Writing about the protests over the killing of Keith Lamont Scott by Charlotte, N.C., police, AlterNet‘s Sarah Lazare (9/22/16) quoted FAIR’s Jim Naureckas on the need to be skeptical about information coming from police:
As protests continue, Jim Naureckas, editor of Extra!, the magazine of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, told AlterNet that skepticism toward the police narrative on all counts is “definitely in order.”
“One of the major problems with reporting on police violence is the degree to which police statements are treated as the gold standard of information instead of being treated with the skepticism they deserve,” Naureckas said. “There’s the fog of war that happens in these situations, as well as deliberate deception. We’ve seen over the course of our focus on these issues that police do lie, they do create evidence to match a narrative that exonerates them. There is no reason to assume that’s definitely not happening, which is why you treat police statements as claims rather than as proof.”
Where was the pistol found? In the car, or near the “body”?
How about the book? Was one found near the body?
And any witnesses (other than police) to the recovery of the pistol and the book?
bc knows police lie, just like governments.
There is no reason to treat the police testimony as any more credible than other witnesses. The police are not of a special moral character above reproach.
They sure think they are. And they want everyone else to think so, too. But as long as they keep killing innocent people, they’re kinda (ironically) shredding their own reputation. Dumbasses.
Several observations:
a. The police tend to be the prosecutors’/states’ typical witness in a majority of cases. Hence, it is in the states’ near-theological interest to accord the word of an officer with the prestige becoming a holy man. The prestige of the uniform gets automatically and unthinkingly “transferred” to the flawed human who wears (or hides behind) the uniform–a common, rationalized error.
b. The typical officer knows this. Also, as most judges tend to come from the ranks of the district attorney’s office, in pre-trial, non-jury hearings, the judge, often a “prosecutor in black robes,” tends to give the officer’s word additional weight over the word of the “non-officer.” The typical officer knows this, too. Hence, a little fudging, a slight “little lie” thrown in among factual matters , “in-the-name-of-justice,” (“stopping ‘bad guys’”) goes a long, long way. The typical officer knows this as well. All of which abets and encourages a culture of “testilying.” The typical officer knows this…
c. The typical officer receives training in report writing. The function of that reporting is to provide the officer a mnemonic of “details” designed to convict the arrestee the officer suspects committed the crime. The officer reads his conveniently-narrated report minutes before testifying at hearings and trials. Hence, the original convenient narrative becomes etched not only in his memory, and, in addition, becomes the very convenient, structural outline/narrative of the prosecutor’s case. The officer becomes legally committed to stick to his narrative, even when wrong, as he knows the prosecutor relies on the officer’s “rock-solid,” “reliable” testimony.
In addition, why should the prosecutor deviate from, or critically question, a convenient pre-packaged narrative that all but gift-wraps the case for the prosecutor? It’s the defense attorney’s burden/duty to spot the weaknesses/flaws and question them, sometimes weeks, if not months after the trail of missed evidence or “over-looked” witnesses has grown cold.
d. Speaking of minimal report writing skills. The typical officer seldom comes from the ranks of the high school valedictorian or the top quarter of his high school class. All it takes is a high school diploma, the willingness to use force (even the lethal kind) on other humans and six months at a police academy–usually one where search and seizure is taught, drug and drug symptom/DUI recognition, weapons and tactics, report-writing, testifying demeanor skills, a smattering of criminal law–enough to justify an arrest, and some paramilitary training drills. The report writing seldom rises to the level of AP. Whereas, the typical journalist’s (usually, a college-educated Journalism or English major) report not only gets edited, proof-read, it also gets vetted and fact-checked, lest the reporter and his publisher get sued for libel. On the other hand, the typical officer can write to his heart’s content, secure in the knowledge he cannot be sued civilly should his observations turn out to be mistaken, or fabricated…
Qualitatively, which report would you tend to trust. Our culture places more safeguards on observations that may cost a publisher money, but few where an individual’s freedom (or life) is at stake. What’s wrong, very wrong, with this picture?
e. And if the officer ever gets charged or sued, he knows a hired-gun, police-union retained defense attorney will be provided against a departmental investigation and criminal charges; not only that, but since his salary is not really worth pursuing, the entity that hired him (we, the taxpayers) gets sued and is on the “hook” for the officer’s mistakes of judgment, sometimes to the tune of millions.
Be well.