the lawyer an agent of the state.

  • ||

    I'm not saying that the lawyer should judge his client, but in many cases, a lawyer does know when his client is lying.

    Look, not allowing clients to lie wouldn't be in the various ethics codes if it were just assumed that it was okay.

  • ||

    Yes, but that's being disingenuous. I'm not saying that you can't let them go ahead with something dubious; I'm talking about letting them lie (or lying for them). It does happen, and frequently. Our system is designed, in practice, to promote deception.

  • Jame J. B.||

    Frequently? How o'wizaard of probability do you know this? News articles or anecdotal evidence? Both are not scientific data.

  • ||

    Seeing it in practice? Don't get defensive. It's one of the reasons I'm in house and no longer in private practice.

  • ||

    The short answer to "Why do Cops Lie?" is, of course, "Because we let them."

  • ||

    They lie because they aren't punished for it. In fact they are rewarded.

    There oughta be an Iron Law. Oh wait!

    You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.

  • ||

    As long as it's an elected gov't, then it represents us, including myself, meaning I'm not a subject.

    Legitimacy requires more than democracy.

    Being a free man and not a subject requires more than periodic elections.

  • ||

    I've never understood this idea that democratic processes make everything okay. We could, in theory, have elections every four years for a total dictator.

  • ||

    If you kiss the ring and bend the knee, you are a subject, no matter what trappings and titles you and your master bear.

  • ||

    It's a disturbing thing when you realize that to some extent, all rulers govern with the consent of the governed.

  • ||

    It is even more disturbing when you realize how most people would rather be ruled than be free. (See the "Poul Anderson" post upthread at 4:10.)

  • ||

    I spend a lot of my time being disturbed.

  • 1980 Redux||

    This whole chain of reasoning is ridiculous. You're telling me there's no difference, none at all, in the quality of life and representativness of gov't, between here and Cuba? Or Libya? You're damned right I'm less of a slave here than I would be in Saudi Arabia, under a monarch. Unlike in Bahrain, I can protest, and not get shot. America is the greatest nation which has ever existed in all of history, but if we continue to turn our face from God, we will continue our decline. The commicrat party will only hasten this day. The only way to save America is to vote GOP, every election, every time. But this place is a lot bigger on rhetoric than actually wanting to restore American greatness, so I wouldn't expect anyone to understand.

  • ||

    It's not that democratic elements within a republic are bad--far from it--but the power of the people needs to be checked as much as any other power when it comes to what those people en masse can do to others.

    A more democratic system has a number of advantages, not least of which is legitimacy.

  • ||

    I believe you have just made my point.

  • ||

    Commie.

  • ||

    Not sure if you are addressing me or 980 Redux, PL, but my 5:25 remark was addressed to the guy who thinks that the party that started the two and a half wars the US is now involved in (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan), pushed the WoD further than ever, created the DHS, initiated the Patriot Act, ran the deficit up to record levels, and introduced TARP is the Party of Freedom.

  • 1980 Redux||

    1) You do not have the right to do drugs. The WoD would be over tomorrow, if stoners and loser hippies would exercise even a shred of self restraint and stop doing drugs.

    2) The wars are fully justified, because of the continuing threat of islamic-fascist terrorism. Unfortunately our open borders policy means they will achieve from within what they could not from without: the establishment of a global caliphate, and imposition of sharia law on Christian Americans. Glen Beck has done excellent work on researching this.

    3) The Patriot Act is necessary because we have always voluntarily surrended some liberty in times of war. We are at war. If the American people did not want to surrender liberties, they could have voted in commiecrats, but they actually went largely in the OTHER direction: to the GOP. This was popular confirmation that it is acceptable to give up liberty during a time of war.

    4) I will actually grant you TARP. I was proud that my congressman voted against it. It was a disgrace.

  • ||

    Just curious, what's it like to walk around in piss soaked pants all day?

  • ||

    980 Redux:
    1) Prohibition doesn't work. And even if it did, you have no right to tell me what I may put in my body.

    2) Since Cato the Elder incited the Third Punic War by constructing an imagined threat from a prostrated Carthage, the "continuing threat" argument has been used to justify unjustifiable wars.

    3) Individual Americans did not 'voluntarily surrender' my liberty - that decision was made for them by their elected representatives. Even if 999 people think liberty should be surrendered, that does not mean they have the right to take it from the thousandth person.

  • ||

    And I might add:

    4) By the majoritarian logic you espouse - that the people can surrender their liberties through the exercise of their franchise - TARP should be perfectly acceptable to you.

  • 1980 Redux||

    "1) Prohibition doesn't work. And even if it did, you have no right to tell me what I may put in my body."

    This is not a debate about effectivness of policy. Perhaps if prison were a less pleasant experience, people would learn their lesson about not committing crimes. Prison rape is a good start, but criminals should be starved & beaten as well. I guarantee you they would think twice before engaging in criminal behavior again. Unfortunately I believe the Constitution prohibits this. Speaking of the Constitution though, you are wrong: the gov't DOES have the right to tell you what you may or may not put in your body, as the judiciary has repeatedly affirmed. I know the main point of libertarianism seems to be doing drugs and bashing brave police officers, but you're just wrong about this.

    "2) Since Cato the Elder incited the Third Punic War by constructing an imagined threat from a prostrated Carthage, the "continuing threat" argument has been used to justify unjustifiable wars."

    Do you deny that 9/11 actually happened? Or that we should not have any response? 9/11 was the work of a world-wide islamist network, and even the muslims who did not directly participate, were glad to see it happen. They must be subjugated to prevent further attacks.

    "3) Individual Americans did not 'voluntarily surrender' my liberty - that decision was made for them by their elected representatives. Even if 999 people think liberty should be surrendered, that does not mean they have the right to take it from the thousandth person."

    Every vote for a Republican was a vote to continue the domestic security apparatus as it stood when Bush left office, so yes they did voluntarily surrender liberty. And yes, if 51% of the people vote to keep things this way, that makes it legitimate and right. If you don't like it, you are free to move to Canada, Hong Kong, or anyplace else which suits your cowardly, druggie-excusing, islamist-supporting ways.

  • ||

    So, if 51% of the voters agree to disenfranchise blacks and make them slaves once more, you're OK with that.

  • ||

    I can't believe you people are feeding the troll.

    capitol l? Pro Lib? Aresen? Really? You guys are some of the more enjoyable people to debate with on here and you've been sucked into this asshole's web of trolling. No way in the world this is legit.

    To 1980 Redux, [slow clap]

  • 1980 Redux||

    Trolling? I'm sorry it's hard for you to accept the truth when you hear it. I will pray for you. At least you seem to like sports, like an actual red-blooded American, unlike most of these limp-wristed "rights" whiners around here.

    And at Aresen above: no, because the Constitution prohibits slavery. If that amendment were repealed, then yes, we could vote slavery back into practice, as it would no longer violate the law. I don't think that would be a good idea, but it would be legal.

  • ||

    Hey, dickface. I'm one of the "rights" whiners (your word) around here, but certainly not limp-wristed.

    You keep using the Constitution to make your points, but I have a feeling that most, if not all, of the founders would punch you in the face if they read your distortions of their writing.

    And yes, I do like sports.

  • ||

    sloopinca:

    I am undecided as to whether 980 Redux is a "I'm gonna say stupid shit to rattle their cage" type troll or a "This is what I believe and I am bringing the good word to the heathens" type troll in the sense of a neo-con version of Chad.

    I am fairly sure it is not sugarfree because SF would not have made the mistake inherent in this comment:

    "If you don't like it, you are free to move to Canada, Hong Kong, or anyplace else which suits your cowardly, druggie-excusing, islamist-supporting ways."

    OTOH, I find it difficult to believe that even someone dumber than Mike Huckabee could have said this without tongue in cheek:

    "It has fallen to us to do just that, though. It is America's God-given mission to spread His word and our way of life to other lands. Ann Coulture was completely correct when she said that the only way to defeat the muslim sharia conspiracy is to kill their leaders, and convert their masses to Christianity.

    Then we can begin that process with the God-less Chinese."

    [Reposting this below since it links to two widely separated comments.]

  • 0x90||

    Pro L, I would rather suggest writing that as all rulers govern in the absence of revolt. This is an equivalent statement, given the way that consent is being (ab)used in the original, i.e. it implies that the absence of non-consent forceful enough to reverse an imposition is equivalent to consenting to that imposition. One may as well state that the rapist rapes with the consent of the raped; the concept of consent is inverted here in exactly the same way.

  • 1980 Redux||

    "...it implies that the absence of non-consent forceful enough to reverse an imposition is equivalent to consenting to that imposition."

    That is correct. If you have the option to leave a country, and choose not to, you are consenting. If you cannot leave, and choose not to commit suicide, you are consenting to continue to live under that rule. I know that is harsh, but it is reality: you could always just end your life in order to withhold consent.

  • 0x90||

    Well at least you're honest with your bald faced might-makes-right ideology.

  • ||

    Ah, see here's where you fucked up, Trolldux:

    First you're all like:

    "It has fallen to us to do just that, though. It is America's God-given mission to spread His word and our way of life to other lands.

    Then you're all like:

    "I know that is harsh, but it is reality: you could always just end your life in order to withhold consent."

    But I thought you were all about Christianity and shit:

    "Ann Coulture was completely correct when she said that the only way to defeat the muslim sharia conspiracy is to kill their leaders, and convert their masses to Christianity.

    See man I read this fuckin' list one time. Number six sez like "Thou shalt not kill"

    Now you're just bein' all retarded.
    Yeah your shits all fucked up and you're talkin like a fag.

  • dfd||

    "A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."

    --Lysander Spooner

  • 1980 Redux||

    Also at Aresen above: sorry, but I don't seem to be able to reply anymore in that thread.

    Anyway, as to your point 4), first off, lack of resistance = consent. I have not bombed anyplace or shot at anyone; I will make my displeasure known at the ballot box. I said I agree TARP was a bad idea...I did not state that it was not the law of the land. Though in fairness, it was passed by a communist-majority congress, and anything those disgusting homosexual and muslim loving dems do could reasonably be construed as to be illegitimate, since that party is actively trying to destroy Christian America and replace it with socialist / communist muslim sharia law.

  • ||

    So, when they pass a Constitutional Amendment allowing the government to take your guns away, will you quietly submit?

  • 0x90||

    He'll vote against it. But he'll vote really hard. Promise.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Though in fairness, it was passed by a communist-majority congress, and anything those disgusting homosexual and muslim loving dems do could..."

    Definitely a troll.

  • ||

    Kind of like when rape advocacy groups, police, and mainstream propaganda in general say "Do NOT resist or struggle", they forgot to add "it makes it easier to dismiss the case in court"

  • Mensan||

    I suspect that 1980 Redux is a spoof. It's a caricature of the left-wingers' version of a typical right-winger.

    Homophobic. Check
    Bible-thumping. Check
    Islamophobic. Check
    Imperialist. Check
    Racist. Check
    Stupid. Check
    Evil. Check
    Authoritarian. Check
    Glenn Beck votary. Check
    Warmongering. Check
    Xenophobic. Check
    Scientifically illiterate. Check.

    I’m sure others could add even more to the list. The point is, while it is possible that a real person might possess all those characteristics, I doubt they would be able to type the semi-coherent (although woefully idiotic) posts that 1980 writes.

  • 1980 Redux||

    "Stupid. Check
    Evil. Check"

    Those items are subjective, are they not? And as for the rest, I wear it with a mark of pride. You're absolutely correct that most people do not share my views these days. That is their problem. When the homosexual, muslim, communist, abortionist agenda finally drags America down, and we're in our darkest hour, perhaps only then will people really begin to wake up, ask God for forgiveness, and begin the task of rebuilding this nation. In that respect, I am honestly torn between WANTING us to fail, in order to hasten this day, but not wishing misery on innocent people.

    The Westboro Baptist Church people get it, though I hear disturbing rumors regarding inter-familial sexual relations, and their choice of targets...brave soliders funerals...is certainly poor. The best organization out there right now for true Christian Patriots, is the John Birch Society. I don't see it mentioned on here really, so I'd urge everyone to really check it out, and give them a fair hearing. They are trying to save America.

  • ||

    Is there a newsletter I could subscribe to, as these are intriguing views.

  • 1980 Redux||

    Fortunately enough, there is. Please visit www.jbs.org, and I hope you find the answers you are seeking.

  • ||

    I fucking knew it was a troll. You can come out now, SugarFree. Well played, but your link-fail gave you away.

  • 1980 Redux||

    I'm sorry, I copied and pasted that link directly, so I don't know why it didn't work. Still, you can read it, so just type it in your browser. This is the one organization that is truly trying to save America for Americans.

    I'm honestly astonished at how much everyone thinks it's being a "troll" just to have different opinions than what the majority of people here express. So much for free discourse.

  • 0x90||

    I can assure you, it is not because of your opinions that you are being called that here; it's because you bear such an uncanny resemblance to what would otherwise be a caricature of yourself.

    In other words, you're not what you purport to be, and are just here to jerk everyone's chain. But I should only need to explain this to you in the event that you're not actually doing that.

    Personally, I tend to think you're for real, but who knows, there are some pretty witty people about.

  • 1980 Redux||

    0x90 -

    I appreciate the explanation, but sometimes, as Freud said, a cigar is just a cigar. I don't think there's anything "extreme" in the way I think. I consider myself, by and large, a main-stream Republican.

    1) I stand against equality of homosexual relationships.

    2) I belive muslims seek to subvert our lands and impose sharia law.

    3) I support America's military, and our mission around the globe, and believe we should increase funding for it.

    4) I believe in strict law-and-order.

    5) I oppose abortion.

    6) I believe in Biblical truth.

    7) I despise welfare, and the people who receive it.

    Are any of those items not part of the Republican mainstream, as expressed by such individuals as Sean Hannity, Ann Coulture, and Glen Beck? Those individuals are not "extreme", and all I'm doing is offering a more forceful affirmation of their views.

  • ||

    The point of calling you a troll isn't meant to limit discourse. It's more astonishment that one person could actually fit every neo-socon stereotype so well without purposely doing it.

    This place loves free discourse. That's what we're doing here. Notice none of your (or anyone else's posts) are being deleted by a moderator? Hell, I could even question whether or not you are a sheep-fucker on here and it would not be pulled. I mean, the fact that there is no definitive proof as to whether or not you fuck sheep could be discussed for hours without moderation. Try that on HuffPo (lefty) or FoxNews (righty). Any mention as to your potential sheep-fucking would immediately be pulled, whether true of false...depending on your "team."

  • 1980 Redux||

    Which is precisely why I chose to start trying to spread the message here. People here seem to be intelligent, and there is no artificial moderation. I do appreciate that.

  • ||

    "spread the message"

    Yes, hate your fellow man for minute differences in opinion and lifestyle while also embracing every contradictory facet of christianity at the same time.

    Love the message.

  • ||

    If you take out the moral dictates, their mission statement is pretty libertarian.

    *I am a practicing Christian and have a pretty strong faith. That said, I don't believe it's up to me to tell others how to live unless it infringes on another's liberty. The problem with groups like the JBS is that they want to export freedom down the barrel of a gun.

  • 1980 Redux||

    It has fallen to us to do just that, though. It is America's God-given mission to spread His word and our way of life to other lands. Ann Coulture was completely correct when she said that the only way to defeat the muslim sharia conspiracy is to kill their leaders, and convert their masses to Christianity.

    Then we can begin that process with the God-less Chinese.

  • ||

    Do you have a link to that Ann Coulter (did I at least get the spelling right?) quote because I find it hard top believe that even she'd go so far as that.

  • 1980 Redux||

    I hope this link works. Not only did she state it, she later defended it. Brave woman.

    http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/anncoulter.php

  • Mensan||

    She did write that 10 years ago immediately after 9/11.

    http://townhall.com/columnists.....his_is_war

  • ||

    sloopinca:

    I am undecided as to whether 980 Redux is a "I'm gonna say stupid shit to rattle their cage" type troll or a "This is what I believe and I am bringing the good word to the heathens" type troll in the sense of a neo-con version of Chad.

    I am fairly sure it is not sugarfree because SF would not have made the mistake inherent in this comment:

    "If you don't like it, you are free to move to Canada, Hong Kong, or anyplace else which suits your cowardly, druggie-excusing, islamist-supporting ways."

    OTOH, I find it difficult to believe that even someone dumber than Mike Huckabee could have said this without tongue in cheek:

    "It has fallen to us to do just that, though. It is America's God-given mission to spread His word and our way of life to other lands. Ann Coulture was completely correct when she said that the only way to defeat the muslim sharia conspiracy is to kill their leaders, and convert their masses to Christianity.

    Then we can begin that process with the God-less Chinese."

    [Reposted from above as it links to two widely separated comments.]

  • 1980 Redux||

    The Chinese part was my little attempt at humor. Much as I'd like to, I don't see us being able to do anything about the chi-coms in the near future.

    But otherwise, these are my beliefs, and frankly I'm a little miffed that everyone seems to think it's such a joke.

  • Rock Action||

    Wow. This is a heck of a thread to read -- for me, anyway. And with that said and accomplishing nothing, I'm out.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement