Beat me to it. Was just about to write the same exact thing. If we common peasants lie on the stand they have no problem calling it what it is. If one of the anointed does it, it's called "testilying" or, my personal favorite, "misremembering". Sure, memory is pretty faulty, but not in the way these cops "misremember".
Yes, that's precisely why you should never, ever, ever talk to the cops:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
I love that video. That first speaker really spells everything out in a concise and easily comprehensible way of how you can and will be fucked (if you are the prime suspect) if you open your mouth, innocent or not.
The first speaker is a lawyer. Then the second lawyer, a cop, says essentially "he's right. but you should trust our (cops') judgment, we are trying to help."
Right, you have to live with some level of trust. "Hey we are looking for a guy who kidnapped a child. Have you seen a white van in this lot today? It's really important we follow up on any possible leads so anything you can remember might help!"
"Sorry I won't speak to you without my lawyer present."
"'Joyrider' [1] is not a term I will allow in my station, constable. [...] Crime is crime, and should not be trivialised. What next? Are we to refer to grievous bodily harm [2] as 'fun-punching'? Assault with a deadly weapon as 'a laugh and a stab'?"
Standards for comedy were much lower in the mid-'90s. [3]
I've heard of the police here in Northern Ireland refer to the act of lighting bins on fire as "Recreational Vandalism". While refusing to do anything about it happening repeatedly. Makes the blood boil.
And, what does the quoted officer say in the story about lying under oath?
"Behind closed doors, we call it testilying," a New York City police officer, Pedro Serrano, said in a recent interview, echoing a word that officers coined at least 25 years ago. "You take the truth and stretch it out a little bit."
An officer lying under oath in order to sway a verdict calls into question every single police report or court testimony from that officer.
You're absolutely correct. This is extremely serious.
I assume such a list would have rows consisting of, at minimum:
a. link to case's public testimony (CPT)
b. text in CPT to officer's statement.
c. text in CPT that contradicts the statement.
(I'd love to see an example row!)
2. Innocent until proven guilty? I'd say best to start with the clear lies first to build the list's credibility. However enough borderline cases surrounding an individual or department can also be interesting.
3. Defamation requires that the statements about the person be false. Referencing court docs about what they said should obviate that concern. Maybe the trick is to bill the db as a "list of inconsistencies" rather than outright lies.
4. I'd be more concerned about DoS attack rather than spam.
Hmm I like how your idea helps with both (3) as you said, and also with what I called "spam".
I had in mind a service where people were allowed to write in their claims of testilying -- how do you prevent it being "spammed" by every criminal with a grudge against a cop.
By asking them to cut and paste text from CPT -- which can then be electronically verified, you can cut down on the casual attempts. Of course a real attacker can get around that trivially.
Another question is where to host it. While truth is a libel defence in the US -- I am not sure that is true in other countries.
Unfortunately, I am unaware of any of those. It stands to reason that police officers speaking openly in this manner about lying under oath don't face repercussions and consequently don't get tracked much.
It's not perjury unless it's willful. I have no doubt that some of these inconsistencies (most?) are deliberate, but human memory is often pretty terrible. Good luck proving that the officer was deliberately not telling the truth.
Well, usually this comes from written statements right after the event right? It's not like there's a several week gap between the event and the report.... right?
How about making it a crime to misremember? Sure would make you think twice before you testified something as fact. Human memory is _very_ fallible. Time we started treating it that way.
Perjury can remain the term for the crime in general, and testilying can refer to the specific form of police officers systematically perjuring themselves for corrupt or otherwise dubious purposes.
It's worse; it's a specific subset of perjury. It's lying under oath by someone in authority, who presumes greater moral weight during testifying. And that testimony is often used to get people to plea bargain when they are innocent.
Funny that they are taking a dump on street level cops but don't seem too concerned about the perjury of high level officials who they publish endless editorials supporting.
