|
How is this not already the case that they are constitutionally protected from having to testify against themselves? Given that there is an incriminating video aren't they now subject to an ordinary set of charges for that crime (not perjury)?
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
Helsing posted:There would seem to be a pretty big difference between refusing to incriminate yourself and actively lying about your colleague assaulting someone. There is for most people but a cop is "on the clock" while at court testifying. I think it's a poo poo law and if my employee lied I would want to fire them, but these are some interesting details.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I would understand this logic of the police in question had refused to testify and invoked the fifth. It's bizarre that this would excuse them from committing an active deception in which they are deliberately misreporting what happened rather than just refusing to say anything. Consider this: I'm on the clock and my boss is watching me. I'm in court before a judge giving testimony. There are 3 choices, lie, truth, 5th. Truth: I lose my job and am possibly jailed for gross dereliction of duty/being an accessory to an assault. Lie: I am committing perjury and if caught go to jail 5th: I am constitutionally safe from the court but lose my job because I'm obviously guilty as hell. Granted, gently caress these guys, but I'm just making the point that the situation is a little different than if the same law covered non-police. Not that it should exist, it's bad, but it's a little interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2016 02:44
|
|