Pretty much every professional field EXCEPT police have clear, rigorous, transparent consequences for unethical behavior, negligence and malpractice.

The idea that we can "disbar" lawyers but not police is absolute foolishness.

All the factors that make disbarment a necessary tool for lawyers apply to cops... except that cops don't need to be qualified in the first place.
It is a rank absurdity of the criminal justice system that one needs to be educated and certified with a degree in order to argue on behalf of someone's life in court, but to have no qualifications necessary to detain, assault, or prematurely end that same life.
There are countless circumstances in which a lawyer's unethical behavior will result in them not only losing their job but never being able to practice it again.

But corrupt and murderous cops can be rehired indefinitely.
A lawyer's entire career can be ended forever if they were found to have knowingly put someone on a stand to lie.

Police officers however are allowed to lie in court on the stand under oath.

So much that lawyers aren't penalized for putting cops on the stand to lie.
Everyone knows that cops lie under oath. Both prosecutors and judges know this, but they will still pretend that they don't.

Because if you start holding cops accountable, the whole system falls apart.
And this is why there is never traction on cracking down on cops.

If you impugn a cop's reliability, then that affects all the cases that rely on their testimony.

So better to just look the other way, lest hundreds of cases be upended.
In the same way that police hold city governments hostage, threatening all sorts of things if their funding is cut or reforms imposed, so do they hold the criminal justice system hostage, but instead of through threats, through the natural instability that follows outing liars.
The court system is so overloaded by the demands of our carceral society that they don't even have the time or resources to try 90% of cases in the first case.

MUCH less RETRYING them because cops were found to be liars.
So the answer is to just let cops lie.

And omit critical information from reports

And falsify reports

And lie about firsthand eyewitness testimony

And invent convenient facts

And make false IDs

And everyone just moves forward because the machine must churn.
Nobody will reign in cops because nobody will take the responsibility for managing the ensuing chaos.

Because the whole system WILL come crashing down without overhaul.

There isn't the will to change the system so nobody will remove the radioactive Jenga brick.
It's the part that even opponents of police frequently don't see.

They are looking to change a brick.

Those in power are protecting the structure built atop that brick.

Because they know the mortar holding everything together is a joke.
Many within the system are aware of the problems in the system and desperately want them gone, but in the absence of a scaffold to hold everything up, they will side with the system over chaos.

The alternative structure needs to exist first.

And that's the problem.

More from Law

One of the judges this story mentions is William Cassidy, who was promoted from an Atlanta IJ position to a BIA member position in 2019 by the Trump DOJ. Cassidy has an awful history that has been well-documented, but I'm still enraged reading this reporting.


The story notes that the EOIR Director served as an ICE attorney in Atlanta and practiced before Cassidy for years. And it points to FOIA records unearthed by Bryan Johnson showing they remain friendly.

A trove of complaints against Cassidy was published by AILA in 2019 after FOIA litigation. They generally show misconduct, substantiated in the record, followed by "written counseling" etc.

One way Cassidy could avoid discipline is by turning off the recording device during the hearing. If he made a lewd or offensive comment off the record, all the EOIR would do is listen to the recording. If it's not there, the complaint is "unsubstantiated" https://t.co/wUeBPEEbpV


In that case, Cassidy joked about a detained immigrant saying he missed his wife. The complaint was dismissed because the ACIJ found "no levity or joking" in the comment.
How to avoid (successful) accusations of defamation on Twitter. A few thoughts from someone who is NOT a libel lawyer, but does say very critical things about named individuals. 1/

1. Facts are different from opinions. But stating an opinion can imply a fact.
https://t.co/1PkiI4olib


2. When I tweet I aim to be sure A. I show the *facts* I am basing my *opinion* on. B. I have good reason to believe the *facts* are true. C. My opinion is reasonable based on the facts.

Here I am calling Arron Banks a racist (opinion). Pointing out this is because he called for mosques to be demolished (fact). 4/


I can prove this fact - and others - about what Banks has said. And I can justify why in my opinion that shows he’s a racist. 5/

You May Also Like

Ivor Cummins has been wrong (or lying) almost entirely throughout this pandemic and got paid handsomly for it.

He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...


... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:


Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.

Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9


Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."

I wonder why...

Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x


Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.

Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq