Man Gets Tazed and Beaten by Cops.......

[Juan_Bottom]

If I say that "it doesn't happen" will you give us juicy gossip?

[thegreekdog]

is unAmerican, then sign me up. I answer to a higher authority than the laws of this land. Not that it is (at this time) in contradiction with it. "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor" that includes misleading statements, twisting the truth, and lying to "get your guy" or "get him off". And don't you dare say that it doesn't happen.

I won't say it doesn't happen, but it shouldn't happen. Did OJ's attorneys lie? Did they twist the truth or make misleading statements? I certainly don't think so.

And, as I've indicated before, the profession of attorney does not encourage or reward lying; in fact, it's severely punished. It sucks when one's entire opinion of attorneys is based upon television and movies.

[Juan_Bottom]

My opinion is based on going through court.
And watching others going to court.
And all those lawyers lied the whole time.

[thegreekdog]

My opinion is based on going through court.
And watching others going to court.
And all those lawyers lied the whole time.

My opinion is also based on going to court, and being a lawyer, and knowing and working with other lawyers.
How did you know they were lying? Is it because they spoke? (You know... the joke... how did the judge know the lawyer lied? He opened his mouth.)

[Snorri1234]

Did anyone read that story a little while back where a man serving life in prison was released after serving 20 some years? Turns out another person confessed the crime in detail to their own lawyers (2) years before. But then asked the lawyers not to tell. They couldn't talk about it because of client-lawyer confidentiality and had to wait until he died.
WTF? Ethics is a funny thing I guess. A lot of grey area.

Not a gray area per se. There is a rule that you can betray the confidences of a client to prevent imminent danger (I'm not sure of the exact rule). In any event, I believe those attorneys should be convicted of abetting criminal activity after the fact (or some such crime) and should go to jail.

I don't know if that's possible though. You can't send a lawyer to jail for keeping secrets. They weren't helping the criminal.

I mean, you can't sentence a doctor to jail for not telling the spouse of an HIV-patient that the patient has HIV. Confidentiality is tremendously important and even if it sometimes leads to shitty things not having it would be even worse.

[Snorri1234]

My opinion is based on going through court.
And watching others going to court.
And all those lawyers lied the whole time.

My opinion is also based on going to court, and being a lawyer, and knowing and working with other lawyers.
How did you know they were lying? Is it because they spoke? (You know... the joke... how did the judge know the lawyer lied? He opened his mouth.)

More importantly, what do you mean by lying?

[jay_a2j]

is unAmerican, then sign me up. I answer to a higher authority than the laws of this land. Not that it is (at this time) in contradiction with it. "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor" that includes misleading statements, twisting the truth, and lying to "get your guy" or "get him off". And don't you dare say that it doesn't happen.

I won't say it doesn't happen, but it shouldn't happen. Did OJ's attorneys lie? Did they twist the truth or make misleading statements? I certainly don't think so.

And, as I've indicated before, the profession of attorney does not encourage or reward lying; in fact, it's severely punished. It sucks when one's entire opinion of attorneys is based upon television and movies.

Give me a leather glove that fits my hand and I can put my hand in it and extend my fingers so that "it doesn't fit". Not to mention all the evidence that was WITHHELD from the trial. (Nicole's blood found in the white Bronco for starters)


Lying is prohibited in Corrections as well. You can be severely punished for lying on a ticket that you wright on an inmate, yet it happens MORE times than it doesn't. The problem arises when you have to PROVE that a false statement was made and as a rule, they take the officers word over the inmates. I have been told by my suppieriors to LIE on reports. I refuse, but most don't. Corruption is rampant in all aspects of criminal justice including prosecuting and defense attorneys.

[thegreekdog]

Give me a leather glove that fits my hand and I can put my hand in it and extend my fingers so that "it doesn't fit". Not to mention all the evidence that was WITHHELD from the trial. (Nicole's blood found in the white Bronco for starters)

I'm confused. So, the prosecuting attorneys and the defense team conspired to get OJ acquitted?

Lying is prohibited in Corrections as well. You can be severely punished for lying on a ticket that you wright on an inmate, yet it happens MORE times than it doesn't. The problem arises when you have to PROVE that a false statement was made and as a rule, they take the officers word over the inmates. I have been told by my suppieriors to LIE on reports. I refuse, but most don't. Corruption is rampant in all aspects of criminal justice including prosecuting and defense attorneys.

So, is it okay for me to say that all corrections officers and police are corrupt and liars? Alternatively, can I say that, generally speaking, corrections officers and police are, for the most part, corrupt and liars? Is that the perception of police?

[jay_a2j]

Give me a leather glove that fits my hand and I can put my hand in it and extend my fingers so that "it doesn't fit". Not to mention all the evidence that was WITHHELD from the trial. (Nicole's blood found in the white Bronco for starters)

I'm confused. So, the prosecuting attorneys and the defense team conspired to get OJ acquitted?

Lying is prohibited in Corrections as well. You can be severely punished for lying on a ticket that you wright on an inmate, yet it happens MORE times than it doesn't. The problem arises when you have to PROVE that a false statement was made and as a rule, they take the officers word over the inmates. I have been told by my suppieriors to LIE on reports. I refuse, but most don't. Corruption is rampant in all aspects of criminal justice including prosecuting and defense attorneys.

So, is it okay for me to say that all corrections officers and police are corrupt and liars? Alternatively, can I say that, generally speaking, corrections officers and police are, for the most part, corrupt and liars? Is that the perception of police?

No, I'm saying Johnie Cockran did what was necessary to get OJ off, even if it included misleading statements about gloves not fitting or getting certain evidence taken out of trial.

Say what you like. Let me just say I don't trust cops nor my co-workers.

[Snorri1234]

No, I'm saying Johnie Cockran did what was necessary to get OJ off, even if it included misleading statements about gloves not fitting or getting certain evidence taken out of trial.

He did what was possible to get OJ off. Had the evidence been enough and obtained in a legal manner, he couldn't have gotten it away. What should Cochrane have done? Say "Yeah, Simpson is totally fucking guilty and you should convict him"? You don't see the problems with a system that works like that?

[thegreekdog]

No, I'm saying Johnie Cockran did what was necessary to get OJ off, even if it included misleading statements about gloves not fitting or getting certain evidence taken out of trial.

He did what was possible to get OJ off. Had the evidence been enough and obtained in a legal manner, he couldn't have gotten it away. What should Cochrane have done? Say "Yeah, Simpson is totally fucking guilty and you should convict him"? You don't see the problems with a system that works like that?

My thoughts on the OJ trial (and a host of other trials) is that it is the jury or the judge that is the problem, not the lawyer. The lawyer is supposed to act in the best interest of his or her client. The jury and the judge can choose to believe or disbelieve the evidence offered by both sides. So, if you have a problem with OJ acquittal, blame the people on the jury. If you have a problem with the $200 million asbestos litigation settlement, blame the people on the jury.

[jay_a2j]

No, I'm saying Johnie Cockran did what was necessary to get OJ off, even if it included misleading statements about gloves not fitting or getting certain evidence taken out of trial.

He did what was possible to get OJ off. Had the evidence been enough and obtained in a legal manner, he couldn't have gotten it away. What should Cochrane have done? Say "Yeah, Simpson is totally fucking guilty and you should convict him"? You don't see the problems with a system that works like that?

My thoughts on the OJ trial (and a host of other trials) is that it is the jury or the judge that is the problem, not the lawyer. The lawyer is supposed to act in the best interest of his or her client. The jury and the judge can choose to believe or disbelieve the evidence offered by both sides. So, if you have a problem with OJ acquittal, blame the people on the jury. If you have a problem with the $200 million asbestos litigation settlement, blame the people on the jury.

Oh, I do. The lawyers however, are not blameless.

[thegreekdog]

Oh, I do. The lawyers however, are not blameless.

Lawyers are a group are blameless. I don't like broad generalizations so I criticize on a case by case basis.

[jay_a2j]

Oh, I do. The lawyers however, are not blameless.

Lawyers are a group are blameless. I don't like broad generalizations so I criticize on a case by case basis.

Keeping it real here..... All cops aren't "bad", all lawyers aren't "bad" but the majority are. But it is not only limited to this field, the same could be said in GOVERNMENT, business, medical etc. Corruption has found its way into all area's of life.

[thegreekdog]

I have to disagree on the majority of lawyers being bad for the reasons I've already stated. A couple of bad apples (plus bad TV shows, bad press, and bad movies) sours the whole tree.

[Juan_Bottom]

How did you know they were lying?

More importantly, what do you mean by lying?

To explain:
I was on trial for felony hit and run. I hit a bicyclist with the passanger mirror of a brand-new (to me) full sized van. It had no plates or insurance and I was driving it home. I hit this guy and never even saw him. I instinctivly (I suppose?) thought that I had hit a road sign because of where I was. I never saw the guy, and I never stopped because I didnt have plates or insurance. I looked to see what I hit in my rear-view, but all I saw was a sign. There were some cars behind me, and they keep going too, so I just went home. When the police showed up I cooperated and told them what happened. But it still took weeks before I was arrested or even charged with anything. When I got my charges, I was facing 30 years in prison. It took 2 years in court before the state's attorney was even willing to listen to an arguement for not giving me 30 years. It turns out that the prosecuter was best friends with the victim though...
Here is a list of lies during my pre-trails and sentencing though:

My lawyer told me to lie! He said next time I get in trouble to just keep my mouth shut. If I had, I wouldn't have ever been arrested or charged. Or that if I just said "not it" I would have been good too.

The State's Attorney argued in court that intentionally hit the guy. WTF?

The State's Attorney told the victim and his family that the trial was taking so long because I was not cooperating with police and was still proclaiming my innocence (the dude's wife seriously got before the court at my sentancing 3 years later crying and asking me to just tell the truth and stop lying. I was flabbergasted. I was in trouble because I did tell the truth!!! The police didn't have anything on me, I went to them!).

The State's Attorney told the victim's family that since they couldn't sue me, he would stall as long as he could to drain me of all my money from court costs and lawyer fees. (not a lie-but still dishonest)

My lawyer told me there was nothing he could do about that, after he had overheard it too.

The State's Attorny accused me of being high or drunk that day. It is now a condition of my prohibation that I cannot drink alcohol. How is it a lie? I was driving home from work... & I've also never taken a drug in my life. I don't even drink alcohol. Never have. The detectives even explained to the State's Attorny that there was no way that I was drunk. I'd never been in any kind of trouble before.

The State's Attorney explained at my sentancing how it was the person in the car right behind me that stopped and called the police. And that there was no other person on the road that day. That driver had said that I swerved violently and she then saw a body go flying over my van into the ditch. How is that A lie? The State's Attorney had testimony from 2 other drivers saying that I never swerved, that I never drove over 50, and that I only hit the man with the mirror or side of the van. None of these people were ever seen in the courtroom. He just picked the one that best went with his scenario and tossed out the two witnesses who actually agreed on what they saw. That lady wasn't even close behind me. She had to be at least three cars back. I know that because I never saw her stop!

The State's Attorny said the road was not busy that day. Even though he knew there were at least three cars behind me, and however many in front.

The State's Attorny said I was "probably speeding."

The big one now! The State's Attorney showed us photos that he was going to use in the trial. It was the first details I had ever even scene, and there were maybe 50. At the sentancing a few months later however, he had switched a couple!!! I don't think he expected anyone to remember.
The most important photo I saw was of the victim lying in a ditch. He was lying about a foot away from his bicycle. A paramedic was standing with one foot on the bike and was checking the victims head.
BUT! The photo used as evidence showed the bike laying on the side of the road instead. The only witness to be called, a sheriff's deputy, claimed that was the scene when he arrived. And that he was the first person to arrive. He said that the bike was on the road when he got there. WTF?
So to get the story straight, according to the State's Attorney and Sheriff's office the paramedics must have brought the bycicle down into the ditch so they could stand on it while they checked his neck? Whatever. By this time I had expected trickery and lies form the Prosecuter... but from A deputy?

Don't get me wrong, I did the crime. I confessed and everything. It was an complete accident and I do feel guilty. I tried to set it right as best I could. But now the point is that my lawyer and the prosecuter were liars. The State's Attorney lied like hell!



And no, I wont go into the other times I've sat in in a trial. Two were for divorce, one was for a high school fight, and one for reckless driving; but they aren't my stories to share.

[Snorri1234]

I have to disagree on the majority of lawyers being bad for the reasons I've already stated. A couple of bad apples (plus bad TV shows, bad press, and bad movies) sours the whole tree.

Oh hell yes. This is especially the case with lawyers as there have been so many shows and movies about them. And while some of them were positive towards lawyers (or neutral or a case of evil vs good lawyer), psychological research shows that people are more influenced by negative portrets than positive ones.

This is most obvious in the press. You hear about ambulance-chasers and crooked lawyers but you never hear about the lawyers who just do their job and convict criminals or protect innocents.

This does not say anything about whether the majority of lawyers aren't crooked, immoral bastards, but it does show why people think that way.

Keeping it real here..... All cops aren't "bad", all lawyers aren't "bad" but the majority are. But it is not only limited to this field, the same could be said in GOVERNMENT, business, medical etc. Corruption has found its way into all area's of life.

That's rather pessimistic.

Besides, one could argue that it has always been that way.

[Juan_Bottom]

All lawyers I can think of on TV are showed positively!???!

I can't htink of any movies where laywers are shown to be shady? Maybe the Godfather.... or My Cousin Vinnie?

[thegreekdog]

Wow... horrible story.

A few things:
(1) Your attorney told you to keep your mouth shut. He was informing you of your right not to self-incriminate. I'm not sure that's lying, but if it is, the Constitution sure permits it.
(2) The state attorney should be disbarred. And your attorney (or you) can initiate a disbarment action against the state attorney. It's pretty simple (in Pennsylvania anyway). You would write a letter to the state bar and they would contact you. At the very least, the state attorney made threats regarding "bleeding you dry" and you had witnesses to that.
(3) It sounds like there were a lot of non-lawyers doing a lot of lying here. Sadly, I do see the lying a lot, but it's usually done by the people involved in the cases, not the lawyers themselves. Needless to say, I can't talk about my own cases or my wife's, but I've seen it before.

Based on your story, I can certainly understand your views on lawyers.

As a parallel, I once knew a girl who hated all of a certain race of people because every day for three years in middle school these two girls of a certain race would take her into the bathroom and beat her up. I don't think it justifies her hatred of that race of people, but I understand why she has the hatred.

[Juan_Bottom]

(1) Your attorney told you to keep your mouth shut. He was informing you of your right not to self-incriminate. I'm not sure that's lying, but if it is, the Constitution sure permits it.

While I do feel that not telling the truth is lying (keeping your mouth closed) that wasn't exactly all that my lawyer was saying. He said that If I just told the cops that I didn't know anything, or said that it wasn't me, that I wouldn't have gotten in trouble to begin with. He said it in an.... educational way.

At the very least, the state attorney made threats regarding "bleeding you dry" and you had witnesses to that.

My attorney told me that there was nothing he could do! I know that was a lie on his part. At any rate, I don't really want to dig this all up agian. It would hit me very hard. The first time around, I was given an "open felony" before conviction by the State's Attorney and had to give back my college money to the state. I couldn't get a real job or go to school the whole time until the trial was over. What money I did have I had to live on and pay my lawyer over this time. NOW I am trying to pay off all the debts I got over that period, and so I am working hard (a full time job and part-time job). That statute of limitations says that the victim has 7 years to sue. It's only been about 4..... I don't want my case to be re-tried or to get sued or anything that would set me back another 4 years. He's a very vindictive guy from what I saw.

I also am about 80% certain that my lawyer was letting things that I had told him "slip" during the calls between him and the prosecuter. He didn't get anything more that he could use against me, because I wasn't hiding anything. But a few times during the trial he had said some very suspicious things. I'm not 100% but I am 80%.

Based on your story, I can certainly understand your views on lawyers.

It's not like I hate them or anything. But I do have a firm belief that they get paid to manipulate horrible situations. Especially trial and divorce lawyers. There's a line my boss's divorce lawyer told her before she paid him "I don't care what the story is, but don't you change it! If you had your girlfriend like to play rape fantasy games---and you say the woman you attacked looked like your girlfriend then that's fine. I won't believe you; but that's what I'll argue for you."

[PLAYER57832]

As someone said, everyone is entitled to due process.

In terms of being unethical... lawyers, by and large, operate by ridiculous ethical rules. We have classes on them in law school and ethics are on the bar exam. Clients can report attorneys and the punishments are very bad, including, but not limited to, loss of license and jail time. There are unethical people in every walk of life, from doctors to carpenters to priests to politicians. Stating that all lawyers are bad because of OJ is misguided. Stating that all lawyers are bad because they have to represent guilty people is unamerican.

True, but no one can cause quite as much harm as an evil lawyer. A doctor can simply kill you. A lawyer can see you are effectively or truly tortured for the rest of your life, if they wish. Then, the only hope you have is that some other lawyer will rise to your defense.

[PLAYER57832]

Did anyone read that story a little while back where a man serving life in prison was released after serving 20 some years? Turns out another person confessed the crime in detail to their own lawyers (2) years before. But then asked the lawyers not to tell. They couldn't talk about it because of client-lawyer confidentiality and had to wait until he died.
WTF? Ethics is a funny thing I guess. A lot of grey area.

Not a gray area per se. There is a rule that you can betray the confidences of a client to prevent imminent danger (I'm not sure of the exact rule). In any event, I believe those attorneys should be convicted of abetting criminal activity after the fact (or some such crime) and should go to jail.

No, they risk going to jail for reporting all but the most aggregious issues. Even if a client confesses that he is about to murder someone, he can have to undergo a review. He won't necessarily lose his license, and likely won't be censored, depending on the circumstances. The exceptions are very narrow and not at all easy to define, even for lawyers.

Think about it. How could I possibly trust you to defend me if there were a chance you might tell someone that yes, I did it?

[PLAYER57832]

No, I'm saying Johnie Cockran did what was necessary to get OJ off, even if it included misleading statements about gloves not fitting or getting certain evidence taken out of trial.

The problem there was not that Johnnie Cochran did his best to get his client off, the problem was the prosecution did not get tough enough, and .. for a "jury of his peers" .. I noted a distinct absence of wealthy sports figures, never mind super models to represent the victim.

[jay_a2j]

How did you know they were lying?

More importantly, what do you mean by lying?

To explain:
I was on trial for felony hit and run. I hit a bicyclist with the passanger mirror of a brand-new (to me) full sized van. It had no plates or insurance and I was driving it home. I hit this guy and never even saw him. I instinctivly (I suppose?) thought that I had hit a road sign because of where I was. I never saw the guy, and I never stopped because I didnt have plates or insurance. I looked to see what I hit in my rear-view, but all I saw was a sign. There were some cars behind me, and they keep going too, so I just went home. When the police showed up I cooperated and told them what happened. But it still took weeks before I was arrested or even charged with anything. When I got my charges, I was facing 30 years in prison. It took 2 years in court before the state's attorney was even willing to listen to an arguement for not giving me 30 years. It turns out that the prosecuter was best friends with the victim though...
Here is a list of lies during my pre-trails and sentencing though:

My lawyer told me to lie! He said next time I get in trouble to just keep my mouth shut. If I had, I wouldn't have ever been arrested or charged. Or that if I just said "not it" I would have been good too.

The State's Attorney argued in court that intentionally hit the guy. WTF?

The State's Attorney told the victim and his family that the trial was taking so long because I was not cooperating with police and was still proclaiming my innocence (the dude's wife seriously got before the court at my sentancing 3 years later crying and asking me to just tell the truth and stop lying. I was flabbergasted. I was in trouble because I did tell the truth!!! The police didn't have anything on me, I went to them!).

The State's Attorney told the victim's family that since they couldn't sue me, he would stall as long as he could to drain me of all my money from court costs and lawyer fees. (not a lie-but still dishonest)

My lawyer told me there was nothing he could do about that, after he had overheard it too.

The State's Attorny accused me of being high or drunk that day. It is now a condition of my prohibation that I cannot drink alcohol. How is it a lie? I was driving home from work... & I've also never taken a drug in my life. I don't even drink alcohol. Never have. The detectives even explained to the State's Attorny that there was no way that I was drunk. I'd never been in any kind of trouble before.

The State's Attorney explained at my sentancing how it was the person in the car right behind me that stopped and called the police. And that there was no other person on the road that day. That driver had said that I swerved violently and she then saw a body go flying over my van into the ditch. How is that A lie? The State's Attorney had testimony from 2 other drivers saying that I never swerved, that I never drove over 50, and that I only hit the man with the mirror or side of the van. None of these people were ever seen in the courtroom. He just picked the one that best went with his scenario and tossed out the two witnesses who actually agreed on what they saw. That lady wasn't even close behind me. She had to be at least three cars back. I know that because I never saw her stop!

The State's Attorny said the road was not busy that day. Even though he knew there were at least three cars behind me, and however many in front.

The State's Attorny said I was "probably speeding."

The big one now! The State's Attorney showed us photos that he was going to use in the trial. It was the first details I had ever even scene, and there were maybe 50. At the sentancing a few months later however, he had switched a couple!!! I don't think he expected anyone to remember.
The most important photo I saw was of the victim lying in a ditch. He was lying about a foot away from his bicycle. A paramedic was standing with one foot on the bike and was checking the victims head.
BUT! The photo used as evidence showed the bike laying on the side of the road instead. The only witness to be called, a sheriff's deputy, claimed that was the scene when he arrived. And that he was the first person to arrive. He said that the bike was on the road when he got there. WTF?
So to get the story straight, according to the State's Attorney and Sheriff's office the paramedics must have brought the bycicle down into the ditch so they could stand on it while they checked his neck? Whatever. By this time I had expected trickery and lies form the Prosecuter... but from A deputy?

Don't get me wrong, I did the crime. I confessed and everything. It was an complete accident and I do feel guilty. I tried to set it right as best I could. But now the point is that my lawyer and the prosecuter were liars. The State's Attorney lied like hell!



And no, I wont go into the other times I've sat in in a trial. Two were for divorce, one was for a high school fight, and one for reckless driving; but they aren't my stories to share.

I think most everyone has a story to tell about the corruption in law enforcement. I could list a ton, but why shatter the dream of a decent system as portrayed by others?


One more than one occasion I have been pulled over (for no reason, other than I had long hair and probably looked like a druggie) and was told I was pulled over because I "swerved across the center line" which was total bs.


It's not "a few bad apples", if you look at the tree the apples are rotted and at the top of the tree there are a few edible apples.


I wish I could change things, but I am infinitely outnumbered.

As a parallel, I once knew a girl who hated all of a certain race of people because every day for three years in middle school these two girls of a certain race would take her into the bathroom and beat her up. I don't think it justifies her hatred of that race of people, but I understand why she has the hatred.

There is no excuse for racism. Someone once asked me, "If a black man raped your sister, wouldn't you want to kill them?" I responded, "If a green man raped my sister I'd probably want to kill them!". Race has nothing to do with it, it's the RAPE that is the issue.


Another question posed to me was, "If you were walking down an alley and all the sudden you noticed a black man standing up ahead and you turned around and saw a white guy behind you, which way would you go?"

I asked, "Which way was I heading to begin with?"


But this is all for another thread. This is the expose the corruption thread!

[PLAYER57832]

I think most everyone has a story to tell about the corruption in law enforcement. .....It's not "a few bad apples", if you look at the tree the apples are rotted and at the top of the tree there are a few edible apples.

I agree with another post of jays!

However, I disagree to the point that while I think the real bad apples are few, I think the system is such that we have quite a few who might not be rotten to the core, but who are certainly quite heavily bruised.