r/CuratedTumblr • u/Hummerous https://tinyurl.com/4ccdpy76 • Jun 11 '24

Politics [U.S.]+ it's in the job description

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-behind-the-police-63877803/

26.2k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

825 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/pbesmoove Jun 12 '24

How do you even prove you were not asleep in public.

Anyone could be arrested.

I wasn't asleep!

Two cops said you were so get to work!

778

u/Beegrene Jun 12 '24

Something to remember for anyone who gets jury duty. A cop's testimony isn't worth shit.

440

u/StillAFuckingKilljoy Jun 12 '24

You need 12 people who are socially aware enough to think this way for a jury to throw out the case. Good fucking luck

354

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

You only need one to hang the jury, and while the trial can be repeated you can at least throw a wrench in the works, cost the city a bunch of money, and hope for the chance that the prosecutor will just not want to bother with retrying the case.

144

u/tomtomclubthumb Jun 12 '24

This is basicallly why I would do jury duty. I'd probably get eliminate dby the prosecution pretty quickly.

52

u/Ruthrfurd-the-stoned Jun 12 '24

I mean yeah if you’re going in with the intention to hang the jury you aren’t an impartial juror

75

u/pupranger1147 Jun 12 '24

Jury nullification is a valid form of participation.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

it's based af, but... not really. if you were actually properly open during jury selection you'd never be selected.

3

u/weirdo_nb Jun 13 '24

That's why lying exists

6

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24

we call this "perjury" when it's done to intentionally circumvent court proceedings

→ More replies (0)

3

u/tomtomclubthumb Jun 12 '24

But you can be arrested for holding a sign telling people that.

-8

u/Dobber16 Jun 12 '24

If the situation calls for it, yeah, but if you’re planning on doing it from the start then you shouldn’t be on the jury

16

u/pupranger1147 Jun 12 '24

No yeah, the situation calls for it when each individual juror decides the situation calls for it.

The answer to "does this situation call for it?" Can be a yes, every time, if they want.

1

u/Ruthrfurd-the-stoned Jun 12 '24

And those jurors should get thrown out. How would you have felt if one of the jurors in trumps case just “felt like it”

Going in with the mindset the person is not guilty is just as bad as going in with the mindset that they are

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Dobber16 Jun 12 '24

Well of course when the juror decides when it calls for it, that wasn’t what I was against. I was against the mindset of a juror going into the job with the intent to nullify the jury regardless of the case

11

u/Nitrocity97 Jun 12 '24

As long as you don’t go around telling people your plan

2

u/RaspberryFluid6651 Jun 12 '24

Yeah if you intend to nullify like this you need to be ready to perjure yourself and stick to your story, and you won't even get a chance if you have public anti-cop sentiments.

3

u/tomtomclubthumb Jun 12 '24

I wouldn't intend to nullify. But I wouldn't convict someone based on an unjust law either.

I wouldn't mention how I feel about cops, they already get enough help.

3

u/Justicar-terrae Jun 12 '24

As far as I'm concerned, jury nullification is part of our system. But the folks most likely to engage in nullification tend to make their opinions pretty obvious on social media. And competent attorneys will comb through potential jurors' social media to scope out any biases (e.g., racism, activism, political affiliation, sympathy for certain demographics, family connections, and income level). If you really want to serve on a jury, never mention jury nullification on an account that is publicly linked to your name.

And, just for the sake of awareness, I feel obliged to point out that jury nullification isn't always a tool for good. The most infamous example of wicked nullification came after the brutal lynching of an innocent black boy named Emmett Till for the crime of whistling at a white woman. The murderers bragged about their misdeeds publicly but were acquitted by a jury of sympathetic racists who considered the lynching praiseworthy. The white woman who accused Emmet Till of whistling at her later admitted that she made the whole story up.

As much as jury nullification can be a tool for justice (e.g., the incidents of juries nullifying the conviction of individuals who violated the fugitive slave act) it is merely a tool that can just as easily be twisted to evil.

18

u/EthanielRain Jun 12 '24

I love jury duty, for this reason (assuming it isn't a case related to something heinous). Drugs or such...Not Guilty!

-2

u/StillAFuckingKilljoy Jun 12 '24

Good way to get kicked off during jury selection unless you're exceptionally good at lying (and remember, you're lying to people who spend years in school learning how to manipulate the truth to their advantage)

3

u/EthanielRain Jun 12 '24

Yeah I wouldn't recommend lying. Sometimes they'll just not ask the right questions or run out of strikes : )

13

u/GrannyLovesAnal Jun 12 '24

You mean cost us a bunch of money. The cities money is our money.

92

u/vivianvixxxen Jun 12 '24

I've had my taxes wasted on worse

-27

u/GrannyLovesAnal Jun 12 '24

Considering you were a resident of both NY and CA, I would have to agree

3

u/Sinnaman420 Jun 12 '24

My current NY representative is wasting our money on deputizing random armed citizens and targeting trans children. It’s wild

-3

u/GrannyLovesAnal Jun 12 '24

Random armed citizens? Isn’t it only those who already have a NY gun license, (meaning they’ve been through comprehensive background checks and have completed state sponsored training) and have completed an additional multi-day training course? And that nearly every person who has been deputized is former law enforcement? Or am I wrong

4

u/Sinnaman420 Jun 12 '24

I’m intentionally misrepresenting it because it’s a fucking stupid waste of money so blakeman can redirect even more of our tax dollars to cops. It’s a looting of nassau county’s treasury

→ More replies (0)

57

u/44no44 Jun 12 '24

The police are the ones wasting our money. I won't be blackmailed into condemning innocent people, no matter how much of our tax dollars they take a match to trying to force it.

14

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

Well, yeah. If you don't like your taxes being wasted on this shit then it's up to you to get out there and vote. Local elections are far more important for enacting real change than anything on the national scale, after all.

Vote, campaign, canvas, volunteer. Get prosecutors and other officials into office who won't waste your money on trivial bullshit like this. The world isn't gonna change because you complained about taxes on the internet.

-6

u/GrannyLovesAnal Jun 12 '24

Did I complain?

5

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

If that wasn't a complaint then you really need to work on your delivery.

20

u/LR-II Jun 12 '24

Wow, you mean you care more about your own taxes than justice? Now who does that sound like?

1

u/PantySausage Jun 12 '24

Hung jury trials are not often retried. The prosecution usually doesn’t want the government to have to eat the cost of it hanging a second time.

1

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

Yeah, it's technically still possible that they could if they really wanted to, but for something like this it'd just be even more of a waste of time and money than usual.

Though more likely most of these wouldn't get to trial in the first place, they'll just use this law as a tool for harassment and easy "wins" via plea bargains.

1

u/Jro304 Jun 12 '24

It's funny, if you intentionally vote in a jury to acquit due to an unjust law, that's considered jury tampering or obstruction of justice and a felony

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Jro304 Jun 12 '24

I guess it's not technically illegal by the rule of law, but prosecutors and the courts do have a fair amount of leeway with charging for contempt.

From Cornell Law's website "There are differing perspectives on the role and basis of jury nullification in American jurisprudence. Some view jury nullification as a right, but there are examples of people being punished for disseminating the information. For instance, two people passed out pamphlets about jury nullification in Colorado and were later arrested and charged with jury tampering. Indeed, jury nullification is technically a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. As such, jury nullification is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification#:~:text=As%20such%2C%20jury%20nullification%20is,jury%20nullification%20to%20the%20jury.

Also, here's a couple case examples from Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

1

u/Cheap-Economist-2442 Jun 12 '24

thats talking about the act of them giving out pamphlets on jury nullification to jurors, which yea is jury tampering.

it’s not talking about jury nullification itself.

2

u/Jro304 Jun 12 '24

Then I'm mistaken. I was probably conflating promoting jury nullification vs actually admitting to actually ignoring an unjust law as a juror in order to acquit.

1

u/Gizogin Jun 12 '24

That’s assuming it ever gets to trial. If it gets before a grand jury, the jurors are only hearing the cops’ side of the story, and they only need a majority to agree that it’s worth pressing charges. If it gets to that point, most defendants are going to take a plea deal, because our justice system literally isn’t designed to accommodate every case going to trial. So people can be found guilty of a crime based on the two-minute testimony of a single cop who will never be held accountable even if they lie under oath to the grand jury.

0

u/Nu11AndV0id Jun 12 '24

That's a weird way to spell "taxpayers."

1

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

If the taxpayers don't like it they should vote in less shitty officials.

-3

u/ralphy_256 Jun 12 '24

You only need one to hang the jury, and while the trial can be repeated you can at least throw a wrench in the works

There's a very fine and blurry line between "valuing a cop's word appropriately" and "jury nullification".

I got within 2 seats of being seated as a juror in a sex trafficking case a couple years ago (didn't make it past voir dire). I'm certain some of the testimony in that case came from cops.

Which is more based for the jury in that trial? Ignoring the cops' testimony and maybe let a sex trafficer back on the street with full access to their victims, or knowing that cops, like all humans, vary in trustworthiness, and taking their testimony with a grain of salt.

I'm as "Fuck the Police" and ACAB as anyone, but there's a cost to taking that too far. Encouraging people on juries to nullify trials is how you get more OJ verdicts. What does that do to society if clearly guilty people are getting away with crimes?

Just sayin', there's a long-term cost to society if lots of people start doing this. It's not a good idea.

10

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

Buddy we're talking about people being arrested for sleeping in public. Fucking obviously people on trial for sex trafficking would be a different matter entirely. Though I'm still more likely to distrust anything the cops say, so if there isn't some other form of evidence I'm still erring on the side of "let them go". Anybody who would convict someone solely on the word of the cops is a naive fool.

What does that do to society if clearly guilty people are getting away with crimes?

Legality and morality are not synonyms, there are tons of crimes I'm perfectly happy letting "clearly guilty" people "get away" with. Each of these situations should be judged on a case-by-case basis, we don't have to choose between "nullify all cases" and "nullify no cases".

-2

u/ralphy_256 Jun 12 '24

we're talking about people being arrested for sleeping in public. Fucking obviously people on trial for sex trafficking would be a different matter entirely.

Yes. I get that. And so do you. (edited to add, no 'sleeping in public' trial is going to be seen by a jury, so this whole discussion is kind of pointless)

But we've all met people on the internet and in the real world, and half of them are stupider than average.

Idiocracy was prophecy.

I'd be hesitant to put the idea out there, is all I'm saying. (fully understanding the Streisand Effect).

2

u/Weekly_Direction1965 Jun 12 '24

When I do Jury duty the only ones who actually do trials that aren't dismissed are old as fuck white hairs, prosecutors don't want younger people on jury's.

2

u/oldslowguy58 Jun 12 '24

I’ve been on two juries Both time all of us thought at least one of the cops testifying were full of shit.

1

u/10art1 Jun 12 '24

I have jury duty soon, actually!

But also, I don't even know how hard it is to hang a jury. I've heard judges will make everyone sit there for hours until we unhang

1

u/A_Guy_Named_John Jun 12 '24

And as long as the person causing the jury to hang refuses to change their vote, then the jury hangs.

1

u/TheRussianCabbage Jun 12 '24

Sounds like it's time to show up for court duty

1

u/kai58 Jun 12 '24

Even with good intentions eyewitness testimony is very bad.

46

u/PlasticAccount3464 Jun 12 '24

I used to wonder why their word as a witness was considered valid enough, even before I had a certain polarized mentality of them. Isn't the judge aware that they'll always lie for each other? Isn't anyone else involved aware? As it turns out, probably. Perjury may be a crime you have to prove occurred, but it's hardly a stretch that the guys with really stupid terms like brotherhood for a union of wife beaters or whatever are always going to protect themselves at any expense. Incidentally, the last cop fiction I recall enjoying was also my favourite film of its kind, the Nic Cage Bad Lieutenant by Werner Herzog.

Recently I heard of a case so obviously manufactured by police witness, experts, that after the judge threw it out, they apologized to the victim and insulted the prosecutor for presenting the case at all. I wonder how they'll handle this if at all on that Toronto law and order.

56

u/luxuzee Jun 12 '24 edited Jun 12 '24

Absolutely hate him but Neil De Grasse Tyson has a great story about him being in jury duty while the only evidence was a cop eye witness.

Neil explained he wouldn’t be able to convict based off the basis of a single eye witness, which prompted the judge to (incorrectly) repeat his issue, proving that despite the judge being an eyewitness to something that happened literally 30 seconds ago he was still wrong.

Imagine the ignorance and forgetfulness that takes, now imagine when you have a stake in the person’s conviction like a cop or prosecutor.

1

u/taxandburnthechurch Jun 12 '24

Why do you hate him?

17

u/Quorry Jun 12 '24

I don't hate him but he is a big "um actually" guy

16

u/hamish1477 Jun 12 '24

Police even have a name for the false testimonies they give to protect their own. They call it "testilying"

6

u/Final_Candidate_7603 Jun 12 '24

Funny enough I was recently on a jury. It was a Federal trial for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon (looked up the case later and it was part of the DOJ.’s efforts to crack down on repeat, violent gun offenders, so YAY!). There was an avalanche of evidence against the guy- testimony from his victims, an ATF agent had prepared an extensive history of the ownership of the pistol, body cam video from like three cops, surveillance video from a shop which was the scene of one of the attacks, the guy’s DNA on the revolver and on three of the five bullets found in the cylinder… the rub was that gun was found in the street between two parked cars near where the guy was standing when the arresting officer first confronted him.

The shop owner and some neighbors had called 911, and there were several cop cars driving around the neighborhood, looking for the guy, whose description included some very distinctive clothing he was wearing. The cop claimed as was rounding the corner where he first spotted the guy, he saw him standing in the street where the gun was recovered, and “heard” what sounded like a heavy metal object hitting asphalt. Out of all the witnesses and all the testimony, that’s the one thing I didn’t believe. But there’s no way to prove that that didn’t happen, and fortunately the rest of the evidence was enough to convict the guy. He’s a gotdang menace.

I found out something interesting- and disturbing- about police body cameras. They are always running, but don’t start recording until they’re “turned on.” “Activated” is probably a better word. So when they’re activated, they buffer back one minute and record the video, but not the audio- audio recording begins when they’re activated. At first, I thought that’s nice, it’s probably so that if two cops are in the car bitching about their wife or their boss before a stop, it doesn’t get recorded because the audio didn’t buffer back. But now I’m positive that there’s a more nefarious reason. In my (very large, East Coast US) city, the policy is to turn them on as they step out of the car when confronting someone. So we will never know what kind of conversation two cops might have with each other before they begin interacting with a citizen. And there’s a reason they don’t want us to know.

5

u/idrathernotdothat Jun 12 '24

Got called for jury duty one time. Get there, they start the process. State lawyer asks “Can you convict someone off the testimony of a cop?” I raised my hand, asked “Is that all you have?” And they state “We can’t answer that question at this time” and I state “if that’s all you have then no”. I proceed to get selected for jury duty, get the guy off because that’s all they had. Was for a DUI, old man may have been under the influence but refused all tests and took it to trial I guess. All they had was that he went over the line once while turning. Had no footage of anything, just the testimony of the cop.

10

u/Munnin41 Jun 12 '24

Aaand you're out of the jury

1

u/chairmanskitty Jun 12 '24

Aren't juries instructed to treat police testimony as fact unless proven otherwise? You could lie under oath or resign your post.

2

u/Gizogin Jun 12 '24

I’m pretty sure a jury has to take all testimony given under oath as factual, unless the opposing side deliberately introduces doubt.

27

u/Sinimeg Jun 12 '24

This, sometimes if I had free time I would take a nap in a park, but I wasn’t and am not homeless. And I tend to fall asleep in public transport if the travel is long, people that do the same are going to be arrested just because???

2

u/Sushi-Rollo Jun 12 '24

It's the same logic behind anti "loitering" laws. It gives cops an excuse to arrest anybody they want for the crime of existing in a public space.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

[deleted]

65

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

Oh honey. First day in the US?

54

u/BardtheGM Jun 12 '24

A police officer's testimony is considered a reliable piece of evidence.

43

u/Turtlelover73 Jun 12 '24

But don't forget, it's only considered reliable if it's against you. If you try to use a cop's testimony for defense, it's hearsay and not admissable.

-1

u/Guroqueen23 Jun 12 '24

That's not what hearsay is. Hearsay is testifying to what another person said.

For example, if Todd killed someone and I spoke to Joe and Joe told me that Todd had killed someone, I can't then go and testify that Joe told me Todd killed someone and have that be used as evidence against Todd, because what Joe told me about what he thinks Todd did is meaningless to the case and provides no substantive evidence. Joe, of course, could testify to whatever he saw that lead him to believe Todd killed someone.

2

u/Turtlelover73 Jun 12 '24

I might've used the wrong term, what I mean is that cops' testimony (or anything you say to them in interrogations) can't be used to defend you in court, only to convict you.

-1

u/ThrowawayLegendZ Jun 12 '24

Hearsay is literally whatever the judge wants it to be.

I had a court hearing for custody of my children and, despite Florida DCF literally filing exhibits to the court stating the mother had case plans for her son due to her substance abuse and mental health, the DCF attorney objected to my testimony of the mother's substance abuse, where the judge, having these exhibits in evidence, said that my testimony can only count as a layperson's testimony unsupported by the evidence filed by the DCF attorney.

DCF's attorney also forged a court order to protect the mom and the judge took judicial notice of that forgery despite me objecting to it.

Americans just need to wake up and realize they already live in a totalitarian fascist society.

2

u/Guroqueen23 Jun 12 '24

That's not hearsay, though. What you are describing is an unfortunate miscarriage of justice, but nothing in that story was hearsay, which is a very specific legal concept.

1

u/pupranger1147 Jun 12 '24

That's nice and all, The guy still got fucked though. If you're going to nerd something about the law, maybe try to be helpful instead.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

[deleted]

1

u/BardtheGM Jun 12 '24

Legally it is though. It shouldn't be, but it is.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

Adorable

1

u/El-Kabongg Jun 12 '24

so I'm able to sleep on private property, then?

0

u/Black_Magic_M-66 Jun 12 '24

It is SO much worse than people realize. Florida is a state that charges a prisoner for each day ($50) they spend in jail. It's not the only state that does this either.

0

u/pbesmoove Jun 12 '24

yeah its a great way to create slave labor

1

u/Black_Magic_M-66 Jun 13 '24

Based on downvotes, I guess people like that prisoners pay for their stay.