How LAW & ORDER distorts your rights

[@SkipIntroYT]

Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/skipintro Check out my full interviews with Olay and Rhiannon on Patreon: www.patreon.com/skipintro

[@RLucas3000]

It’s not very kind showing a pig in the title. There ARE bad cops, but there are also good cops. But people are not pigs. I equate you using that symbol with Trump calling opponents “vermin” the way Hitler did. I feel like, if you are trying in general to be a good person, don’t be like Trump (or Hitler).

[@joshuawargo6446]

THANK YOU for making this video. Most people dont REALIZE the LAW AND ORDER effect is a THING where people LITTERALLY ignore valid evidence because they want forensics that DONT MATTER and will make them ignore WITNESS TESTIMONY for psuedo csi bullshit. People DONT know their rights cause they think the tv is being honest its fucking terrifying

[@joeldobbs7396]

I used to watch wayyyyyy too much Law&Order, and it hasn't been till recently that I realized how much it affected my perceptions of the legal system. When my son was born I decided to deconstruct my entire life and recognize any beliefs that did not reflect the example I wanted to set for him. Fortunately I was being treated for substance abuse at the time, so I had the resources to do it. If you want to see a happy guidance counselor, tell them you want to deconstruct your life to reflect greater epistemic responsibility. Mine had me over to her house on the weekend, for some (wink wink) extra special sessions, very INTENSE SESSIONS...............with her husband, who had more relevant knowledge. Sorry, life ain't porn. Turns out, hidden among the racism lurking in nursery rhymes, misogyny that my mother set in place, and some really messed up shit they taught in Social Studies back in the 80s, was a very distorted view of how cops treat minorities and poor people. Who knew? It was like having a dry shave, on a hairy ego.

[@rebeccachambers4701]

I was a cop what cops do right now is you're a witness until they have talked to you enough to the point where they feel that they can get a guilty on you then you are now a suspect congratulations here's your Miranda rights we have everything you need you can cooperate or it doesn't matter we already got everything we needed from you because you were a witness now you're suspect even though you're always technically a suspect we never had anything official about it and it's nothing says we can't do it this way and they're not necessarily wrong cuz that's what cops do all the f****** time. If you're a victim or you're a witness it's better for you just to remain silent and never cooperate with the police especially in black communities because anything you do or say as witness or as a victim will be used against you and you will go to jail for talking to those cops because you're not white

[@rebeccachambers4701]

Also again when I was a cop and this was only 2011 Even if you ask for a lawyer they say well you're not a suspect and they keep you locked in a room basically for hours without anything and they'll ask if you want water but they never bring it to you unless of course it's two three hours later so nothing's really changed now we just say you're a witness until we're ready to throw the book at you then you're a suspect

[@taylorgayhart9497]

A personal example of the power DA has: I was SAed as a child by my step-father, a therapist reported the abuse, and when the CPS questioned me I confirmed it, and so the police put together a case against him. Then the DA decided not to prosecute. He had the testimony of the therapist and myself, but he knew his family personally and decided his personal opinion mattered more. There was three years of pushback from both my family and the from the police themselves, before the DA finally agreed to move forward, at which point a warrant was put out, but he had already left the state. They told us all they could do was wait for him to turn himself in or be arrested for something else. That was almost 30 years ago, he was never arrested and never went to trial. They just forgot about me, all because the DA didn’t feel like pressing charges when they had him in the state.

[@failurenotsorry6600]

that's just. that's fucking sickening.

[@TwoMarshmallows1]

That's vile and none of it should have happened. I hope you have lots of goodness in your life now.

[@kappadarwin9476]

The DA should have resigned. This is blatant conflict of interest. I'm sorry to hear this happened to you.

[@sophiethesnail]

i’m so sorry you had to go through that, it sounds like so much frustration and betrayal on top of an already traumatic event. i hope you are doing well today💛💛💛

[@Mooskym]

That's horrible. I hope you managed to heal somewhat since then, and are living a better life now. As for the DA, him knowing the criminal personally is a clear conflict of interests. If a lawyer is shown to have a conflict of interests with the person they are defending/prosecuting, they would be barred from working in that specific trial (if the judge knows what they're doing...). But I guess the DA is above the law, and there are no checks on them. Absolutely abhorrent!

[@danyg4063]

Something really important to note about Miranda rights: The police are NOT required to Mirandize you AT THE TIME OF YOUR ARREST. They are ONLY required to Mirandize you before you are officially questioned in police custody. That means that if you are arrested and the cops don't read you your rights right away like you see in Law & Order, that does not give you carte blanche to say what you want and declare it inadmissible. Any time a suspect makes a spontaneous statement or confession without any actual questioning, that can (and will) be used against you, regardless of whether you have yet to be Mirandized or not. Also, you do not have to be formally arrested, you just need to be in police custody. Legally speaking, if any reasonable person would not feel free to leave, you are considered in custody, even if you are not officially under arrest. Do. Not. Speak. To. Police. The police are not your friends, just like HR is not there to protect you.

[@prettyevil6662000]

The only thing you say to the police is 'get me a lawyer'. Do not ask if you can have one or should have one. Make a clear declarative statement to get you one.

[@magellanicraincloud]

Every day is Shut The Fuck Up Friday.

[@podemosurss8316]

In Spain the police is constitutionally required to inform about their legal rights at the time of the arrest.

[@margotpreston]

@@prettyevil6662000 No, you shouldn't. Because saying that you want a lawyer will not be taken as a request for legal representation, only a statement that you have the ability to do so. If you want to request a lawyer You say 'I invoke my right attorney.' Nothing else. You also cannot simply be silent, as that will be taken as a sign that you are guilty. You must invoke that so called right as well These are the only two phrases you should ever utter in the presence of the police. Remember, the primary purpose of the police is to generate and collect revenue for the government. And cops will do anything, regardless of merit or legality to accomplish that goal. Police are nothing but a glorified HR department for the state. Not protectors.

[@danyg4063]

@@podemosurss8316 Sounds like my ancestors should have never left Spain. xD

[@OmegaGuess]

The other nefarious framing they did that I could never unhear once someone pointed it out to me, was framing demanding a lawyer as tantamount to admission of guilt. The amount of times "we're just talking. If you didn't do anything, there's no need for a lawyer..." I heard in this series is STAGGERING.

[@EarlFaulk]

Cops do irl too. Happened to me when I falsely framed as responsible for a crime in Akron when I was at home. Thankfully I had installed cameras on the outside of my house so I shut them up real quick. This was before I had any money built up meaning I would have been fucked if it went to trial and had a public pretender

[@ButtersTheGreat1]

Not to mention how many shows and movies have sold the idea that pleading the 5th is tantamount to admission of guilt.

[@Anubis7169]

Yep. CSI does this 100% of the time as well. There mightve been one case in the whole show where a guy demands a lawyer then is proven innocent.

[@Aarzu]

What's infuriating about that is that, if you look, you will find multiple videos on youtube from law professors, practicing attorneys, and former law enforcement explaining in detail why you should ALWAYS exercise your right to an attorney and why you DO NOT open your mouth until your attorney is present.

[@OmegaGuess]

@@Aarzu Oh, one of my good friends is a defence attorney, and that is something he will take about, loudly, and at great length.

[@gdpacnw5126]

If "guilty" defendants walking on "a technicality" makes you mad, take it up with cops and/or DAs who violate criminal procedure.

[@kikilo9647]

My god thanks!! People get upset with the defense attorney but go yell at the cops or DA for not caring enough about their actual jobs that they make sure to follow the law while working a case.

[@bearmarco1944]

Yeah but some cases are just frivolous defenses. For instance, after the 1988 gang-rape and murder of Janine Balding, two of the convicted persons appealed in 2007 on the basis that the charge had been improper. Essentially, prosecuting officials in that area must fix the indictment to the court file. In this case, although they were handed in together, and the defence received all documents and cogently understood them, they appealed because the prosecution failed to actually staple the indictment to the court file, arging that this made the indictment 'improperly served', making the charges invalid, making the conviction invalid. If successful, this would have made the conviction invalid. It was dismissed, because, in Australia, where this case happened, the legal philosophy is 'sure, procedure is important, but public interest is more important, and letting two rape-murderers go because of a missing staple is against the public interest'. In Bunning v Cross, a case that went to Australia's high court, it was found that illegally obtained evidence was admissible because the public interest demands that (as in that case) drunk drivers be taken off the road more than police officers don't overstep their authority in breathalysing someone. This is admittedly not unique to Australian law, but is applicable to most common law systems outside of the USA. However, the American legal precedence is that tiny stuff like this does matter, and that the public interests can never override someone's rights, and that someone's rights are violated when this sort of thing happens. If this had ocurred in the USA, then it likely would've been appealable. That's not to mention that many technicalities are not the fault of the state. For instance, if, as once happened in the UK, a judge tells a jury that, to convict, they must 'believe beyond a reasonable doubt' that the accused is guilty, instead of saying that they must 'be certain' that the accused is guilty, the case can be overturned because the jury instruction was improper. That actually happened. In a Scottish case, a convicted nurse murderer named Jesse McTavish's conviction was overturned when the judge failed to mention that denied admitting to the police that she had committed a mercy killing, which the appeal judges said 'a few words could have cured'. Donald Clark of Cottondale, Alabama, was charged with a home invasion in which the two occupants of a home were tied up, one of which had a heart attack and died, making this a felony murder case. Police arrested him and read him his Miranda rights, which he waived. He then confessed, giving information that had not been released to newspapers. Despite being found capable of attending trial, a psychologist said that he was not able to understand the Miranda warning and the case was thereafter dismissed. Issei Sagawa, who committed a murder in France, was charged with murder and found insane, and the French authorities sent him to Japan to be imprisoned in a mental institution. The Japanese government could not further this, however, because French authorities, in-keeping with French law, sealed the documents relating to Sagawa's conviction, meaning Japan could not prove he had actually been convicted, or that the act he was convicted of would have been an offense under Japanese law, and had to release him. I wouldn't assume that the police or prosecutors are always to blame for violating the process.

[@mecharick]

@@bearmarco1944Or maybe cops should be actually trained better than having a high school equivalency then.

[@bearmarco1944]

@@mecharick I've just explained how in many cases it's not the fault of the police and, at the very least, it's wrong to assume that it's their fault. I don't know about your area, but where I live, the police undertake seven or eight months of academy training in addition to their high school equivalency, and then undertake a probationary period for six to eighteen months during which they are mainly receiving on-the-job training.

[@FabricofTime]

Right? It's such a weird complaint. Oh noes! You don't like it that you can't beat up a suspect? Maybe don't beat up a suspect then. Like if you're so out of control that you can't properly function in your job, maybe you shouldn't be a cop...

[@JordanSullivanadventures]

Just to be clear on a piece of terminology, "pretrial detention" is jail. That's what jail is.

[@MegaToonzNetwork]

Characters: I know my rights! Jordan: And I KNOW MY LEFTS! And soon, you will know your ups if you keep on!

[@rav3style]

The other one is prison right?

[@fandomcringebucket]

@@rav3style That's _after_ you get convicted. Jail is before they convict you.

[@yurisonovab3892]

My favorite episode of Law and Order SVU was when they got a proven innocent man killed while in their care and then held someone else responsible for their negligence. I'll never forgot how smug and proud of themselves they were when they did it.

[@screamingcactus1753]

I remember a Law and Order episode where a woman goes to the police begging for protection because she's being stalked. They tell her they can't do anything, she leaves, clearly distressed, and then a few days later she turns up dead. The detective's only response to finding the body? "At least she can't say I told you so." That whole scene just made me irrationally angry

[@bananabanana484]

@@screamingcactus1753I’d say it’s closer to rationally angry. I’ve never understood how people can’t see the evil in mocking a murder victim

[@habe1717]

@@screamingcactus1753 Irrationally angry? Seems like rational anger to me.

[@abdalln8554]

​@@screamingcactus1753That passed a writer's room, standards and practices, a studio exec, the director, the producer, and the actor and somehow no one clicked how screwed up that was.

[@VelvetVexations]

The person they got arrested for it was legitimately responsible for framing the guy, at least. They were smug because they had given the perp a deal on everything else but could now get her for murder...but that is itself an example of pretty blatantly perverting the system to "nail the bad guy".

[@vicg2652]

I don’t work in criminal law now that I’m an attorney, but when I was in law school I worked as a clerk at a defense firm. I loved the job but whenever I told anyone outside of law what I did, they would all respond with some variation of “wow how do you sleep at night knowing you’re helping criminals get away with their crimes”. And it was like wow, Dick Wolf really did his job, huh?

[@dwc1964]

we're a long way from the days of Perry Mason

[@kylematlock7499]

I'm not saying everyone doesn't deserve to be represented, but do you really not understand that is what you are doing a good portion of the time? charges aren't brought on someone unless the DA thinks they have a case/good evidence. Edited: (removed typo)

[@msjkramey]

​@kylematlock7499 just because the DA thinks someone is guilty doesn't mean they are...

[@kylematlock7499]

@@msjkramey I didn't say it did, just that it is not just some random thing, and they are sometimes (Obviously). vicg2652 was acting like they are never guilty.

[@vicg2652]

@@kylematlock7499 No, I really wasn’t. The way I viewed my job was that it was my job to make sure the DA had all their “i”s dotted and “t”s crossed. Make sure there are no holes that can be punched in their case. Were some of them guilty? I don’t know. That’s not my problem. Maybe! But if I, or the attorneys I worked with, could raise doubt as to their guilt, the DA didn’t do their job. My point was that people in general, just by virtue of the fact that these people have been arrested and charged, assumed their guilt. I think a lot of that can be attributed to shows like Law and Order.

[@guillermopena8412]

There is a line in Brookly 99 that really stuck with me regarding defense attorneys. Law and Order lead me to believe that most of them are corrupt dicks that would defend clearly guilty scumbags for a paycheck. When Brookly 99 had a defense attorney character, the cops saw them as rivals and shared that exact view Law and Order has. Then the defense attorney turns around and tells the cops "My job is to make sure you did yours right"...and...yeah, I never thought about it like that, but it's true. Most people are led to believe that a defense attorney's job is to get a suspect out of trouble, and to be fair many defense attorneys do have that attitude, they find loopholes to help their clients avoid a criminal conviction. It wasn't until Brooklyn 99 that I saw that the job of a defense attorney isn't to help criminals avoid jail, it's to make sure the investigators and the prosecution did their job well. Defense attorneys in theory never lose a case. If their client walks free is because of failures from the prosecution and the police (They got the wrong person. They didn’t build a strong enough case. Etc). If their client goes to jail it means the prosecution and police cleared the bar the defense set. It's almost as if they are auditors in that sense. Their job is to scrutinize the police and prosecution's job to make sure to the best of their capabilities that rules were followed, standards were met, and whatever the verdict met was the most fair and appropriate one. You wouldn't get any of that from Law and Order where all defense attorneys are scumbags, some of which are women who support rape, and the one time a former prosecutor became a defense attorney he was labeled a traitor by the rest of the cast.

[@goneyon]

It's still copaganda. US defense attornies exists to defend their client, because their client has the constitutional right to one. To say they exist to be quality assurance for police work implies nothing stops police from doing their jobs poorly to begin with. Which is sadly true, but it should be pointed out as a negative, not as neutral.

[@eyesofthecervino3366]

This really shows the power these shows have in shaping how we think about things.

[@trioptimum9027]

The theoretical thing they teach in law school is actually the opposite of that: a defense attorney should ALWAYS advocate vigorously for their client, no matter how guilty she is. It's the *prosecutor* who is supposed to be pursuing justice and the public good rather than pursuing a conviction. In reality, of course... Well, I'm sure many prosecutors can think of That One Case where they probably had the evidence to twist the guy's arm until he took a plea deal, but they were convinced he was innocent so they dropped it. But I also know that was an exceptional case and for every one like that, there are a hundred where the prosecutor goes "dunno if he did this one but if not, he probably did something else" or "fuck it, she might be guilty and what matters is I can win the case."

[@IshtarNike]

Yeah this attitude is just awful though. It's easy to hate defense lawyers when you see them on TV because on TV it's a made up situation where we all KNOW the guy did it. We may have even watched it happen. But real life isn't like that. The idea that real people despise defense lawyers because of TV shows like this makes my blood boil. Honestly Americans should just all move to Japan where they have a 99% conviction rate because they basically don't have defenders and just bully people into admitting guilt regardless of the facts.

[@dysmissme7343]

You really explained that very well and I appreciate it 💜

[@wynnefox]

When I was in High School, my Civics Teacher was a former Cop that was bitter about the police force because he got turned off after turning in another cop for a crime. I tell ya, THIS GUY was 2 things: An alcohalic and a cop hater. He drank during class and he would drive hard into us things like, "Don't talk to cops, around cops, or anything unless you have to.", "Always ask, politely and firmly, if you can leave now after every question until they decide to charge you with something.", "If you're charged, shut your fool mouth unless it is to ask for a lawyer. They know more than your dumb ass does." All other parts of civics, he'd just put in a movie and test us on it as he drank in the back of the class. But police interactions, man he was passionate to make sure we understood and would actually lecture up front. He wouldn't talk about what happened other than he was a former cop so he knows what he is saying.

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

Can we have THIS as a TV show? That sounds like an amazing character.

[@bearmarco1944]

Alright so an alcoholic former cop who now hates the police and who drinks alcohol infront of schoolchildren while hating on police, who was hired to work with children despite his poor reputation in the police. Good to see we're working with a reliable source of information here when he says why he got turned off.

[@zycklacon9588]

"he got turned off after turning in another cop for a crime" And this is why there's no such thing as a "Good Cop", all the ones that are good are either chased off or fired. So many police officers have a child mentality, no such thing as a "Thin Blue Line"

[@longboy5639]

Bro You got lecture from the Main caracter

[@colinstewart3531]

As my friend once said: "Justice ain't blind, she sees green just fine." Having money and access to your own attorney and experts and tests and Private investigators; and instead only having access to a publicly assigned attorney you have to share with twenty other accused, is straight up two different justice systems, with only one of them being even remotely fair. There is a reason cops tend to prosecute the poor in such higher numbers than anyone with any resources.

[@mckenzie.latham91]

Lady justice is blind in the courtroom But out in the streets, the bitch has eyes

[@incanusolorin2607]

I guarantee that she sees shades of brown and black too

[@dansmith1661]

Why are the poor committing so many crimes then?

[@incanusolorin2607]

@@dansmith1661why would you steal foodl if you can buy it?

[@herecomesaregular8418]

I cannot imagine how sheltered you'd have to be to even have to ask this question. It's like this discussion is conveyed through everyone's book reports, and you're still on the first chapter. @@dansmith1661

[@dstinnettmusic]

My wife doesn’t understand why I get so mad at this show… But what gets me is the idea that the defense attorney is always the bad guy. And they write them to be just…bad people. I would be able to stand it if they didn’t make them cartoon character villains but no…they actively dislike the concept of justice and support their client doing crimes.

[@76678-m]

Still not quite as bad as Blue Bloods - which pretty much turns Derek Chauvin-like cops into heroes - but I understand the irritation at watching it.

[@notaperson9831]

@@76678-mblue bloods is genuinely horrifying.

[@youknowwhoyouare2269]

Now imagine those feelings intensified for those without bare minimum Caucasian privileges @@76678-m

[@stevonwhite8933]

@@76678-m That show is vehemently *back the blue* fascistic rhetoric.

[@76678-m]

@@stevonwhite8933 it’s Dick Wolf on steroids.

[@THEFRISKIESTDINGO]

Friend of mine was up for DV. He was told the court he would go into was "not a place where they figure out what happened. It's a place where they punish bad men for doing bad things." Even though the prosecutions' story depicted him using a total of 5 arms at once, teleporting, and throwing someone _(without a blemish on them)_ by their _hair,_ it wasn't looking too good until the defendant got confused enough trying to figure out how she was dragged into the same room twice that she admitted she fell down on her own, on purpose, but it didn't have anything to do with the divorce settlement that was filed _the day before._ The state prosecutor was pissed. No, not that she'd lied, but that she'd tanked their case.

[@sheriffflynn]

I think saying "Innocent unless proven guilty" is a better way to look at it. "Until" assumes there is guilt and it hasn't yet been found.

[@nothanks9503]

I think we should say “pay up and or do the slave labor because I said so, what are you going to do about it?”. At the very least we should be honest.

[@thewhitefalcon8539]

The way it is now, is guilty even when proven innocent.

[@AlexsGoogleAccount]

However it's phrased, every part of the system treats someone with the assumption that they are guilty.

[@michaelmarsh1723]

I don't think 'unless' or 'until' are notably better than the other. I certainly don't think there's call enough to change it from what it already is, for an arguable, minor improvement in clarity

[@Vassilinia]

It's "until" for a reason. Prosecutors and police have to act like everyone is guilty and build a case as best they can because we aren't mind readers and can't say for sure who is or isn't guilty. Hence, innocent until proven guilty.

[@MagicalGirlFia]

Man there are prosecutors in Ace Attorney less corrupt than the guy in this show and most of them regularly commit assault with little to no repercussions.

[@segara04]

Was just thinking about this 😂😂😂😂

[@StarGarnet03]

@@segara04 and said prosecutors actually have fun personalities that make me feel for them

[@dansmith1661]

Their laws are somewhat clownish compared to our own. Hey you know that thing you said? It's wrong. And so is the next thing you said.

[@DissidentB]

​@@StarGarnet03and that's why you really absolutely shouldn't under any circumstances watch these kinds of shows, no matter how "progressive" some of the newer ones try to make themselves out to be. They're all propaganda, the core purpose of them all is to fundamentally distort your understanding of how this regime truly works in reality and humanize police and prosecutors in the public's mind despite the fact that they're some of the most relentlessly evil corrupt people in the entire state apparatus and are hardly human beings at all.

[@zeframmann1641]

Post 1st game Edgeworth would be disgusted by what goes on in that show.

[@Thkaal]

when i was arrested for committing crime that was acctually commited on me, my lawyer said, "Please tell me you don't belive innocent until proven guilty."

[@originaozz]

Kiinda made me realized Law & Order is basically a "revenge" story. It's structured to make audience feel the satisfaction from seeing bad guys "get caught & pay for their crimes".

[@Dave102693]

It’s a glorified revenge fantasy franchise hidden behind the draping of the Criminal Justice system. It’s far more blatant with Chicago PD.

[@prettyevil6662000]

Exactly. It's why SVU seems really popular with SA victims. Often they were denied any justice IRL so they get some catharsis through the show's stories.

[@34125867]

Yes ... ? I mean, did you not know this? Why do you think Taken, Equalizer or John Wick are so popular with audiences? Why do you think Blaxploitation as a genre existed that was aimed at giving african-americans a revenge story? It's simple, predictable and evokes an emotional response, much like when everyone collectively joins in to dunk on an abuser. The fact that there are people who do not consciously understand this is weird to me; like you're watching something and you don't even know why it appeals to you or doesn't appeal to you unless someone wearing an orange cap indoors says it out loud? Holy NPC.

[@jazisajoke8688]

@@prettyevil6662000 this!!! i’m sure a lot of the audience are SA survivors

[@feliciaroseantonia]

​@@34125867 Honestly you're totally right in what you're saying, but how you're saying it comes off as condescending. Calling people NPCs like that is dehumanizing as well

[@oliviasmith9033]

I'm in the UK, but I did jury service last year, and some of the stuff I saw the prosecution (and judge) do was so fucked up. Complete mistreatment of defence witnesses, misquoting defendants to try to prove they'd contradicted themselves when they hadn't, attempting to mislead us by omitting key items that contextualised 'incriminating' evidence. I've never been so angry.

[@sentientnatalie]

Probably because you're insufficiently classist and racist, they usually try and handpick such for jurors, they tend to be a mix of the frightened-of-their-own-shadow suburbanite types, and who gets to be a juror largely reflects this.

[@mileenaeupheme1975]

Sounds like you got the uncommon situation where a mistrial occured because of a bad prosecutor.

[@sentientnatalie]

@@mileenaeupheme1975 From what they said, I can imagine two things happening, an appeals court declaring a mistrial, or the jury acquiting because of the misbehaviour of certain officers of the court.

[@sitdowndogbreath]

And this is England their system is less friendly

[@DissidentB]

And that's why the US empire, Canada, and Australia are all fruits of the poisonous tree. The entire concept of English law, and English "civilization" and English "morality" for that matter, is all a fundamentally evil sham and it always has been. It's what "justice" looks like to genocidal colonizers and thieves, set up from the beginning to protect certain groups of people from accountability at all costs and put other groups of people in prison at the whim of the regime and its henchmen.

[@bluecoin3771]

There was a period of my life when I thought I hated cop shows. Then I saw Dragnet and other such shows, and I realized, "Oh, I just hate Law & Order."

[@alexanderchippel]

Dude Dragnet is great. Not only is it just better written, but is extremely accurate to police procedure at the time.

[@aersiul]

Dragnet is one of the worst copaganda shows ever

[@alexanderchippel]

@@aersiul No it isn't.

[@wiiblewobble]

@@alexanderchippelit might be less biased than law and order, but it sets the mold that law and order and even b99 would follow. “Cops are your friends. Cops are always right. Cops are good at their jobs.” Copaganda is copaganda.

[@alexanderchippel]

@@wiiblewobble Wow you actually didn't watch Dragnet at all because everything you said was wrong.

[@bertbaker7067]

Coerced confessions are still very common. Especially if the person has an intellectual disability, but it can happen to anyone who doesn't know how duplicitous cops can be.

[@Cheepchipsable]

US police are able to lie to you to solicit a confession, which you may do if you think you are going to be falsely charged due to a statement by a non existent person.

[@reneedennis2011]

Yup.

[@bertbaker7067]

My buddy did 10yrs because the bastards threatened to arrest and put his mom in prison if he didn't confess. He tried to fight it afterwards but it took 10yrs and an interview with the news show Dateline to finally get out. He's part of the reason I tell everyone I know, especially kids, "the police are not your friend. Say nothing and ask for a lawyer."

[@dakota9821]

Your buddy is a fool.@@bertbaker7067

[@LuizAlexPhoenix]

The Reid technique is just a psychological trick meant to do it. Cops accross the world apply it and it's just plain abuse and manipulation, it often gets people to say what the police wants and make them feel guilty for not doing so immediately.

[@goosiesmoosies]

I'm Canadian and we do not have the right to have a lawyer present or end the interview of our own volition. We have the right to remain silent but the police can hold you for as long as they want in the interview room and all you are entitled to is a call to a lawyer who will probably advise you not to talk. At which point it becomes an endurance challenge for you as they do everything they can to provoke you into speaking. I think it's absolutely barbaric.

[@nataschavisser573]

As far as I know, they have a similar system in Japan. The police can detain you for up to 23 days without charging you and you do not have the right to speak to a lawyer in private.

[@Blingdung]

I knew someone who just said “I’m sorry officer I cannot answer any questions” and was held for a week or two. They released her without charge cuz she didn’t have ID on her and she won the being silent battle

[@Dave102693]

I don’t understand that logic

[@Dave102693]

@@nataschavisser573do they even have lawyers in Japan?

[@prettyevil6662000]

@@Dave102693 Yes. They even have defense lawyers. But the defense lawyers are basically a farce, paid to put on a facade that it was fair since there's a 99% conviction rate.

[@theresanoelle]

the "he could have been asking for a canine lawyer" is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my life. I cannot believe that was a real argument

[@stretr8251]

The thing that had me laughing for minutes when that came up is that, even if he was literally asking for a lawyer that is a dog, he would still have been asking for a lawyer.

[@FEED_ME_A_STRAY_CAT]

Tbf I'd prefer a dog lawyer 🥹

[@RmsOceanic]

One L&O episode that always stood out to me was Season 3, Episode 19, "Computer Virus", the first real time the internet is a factor on the show. In tracking down who sabotaged a medical computer causing some deaths, the police come across a hacking group, and ask a hacker to break into a suspect's email, whereupon the suspect is tracked down, arrested and more evidence of the sabotage is gathered. However the defense lawyer argues that the hacker was acting on police orders, therefore the whole thing was a warrantless police search and all the evidence was inadmissable, which the judge agrees with. The DAs lament that judge as thinking "the constitution was written on a laptop", as if that ruling was stupid. And yet I think today we're all pretty glad that it's common understanding that to search private computer data requires a warrant at minimum. Of course one episode which has truly aged like milk was Season 1, Episode 8, "Poison Ivy", where a black honor student is shot and killed by a police officer during a drug bust, who spends the rest of the episode falsely claiming the student had a gun. At the end the DAs lament that if the cop had admitted he panicked and shot without thinking instead of trying to hide it no jury would have convicted him.

[@WobblesandBean]

Sad thing about that is Jack McCoy is clearly a mouthpiece for Wolf. He legitimately believes that computers and our private data are fair game and the cops should be able to invade our hard drives any time they want.

[@LuizAlexPhoenix]

​@@WobblesandBean Something tells me that if we broke into his and his pals' computers there is enough evidence there for him to turn into an avid defender of his rights.

[@machinatingminotaur6285]

@@LuizAlexPhoenix lmao yeah

[@BeefMeisterSupreme]

@@LuizAlexPhoenix ah, original position fallacy: I didn't think it'd happen to me!

[@reyperry2605]

What I've noticed, from watching many episodes of SVU with my mom, is the way it peddles the fantasy that the rich and powerful are regularly brought to justice. Doctor Who has more verisimilitude.

[@tuojiangoman3228]

Yeah it’s an open secret that the system wants to make a hierarchy. A fascist type hierarchy.

[@flyingvct7214]

​@@tuojiangoman3228not fascist an oligopolistic society not that's the problem people calling the kettle brown when it's black the government is controlled by the elites that pay the politicians campaigns that's an oligarchy with fascist iteration

[@catisreckless4647]

@@tuojiangoman3228 "Wants to?" I'm sure you meant "Already has made".

[@bmagada]

It also pretends that all the criminals are rich and cartoonishly evil or stupid.

[@EmeraldEmsiron]

"guilty verdict AND the death penalty, wanna go get a drink?" is probably one of the single most vile lines I've heard in my life.

[@RomasKalash]

I’m waiting for the part in the video that this occurs, but could be black humour?

[@fandomcringebucket]

@@RomasKalash Black humor because in real life the person getting sent to their death is statistically more likely to be black.

[@somedragonbastard]

​@@RomasKalash gallows humor isn't funny coming from the executioners

[@saoirse_miller]

@@RomasKalashblack humor is technically defined as making light of a bad situation, HOWEVER, black humor is often either made to stand alone (such as saying "wanna hear a joke?" or making a comedy video where you do a skit or drawing a comic) or made by someone who has been hurt by a bad situation. for example, "why do orphans suck at baseball? because they can't find their way home." is dark humor. this joke could be told to someone, filmed as a skit, or drawn as a comic. it would also be funny if an orphan told it. however, would it be funny if an orphan's parents who abandoned them told this joke directly to their orphaned child, or said it about them? no, because then that's just cruel. in this case, the joke might be funny if the person who got the verdict and death penalty said that to their lawyer, because they're making light of a situation that affects them, which they're allowed to do. but for the prosecution who caused that situation to make it about themselves and make light of it, it only shows how they clearly did something wrong yet see no need go fix it. they clearly feel bad about the result of a trial, but rather than say, "i think we had a mistrial" or "wait, that punishment doesn't fit this crime" both of which are genuine reasons to change the outcome of the trial, they're essentially saying "well, that sucks that we killed a guy. thank GOD we can just go out and drink and forget!" meanwhile there's a person who will be killed. edit for clarity: this is why black humor is called gallows humor. if someone in gallows tells a joke about being in gallows, they're laughing about their situation. if the person who sentenced someone to be in gallows makes a joke, now they're being mean.

[@shawnab9940]

​@@saoirse_milleryou miss the actual Double entendee and the fact that is sadly funny because it is Black humour. No-one needed your splaining the concept.

[@adnamaster9973]

In Texas my drug possession case was dismissed for lack of evidence but they told me if i get arrested in the next 5 years for anything they will restart the old case against me just to add on charges

[@Not_Always]

Texas is awful

[@nyxeo]

Fucking Texas

[@stevonwhite8933]

“Freedom loving Texas”

[@admthrawnuru]

Is that a bluff maybe? It makes no logical sense, but then again we're taking about the legal system...

[@Turamwdd]

It means they don't have enough evidence to successfully convict you but enough to justify doubt. Additional crime you commit then can be used as justification to pursue more evidence in the original case. This is why, for example, tax evasion is the normal way that is used to bring down major criminals - evidence found while pursuing relatively minor tax crimes is used to convict for the other crimes in which the police originally did not have enough evidence.

[@kaisap112]

Regarding Miranda rights: for the love of god, do NOT assume all legal systems are the same as the one on American television. In Finland, for example, you are expected to know your rights and cops do not need to read your rights to you. Not a thing in our legal system. A bunch of people raised on American TV have made the mistake of thinking they'll get all charges thrown out if Finnish cops don't read them their Miranda rights, "gotcha!" - which is not the case. Miranda rights are not a thing in the Finnish legal system. It's actually pretty problematic that people get their lessons on ANY legal system from American TV-shows, when the US system is not the legal system in the vast majority of the world and, as this channel has shown repeatedly, American TV-shows are not even remotely a realistic portrayal of even the American legal system.

[@sentientnatalie]

What does Finnish law have to say on such and how is it applied?

[@davidpeters6743]

It's not even a "gotcha" in the American legal system unless they're using a confession to convict you. Movies and TV shows usually get it wrong.

[@kristinmh1]

In Canada, a bunch of the trucker convoy protesters kept trying to "plead the 5th Amendment" to avoid testifying at their trials and the judge was like THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO WHAT

[@mckenzie.latham91]

Also finnish law is garbage, and it wouldn't matter if they did have Miranda rights, they would be violated anyway. Seriously almost all those Balkan adjacent nations are essentially wild west when it comes to law With massive corruption and classic built into every aspect of the system. The fact that Andrew rate is even being tried in Romania and hasn't just bought off the cops and the legal system Is a fluke.

[@konstantinosnikolakakis8125]

@@kristinmh1Taking the Fifth does sound a lot better than Taking Section 11 c of the Charter, though.

[@floyd9572]

I have never, not once been Mirandized. I brought this fact up once in court, Judge basically told me "Tough shit, I'm reading them to you now"

[@bearmarco1944]

Not once have the police ever mirandized me, cautioned me, or told me why I was under arrest. I mean that's probably because I've never been arrested but the point still stands!

[@aryqpasta]

Times like these that I remember how lucky I am. There was a warrant out for me when I was misidentified for a crime. I metaphorically tip-toed my way to my lawyer's office and my lawyer contacted an officer so that I could discuss the situation with the officer. My lawyer was super firm with the officer. They had absolutely nothing, I had been working in a place with security cameras (far away from the crimescene). The cops had already found evidence that mostly pointed to someone else (who they were pretty sure had skipped town). They clearly wanted someone to bust, but all they had is that I had similar height, hair, and happened to wear glasses. The officer started reading me my rights (AFTER asking me questions), my lawyer actually stopped him, asked if there was going to be an arrest. The cop said no, and my lawyer asked him to leave.

[@michaelevans5603]

I guess if a cop doesn't say what your Miranda rights are, you don't have them?

[@amazinggrapes3045]

Time to turn at the jury and stare at them like "are you guys hearing this shit?"

[@AlexsGoogleAccount]

My partner is in prison for a non-violent addiction related crime. He took the plea deal so the prosecutors would drop false charges that implicated him as being a dealer (despite that objectively not being the case). Despite being over 2 years sober at the time of sentencing, having an addiction counselor testify to his progress, this being his first offense, perfect compliance with pretrial services, and having a leadership role in multiple support groups, and having a very expensive lawyer... The judge sentenced him to more time than the prosecutor asked for, which was double what people in his support groups had gotten for a similar crime. We saw nothing but cruelty from the police, he didn't get medical treatment at the county jail and needed to be hospitalized, the prosecutor outright lied, and the judge was harsh and used dehumanizing language, and don't get me started about the prison. The ONLY people who consistently treated him like a human in this process were the pretrial services officers. He's white, but he's also openly and obviously gay and it's difficult not to think that might be related to the harshness of how we was treated.

[@msjkramey]

I'm sorry to hear that. How much time is he facing?

[@JaciintaM]

I am so sorry.

[@Kris-wo4pj]

The judge was that harsh cuz its a common tactic to be kept in that judge chair by being harsh on addicts and to treat all addicts even recovering ones as violent offenders esp around reelection time. Idk why being a judge or prosecutor is an elected positon but it is same as police chef. So enough bs like this and bribes keep them in power to ruin more people's lives. But yes being gay also probably helped them act even worse.

[@notaperson9831]

As an addict, the minute the system identifies you as such you’re easy pickings. Clean time, career, none of that matters. If you’re on maintenance medication? Forget about it. You’re fucked.

[@mrptr9013]

That's infuriating, and yes, the fact that your partner is openly gay might very well be why the judge was a piece of s**t.

[@amberdent651]

Look, I've always hated cops. I grew up with an abusive one. But when I started doing intake interviews for a public defender's office...never have I known as much hatred for cops and DAs as I did then. Letting young teenagers stew in their cells with wounds that were infected; men that got gangrene from being held in pretrial detention without adequate medical attention; pregnant women tazed by guards; on and on. 95% off all the people in the jail weren't violent and were only there for stupid shit or couldn't pay bond, bonds which DAs and judges wanted specifically. Whole CJ systems is rotted to the core.

[@archsteel7]

Huh. So what you're telling me is that the most realistic part of Ace Attorney is not how cartoonishly evil most of the prosecutors are, but rather just that Phoenix ever successfully proves his clients innocent without them being subjected to YEARS of harassment by the court?

[@RagnellAvalon]

Japan's legal system is infamously prosecution-biased and basically any insane shit you can think of doing to try and get a confession out of someone has probably happened in the last year. Ace Attorney is basically a black comedy about how fucked up it is.

[@jaredplaudis4825]

It's crazy how they say "the people" are represented by the cops and prosecutors. They are representatives of the State, the exact opposite of the people.

[@9HighFlyer9]

"government of the people, by the people and for the people" The State and it's citizenry are one and the same, at least that was the intention. That's why it's "The State of Arizona vs Dave Jones." It is us the citizens/State putting Dave Jones on trial. The Prosecutor is just the people's appointed person to handle that trial.

[@jaredplaudis4825]

@@9HighFlyer9 the biggest con is to believe that “The State” and “The People” are the same thing. They are the opposites of each other. The State can do things for the benefit of the people but it is not the people

[@LauchlanMcdonald]

​@jaredplaudis4825 how are they opposite?

[@Dorian_sapiens]

@@LauchlanMcdonald They aren't intrinsically opposite, like in an "eternal metaphysical truth" kind of way, but we live in a class-divided society in which a minority ruling class controls the state and uses state power (hard and soft power) against the majority ― the people ― in order to maintain its position as the ruling class. It is possible for the people en masse to control the state, in fact that's what socialism means, but in the society we live in that is not the case. And I don't even need to ask what society you live in, in order to say "we", because if you lived in any of the five or so societies on Earth where the people truly are in control, you wouldn't need to ask the question. It's only due to severe political miseducation (the soft power of the state) that we in capitalist societies don't even understand the nature of political power and class structure in the societies we live in.

[@AdamSmith-cf1tl]

The criminals masquerading as "the state" often do things that harm the people. Actually, I can't think of anything beneficial the criminals masquerading as "government" have ever done for "the people". I can, however, think of many horrible, evil, criminal things they have done. ☮ @@jaredplaudis4825

[@AdrianaMartinez-eo8xr]

I remember hearing the myth that if you’re not mirandized then they have to let you go and throw out the case. Nope. My father (a Mexican immigrant) was arrested and was never read his rights. Police told him if he confessed and pled guilty, he’d only spend less than a year in county jail and could come back to his American born family after. That he wouldn’t lose his green card and could continue living and working in the US. So, he did that. He lived in the US since he was 12 and had three young children at home to provide for so it seemed the best option rather than face a possible heavy sentence and then deportation. Only for a couple weeks later he was sent to a deportation center and has not been able to see his now grown children or wife in almost 2 decades now. Told it didn’t matter his rights weren’t read and that the police were able to lie to him and that there was nothing we could legally do.

[@hereniho]

God, I hate the US legal system's treatment of us Hispanics. It treats us like we're trash meant to be thrown into Mexico, regardless if you're actually Mexican. They don't see the difference nor do they care...

[@tuojiangoman3228]

What the actual ****. IS WRONG! WITH THIS SYSTEM?!

[@jcaesar19871]

Yeah, that's disgusting. And cops wonder why nobody trusts them.

[@matt2027]

I'm so sorry for what your family went though. It's worth mentioning for anyone who might read this, if you're not a U.S. citizen (green card holder, nonimmigrant visa, etc.) and you get arrested for any reason, you NEED to talk to an immigration attorney IN ADDITION to a criminal defense attorney. Criminal defense attorneys rarely know much about immigration law, or the impact of an arrest on immigration status.

[@bearmarco1944]

Yeah that's an immigration case as I understand it, and not really a criminal matter, but the fact that police can lie in interviews isn't fair as a tactic. I don't necessarily believe it should be illegal or should get everything after thrown out, but it shouldn't be police policy and the public shouldn't tolerate it.

[@XXXX-yc6wv]

I used to work on this show. There are plenty of things to criticize about the ethics portrayed by the cops and prosecutors, but the thing that annoyed me most about it was that almost every episode deliberately told the viewers that "lawyering up" or not talking to the cops were a definite sign of guilt. In a real world version, during the Rittenhouse case, the judge was enraged by the prosecutor's repeated attempts to convince the jury that Rittenhouse not talking to police without legal representation showed he was clearly guilty. The judge at one point became so furious about this clear violation of lawful rights that he implied if it continued he would call a mistrial.

[@lich109]

There is a lot that I really dislike about that trial, however that was one of the parts the judge got right.

[@XXXX-yc6wv]

@@lich109 I'm presuming you dislike the verdict?

[@lich109]

@@XXXX-yc6wv Aside from facts like the judge not allowing relevant evidence in, I dislike the idea that if there was a shootout, whoever left standing would be able to argue it was self defence. So yes I do dislike the verdict.

[@XXXX-yc6wv]

@@lich109 Rittenhouse wasn't the only one to provide an argument in the trial, the prosecution had plenty of witnesses to provide their account. Nor was he the "only one left standing". One of those he shot was a lead witness for the prosecution. The fact you don't acknowledge this quite major facet of the prosecution's case makes me wonder how much you really know about the trial. Either way, the jury heard everything that was put to them by the defense, prosecution and the court itself in terms of instruction, and they came to a not guilty verdict. It doesn't matter whether you like that verdict, as far as the court is concerned, justice has been appropriately served. Unless you think you know better than the court? Furthermore, the "excluded" evidence would be the video of Rittenhouse saying he wanted to shoot protestors? The prosecution chose not to use it because it could only be used to prove intent, which any wise counsel would avoid attempting, and Binger chose wisely not to use it. So it wasn't "excluded" at all. Don't take any of this to mean I endorse Rittenhouse in any way. I think he's an idiot and part of a bizarre gun culture that I simply cannot fathom despite growing up around firearms. If he had any sense at all he would not have taken a weapon to a riot. The publicity of his name and face is a sentence he will serve until the day he dies, which should serve as a lesson to anyone else considering such a stupid act.

[@lich109]

@@XXXX-yc6wv You've got quite the imagination to make up words and arguments I never said, and then imagine I said them, so let me try to bring you back to reality: I'm not here to argue the case. Every point you tried to make in regards to the trial was entirely irrelevant and only served to strawman what I said. My point is that if Rittenhouse was not the one who survived and the other guy shot him, he'd have also gotten off on self defence. That is my point, I am 100% against the idea that two people can be involved in a shooting with the survivor being the one who is in the right.

[@ryanstewart2289]

Every lawyer I've ever spoken to says the same thing: never talk to the cops.

[@wolfwatch9731]

imagine hating sympathetic potrayal of defense attorneys and the people they defend so hard you make a show with the same title with the opposite energy. dick wolf playing ace attorney and absolutely seething the entire time then running off to make his own game about how cool and sexy cops are.

[@thenightstar8312]

He would absolutely want to make out with Manfred Von Karma. That dude seems to exude every trait that Dick Wolf sees as beautiful, selfless and heroic.

[@wolfwatch9731]

@@thenightstar8312 dick wolf's ace attorney is all about how manfred von karma did nothing wrong bc it doesn't matter what you do as long as you get that guilty verdict

[@tiffanywyatt5137]

It's really not a big deal

[@WobblesandBean]

Bootlicker: The Series

[@NitroDubzzz]

It's insane how these "artist" hipster types can't appreciate an unintentional antihero

[@Scallycowell]

“Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.” -George Carlin Further Carlin on the concept of ‘rights’ below

[@matthewmcneany]

I would offer one correction. If you're on a date and find out your date is a cop, and you didn't already know they were a cop, it's probaly best not to leave immediately as an obvious policial statement but rather to find some other later reason to bail on them, 'cos if you blow a cop off bc they're a cop, they're absolutly gonna stalk you and make your life hell.

[@darkestlight660]

Stay safe out there

[@joeiechristiansantana9641]

I would want cop meat, but yeah, thanks.

[@trioptimum9027]

Yeah, no joke. 40% of cops, and all that. This is ABSOLUTELY a time to have your roommate make that fake-emergency call.

[@maskonfilteroff3145]

Sure, man.

[@steele_heart77]

@@trioptimum9027 *40% of cops that are _CAUGHT._

[@Respectable_Username]

I looked up the equivalent to Miranda Rights in my location (NSW Australia) and apparently we _used_ to have the right to remain silent, but that was seriously restricted in 2013 (thanks Barry O'Farrel) because police didn't want to deal with defence attorneys in their police stations. I wonder why they'd be so keen to keep out the defence attorneys /s

[@Kaipyro67ALT]

New South Wales is also extremely corrupt in terms of the legal systems. The governing officials, criminal organizations, and the police themselves are all in bed with one another.

[@timtheskeptic1147]

Australians and Americans both lack the ability to remain silent so that "right" fell to the wayside.

[@abdalln8554]

Everytime i watch a video like this I start thinking about my old job at a port of subs. Constant monitoring, having to adhere to every minute esoteric rule, and naturally long hours for jack pay. I had more oversight than most parts of the justice system do and i slung sandwiches for 10 bucks an hour.

[@bearmarco1944]

In WA, lawyers will not sit in on interviews, because under old WA law, they could be called to testify against their own client to verify that someone said what someone else said they did. That isn't a problem, because lawyers will tell their clients to be quiet, and defence lawyers have no interest in hanging around police stations for any longer than they need to. Just a sidenote for helpful info; attorneys do not exist in Australia, it is an antiquated legal term and the role of 'attorney' was split into 'solicitor', a lower courts lawyer, and 'barrister', a higher courts lawyer in the 19th century. The USA, however, never caught up.

[@Dexter037S4]

Canada doesn't even have them lmao, he got his idea from Stephen Harper and the IDU.

[@jamesu3816]

The guy interviewing Dick Wolf @19:48 is no joke Roger Ailes. Former foxnews CEO who was ousted because of sexual assault.

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

I think he died before he was able to be fully investigated, didn't he? He got away with so much.

[@angrynerdgirl]

Thank you so much for this! I'm a social worker who used to work as a medical advocate for SA survivors. I cannot stand how advocates (the people explaining medical and legal terminology to survivors) are portrayed on L&O just bc part of our job is informing survivors that they don't have to make a police report. We're not obstructing justice, we're informing our client of their rights and supporting them through what's possibly the worst day of their life.

[@Turamwdd]

And yet, your sympathy prevents justice from occurring. In this case, you are saying that comforting you client is more important than putting a sexual predator in jail. This is why most SA cases aren't brought because of statute of limitations was reached. No evidence is ever gathered and it becomes he said/she said in which case presumption of innocence prevails. How many sexual predators are on the streets making additional victims because of your sympathy?

[@Senjamin]

​@@Turamwddidk how to tell you this but you have to fix the system that involves putting the victim on trial and cops traumatizing victims before you can address any of that. you really think a person whose been SA'd is likely to actually get a predator off the street by reporting it? cute. look up conviction rates and you'll understand why people refuse to report because it just gives the rapist further access to them.

[@atraxisdarkstar]

​@@Turamwdd "How many sexual predators are on the streets making additional victims because of your sympathy?" OP mentioned that informing survivors of *their rights* is part of her job. So by sympathy I think you mean "legal and ethical standards of your profession". Also, what's the alternative? Put pressure on a recent SA survivor to name their attacker? Would you also pressure them to testify in court?

[@WobblesandBean]

​@@Turamwdd Tell me you have no reading comprehension without saying you have no reading comprehension. Dude, what do you expect OP to do, flat out FORCE grape victims to press charges? Newsflash, that's not how it works. Trial = inevitably someone is going to make them relive that horrific experience, and almost certainly be accused by the defense of "asking for it".

[@Snapdragon0112]

One of the few things police cannot do for you in an interrogation is offer to lessen the crime or argue for you in court. We allow them to lie to you, but not help you.

[@tsunderemerc2963]

Its nuts how much asking for a lawyer immediately places suspicion on you. "Oh well if youre innocent than you dont need one." No, you need someome to help you defend that innocence. Remember that the goal of the police is to play these mind games with you and trick you into saying the wrong thing. And as such they can lie as much as they want, regardless of your guilt/innocence.

[@sugoistalin7809]

I literally watched all of the original back to back 3 times while in prison. It was real easy to tell how nonesense it was after watching that much of it.

[@basedpliskin]

lol are you my mom? she watched the entirety of the original show when she was locked up too haha. she absolutely hated that show with a passion

[@dysmissme7343]

Goddamn Why?? Was it just bc it’s endless??

[@sugoistalin7809]

@@dysmissme7343 Because there was often nothing else on. I was in during covid lockdown, so we were in our cells 21 hours a day.

[@youknowwhoyouare2269]

@@dysmissme7343 it's all fun & games until you're exposed to the realities of our criminal injustice systems

[@allurajane4979]

how? was it on tvs or something

[@99morphine]

I remember in one episode of SVU miss Olivia Benson threatens to call immigration on a lady who refused to say where her partner was, and afterward Fin [Ice T's character] questions her on if she was really going to do it, so the writers KNOW that this was wrong but decided to leave it in.

[@Dave102693]

Even the “most moral” cop in the franchise are just a softer version of Hank from Chicago PD tbh

[@prettyevil6662000]

Olivia's done so many awful things. Including threatening victims in various ways such as saying they'll arrest them for wasting police resources if they recant or they'll get them deported if they stop cooperating, etc. Not to mention the myriad of times she's promised someone they can't be deported if they are a witness in a crime only to immediately have that person reported and deported (stop making a promise you know is apparently only true in theory!) Plus the one that will stick with me forever, encouraging a woman who wanted an abortion of her own volition, due to severe mental illness where she couldn't even take care of herself, to carry through with the pregnancy and keep the baby because it'll get better. Olivia, born of rape, knowing it caused her mother to become an abusive alcoholic, wanted someone else to have to live that life too?! With mental illness on top of it? And Olivia is supposed to be the softest and most caring officer in any of the shows. (Guess it's easy to appear soft and gentle when your first partner was literally beating up suspects while you watched his back and your future one tells sex workers they don't deserve help if they're attacked.)

[@bradhorowitz2765]

Or the times she SLAMMED a a confined questioned period. M in the interrogation to the table…but that cos seeing the boys club of the police station…that’s might be accurate

[@sentientnatalie]

@@prettyevil6662000 Copaganda cultists really seem to love seeing Gestapo tactics in action, don't they? I'm tempted to conceive of a show where the American cops basically function like Nazis, I have to wonder what insane level of popularity could such a show garner? Would the critical mass of the audience, every time someone was GTA V torture scened in police interrogation, howl in unison like a bunch of really hungry blood-dripping red-eyed fantasy wolves? I fear they would, Olivia Benson is probably loved *because* she abuses suspects (at least, according to footage from one John Oliver show's L&O clip).

[@erhiueQWEF]

I've got a roommate that absolutely loves Law and Order and every so often I see and hear the character Olivia Benson doing things like lying to suspects, this character is an awful person and is a single mom on top of that too, so they can do virtue signaling like Olivia is raising her son so he doesn't become like the sex criminals she chases at work. The problem with this ideology is it pre-supposes that unless Olivia Benson takes direct action, her son is destined to grow up to be a rapist. It's absurd.

[@deadman746]

If justice were involved, it would be _law and justice_ instead of _law and order._

[@kwarra-an]

The "lawyer dog" thing killed me. Oh my god. The importance of a comma, I guess... But seriously, how can ANY reasonable person (the general standard legal things are held to) think someone would be asking for a dog lawyer? Even if he was, that's still a lawyer, right?

[@zephyr8072]

Unfortunately MacGruff the Crime dog, Attorney at Law was busy that day.

[@hexkirn]

I don't think reasonable person standard applies when you talk about qualified immunity or police conduct in general.

[@kwarra-an]

@@hexkirn judging from how Court cases into police brutality go, I think you're right :/

[@B3Band]

You're not required to say "comma" in normal speech. Why would a comma make a difference in a spoken request?

[@Gillsing]

The comma would be there for the written report about what was said. But of course it makes it easier to intentionally misinterpret the arrested person if you skip punctuation. Dog.

[@4203105]

Wait, if you implicate yourself while talking to the police that's like the word of god in court, but if you exonerate yourself that is hearsay? I knew your legal system was fucked up, but not that it was that fucked up.

[@incanusolorin2607]

Where are you from? It's unlikely to be too different

[@4203105]

@@incanusolorin2607 it's different pretty much everywhere. You have to be pretty brainwashed by "American superiority" to think otherwise.

[@sabotabby3372]

Most countries in the world use civil law systems instead of precedent based law Court cases there are not argumentative, at least not in the way US/British ones are

[@hereniho]

Remember, it's "Innocent UNTIL proven guilty", not "Innocent UNLESS proven guilty". Any detained suspect in the USA is treated as a matter of time, not a matter of truth.

[@trinityj1]

@@incanusolorin2607 Very arrogant in your ignorance, there.

[@ForumArcade]

I've been subject to a criminal prosecution myself. It's my opinion that if someone is offered a plea deal to avoid a trial, the possible sentence if they ultimately go to trial should be capped at whatever they were offered to plead out. That way, if it's equitable, everyone saves time and money, but prosecutors will have to put a lot more consideration into the offers that they make. Also, the maximum sentence for a crime should not exceed the statute of limitations for the same crime. There are certain crimes where the statute of limitations period is 2 years, but the maximum sentence is 15 years. So if you dodge indictment for 2 years, they can't bring a case against you. But if you get indicted one day earlier, they can imprison you for up to 15 years? Doesn't make any sense. There are a lot of opportunities to increase equity and efficiency within the criminal justice system in the US. But for about a hundred years, all we've done is push this "tough on crime", fearmongering political campaign narrative which has never improved anything for anyone.

[@bearmarco1944]

That 'maximum sentence for a crime should not exceed the statute of limitations for the same crime' stuff, I agree with. The way it works here, offences are divided into summary offences, and indictable offences. Indictable offences are then further divided into crimes and misdemeanours. Where I used to live, there were summary offences and crimes, with no subdivisions. Indictable offences (crimes in the other jurisdiction) are more serious, offences like assault, wilful damage, murder, etc. They all have no statute of limitations. Summary offences (simpler offences like trespassing) have 12 months for a statute of limitations. Where I live now, summary offences carry imprisonment terms of no longer than 3 years. Where I used to live, they carried terms of imprisonment no longer than 12 months, which I think is mostly fair. The guy who graffitis a wall can be charged in 40 years, the guy who kills his wife can be charged in 60 years, but the guy who urinates in public can't be held to account more than a year after the fact.

[@packman2321]

Thought this was brilliant. As a non-lawyer I think I'd fallen into the same trap of assuming that legal institutions were essentially the antidote to the problem of law enforcement rather a continuation of it (and I say this as someone who just finished learning about the ways expanded state secrecy laws and data tracking make power less accountable and put people in danger). Honestly, I think the framing around Miranda rights as a clear, well known issue, is such a smart way to press home the problems inherent in legal copaganda. Honestly fantastic

[@tim290280]

I've never really been a fan of the Law & Order franchise. There was always this implication that everyone (cops, prosecutors, victims) were 100% right about everything despite their continuous acknowledgement of their mistakes, caveats, differences, etc. Great to see you pulling apart the threads on this franchise.

[@Not_Always]

yes. Even now people have so many misconceptions about the legal system and what the law is

[@thenightstar8312]

I used to watch it as a teenager, even with my family all the time. Now that i've grown up and learned to think for myself, as an adult homeowner for 17 years, I look back on the time I spent watching that racist, conservative, dog-whistling bigoted garbage and feel deep deep shame.

[@tim290280]

@@thenightstar8312 it's odd that the problems I spotted with the show back then weren't the ones you outlined, but now those are the most obvious to me. I guess it shows that L&O is just layers upon layers of bad.

[@Pandaxtor]

@@thenightstar8312 L&O spin off: SVU is very left leaning and still falls for the same problem with regular L&O. Depending on your perspective, this is pretty funny to observe.

[@daverobson3084]

I was a fan. About 15+ years ago. The one with Vincent dinophrio turned me off as the idea of a ( borderline?) Violent lunatic as a police detective seemed unreal to me. Then I started watching investigations of bad cops.

[@fadeuhhway]

I nearly lost it at the "he could have meant he wanted a dog that was a lawyer". I dont know how that could've been taken seriously, like at all.

[@citizen_grub4171]

Can we all just agree that it's crazy how Ice-T went from "Cop Killer" to copaganda?

[@bearmarco1944]

"When I got the job at SVU, Dick Wolf said to me, “Ice, you don’t like cops, right?” I told him that during my criminal past, I didn’t hate cops - they were my opponents. [He asked,] “But you admit we need them, right?” I said, “Yeah.” So, Wolf told me to play the cop that we need. And if I play the cop that we need, I won’t have any problems with it - my cop is a far stretch from the cop that the cop killer wants to kill" - Ice-T Sounds like a 'bad apple' argument. He also made it clear that he is acting a character in both Cop Killer and Law & Order.

[@citizen_grub4171]

@@bearmarco1944 And it is still copaganda.

[@bearmarco1944]

@citizen_grub4171 In both he's playing a character, so it's expected that he'll take up opposing types of characters, so it's not really crazy. Plus, I wouldn't criticise someone for the works that they're in just because there's political disagreement.

[@CharlesChristinaWH]

​​@@bearmarco1944 I know most rap fans can't comprehend this or get mad but the majority of rappers are acting, they went to acting school and learned how to act gangster Ice cube, Ice T , Tupac, Biggie, and Dr Dre all went to private schools in fact Tupac, Biggie, Busta Rhymes, Nas and Jay Z all went to similar schools in New York No music mogul is going to risk having to pay millions in legal fees The "jail " time they serve is just a "street cred " ritual because us rap fans want our rappers to get gangstas These music companies wouldn't keep pushing that if people didn't buy it period Now I'm not the one who complains about guys like Ice T playing a cop because I understand he's been playing a "gangsta " role for decades and accept it It's the same with people getting mad about Taylor Swift and Billie Ellish coming from middle class rich families If people didn't cry for underdog stories and accept reality , they wouldn't be need to lie about "Poor upbringings" You hardly become a success in Hollywood without having connections or are a nepotism hire

[@oniemployee3437]

​@@citizen_grub4171 cry more.

[@LiarJudas666]

this show tricked me into thinking cooperating would get me out of consequences the second time i was arrested. glad to see more light put on it. never admit to anything and never talk to cops

[@kyleglendinning9414]

Maybe don’t do things that get you arrested, ever consider that?

[@LiarJudas666]

@@kyleglendinning9414 maybe go fuck yourself, you ever consider that?

[@LiarJudas666]

@@kyleglendinning9414 hmm i think YT removed my last reply. go find the horizon. you are lower than a dog.

[@DodgaOfficial]

​@@kyleglendinning9414lol you're an idiot, you do realize innocent people are arrested on a regular basis right? If you think being a law abiding citizen is a guarantee that you won't be arrested, or even prosecuted for crimes you didn't commit, you don't know much about the legal system. It's attitudes like yours that make it impossible to get a fair trial in our country, going to a jury trial is putting yourself in front of a bunch of people that are going to assume you are guilty solely because you are in the chair as a defendant.

[@VidGamer123]

@@kyleglendinning9414 Remember this comment when you get wrongly arrested and the police charge you with anything and everything.

[@Joural0401]

"asks for a lawyer and isn't given one" oh that's accurate you have to say the magic words- "I am invoking my right to a lawyer". You then have to invoke and follow your right to remain silent. Remember- invoke the right to remain silent. "I am invoking my right to remain silent." You can absolutely invoke the right to a lawyer, then answer a question while waiting for the lawyer to arrive and fuck yourself over. Having a right to remain silent does not include the right to not be asked questions.

[@lich109]

It actually does include the right to not be asked questions. Legally the interrogation needs to be stopped immediately, however you can find plenty of cases where that does not matter.

[@Beepbeepoutoftheway]

It seems like cops and prosecutors are both far more concerned with putting people away than putting the people who actually did crimes away, it's not justice at all, just a game to these people

[@reneedennis2011]

Yup.

[@RumchugMusic]

Read about the Norfolk 4. It's one of the most fucked up stories of police only seeking confessions without caring if they're true.

[@Genarii]

Well, not exactly. They only attempt to put away people they're sure they can. Otherwise, they won't go to trial. It would ruin their conviction record. If they put away innocent people without a trial, sure, I guess they will sometimes. I'm just not sure how it benefits them to do so.

[@Mr.Limekiller]

Yeah it's like it's a game...or a tv show! Hold on, you might be onto something there!

[@daverobson3084]

Depends on the cop, and on the department, but, yeah, seems like too many are like that.

[@thephantom7121]

It’s ridiculous that you need to invoke a right, like the whole point of a right is that you inherently have it

[@reneedennis2011]

Exactly.

[@brucetucker4847]

You don't need to invoke a right, you just need to not waive it. Invoking a right is really just a way to tell the police to stop wasting their time, and also getting it on the record that you did not and do not intend to waive it in case they try later to say you did. However you don't need to actively say you waive a right either, you can do so through your behavior, for instance after continuing to talk to the police after you've been advised of your right to remain silent.

[@PublicLeeSpeaking]

Nope,@@brucetucker4847 The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 (Salinas vs Texas) that you MUST invoke it, like a freaking spell, because otherwise your silence can be used as an 'indicator of guilt' otherwise.

[@bearmarco1944]

Yeah but if you made it a rule that silence counted as invoking a right, then police would have to end any interview if any person was silent for any amount of time. So if police asked a guy "where were you last night?" and the guy stopped, leaned back in his chair, thought about it, and then answered 10 seconds later, should the police have called off the interview before he responded because he was being silent, which we assume is an invocation of his right to silence? If not, then how long do we wait until we conclude that this person is intentionally not answering the question? Either we make all police interviewing inadmissible and unlawful (at which point solving crime becomes impossible) by doing that, or we do what the courts did, and require that you invoke your rights.

[@peacemaster8117]

@@brucetucker4847 No, you specifically have to invoke the right to remain silent. It's discussed in the video.

[@matthewgagnon9426]

I'd rather fifty people walk on technicalities than one person get imprisoned falsely.

[@sev1120]

"I'd rather a ten guilty men walk free, than a single innocent be convicted" -William Blackstone, the namesake of Blackstone's Ratio

[@singlereedenjoyer]

we should always be more willing to let a guilty man walk free than to imprison an innocent one, because if we imprison an innocent man we are still letting a guilty man go free as well

[@roomfullofrocks275]

People will learn more about the legal system from Ace Attorney than Law and Order

[@sentientnatalie]

Isn't that the one where all the non-defender officers of the court beat and torture people whimsically, or have it done?

[@zephyr8072]

Ace Attorney operates on Japan’s legal system which is funnily enough guilty until proven innocent. Law & Order’s wet dream.

[@sentientnatalie]

@@zephyr8072 Yeah, that figures. It's not called "hostage justice" for nothing, and they do like their 97-99% conviction rate. I just thought that Ace Attorney expanded upon that in the manner in which I'd described.

[@wilberwhateley7569]

Objection!

[@alpaga4820]

And on top of that it's not even the right country 😂

[@zoereidinger]

I love the point Olayemi Olurin, Esq made about how frustrating advising white people can be when they find themselves in the position that many many more highly policed populations have found themselves in, seeing an unfair system from the unfair side.

[@SeanWinters]

"i love when x guy said racist thing, but its not bad because it's about yts"

[@MyChannel773]

@@SeanWinterswhat’s racist? it’s someone talking about their experiences seeing how white people react when put in a situation they, on average, aren’t used to (compared to other people who are more likely to be used to it). the irony comes from the fact that many white people will dismiss those same experiences as made up or not that important… until they experience it themselves. i’m white and you really have to stretch to even think of the word racist here

[@jordanromesburg6819]

​@@SeanWinterswhat racist thing was said?

[@dwaynebrice1697]

This response is a human response when they're ignorant not one based on race. Thats what makes it racist. The implications that create the scenario you're talking about is racist. You're not wrong technically though.

[@dwaynebrice1697]

​@@MyChannel773what do you say about all the black people that act exactly the same in the same situation?

[@TehNoobiness]

"Good luck getting an apartment or a job if you're currently facing charges..." Not to mention how much damage just _waiting_ for a trial can do. There's a guy I heard about through the Doom 2 mapmaking community, whose mother died tragically of a stroke...and who was immediately arrested on suspicion that he had beaten her. The judge threw the case out...YEARS after the arrest, because the prosecutors realized they had nothing to stand on and proceeded to hem and haw and stonewall and suggest that he should take a plea deal and get it over with. In that time, he lost his job (didn't show up for work), lost his apartment (couldn't pay rent and the landlord couldn't contact him), and had all of his property thrown into the garbage (because it was in an apartment that was no longer his). The charges were bogus, the autopsy report showed no signs of the beating the cops claimed occurred, and the judge threw it out and yelled at the prosecutor...as soon as it got in front of a judge. But the man's life has been completely ruined, and he's currently homeless while he waits to see if he'll get any recompense by suing the state.

[@virtual_fairy]

THANK YOUUUU for saying don't talk to police. i wish people would learn that the cops CAN and WILL manipulate you into admitting to some sort of crime, whether you committed a crime or not.

[@reneedennis2011]

Yup.

[@cogline9]

There's no such thing as an innocent/casual conversation with a LEO.

[@chrisdiokno5600]

Not all of them

[@screamingcactus1753]

@@chrisdiokno5600 Okay? Good on the ones that won't, I guess. Doesn't change the fact that the system allows it and the vast majority of police DO take advantage of that.

[@chrisdiokno5600]

@@screamingcactus1753 That is true, or at least they are often bullied into compliance by the Blue Wall

[@bertbaker7067]

I've seen the trial penalty in action. The most egregious happened to a friend of mine. They offered him 3 years in prison if he pleads guilty. He took it to trial, lost, and they gave him 22 years.

[@-alovelygaycat-]

That’s over 7 times the guilty plea sentence. What the actual fuck?

[@B3Band]

At what point does your friend, as a human with a brain, say to himself, "Okay, I actually did it, and 3 years for what I literally did is reasonable. Let's just take the punishment for the thing I really did, instead of trying to find a way to avoid consequences."?

[@ianwhitt731]

Did I miss something? I didn't see any mention of him actually committing the crime.@@B3Band

[@mizu7662]

@@B3Band Why are you assuming their friend actually did it instead of being rail roaded?

[@EarlFaulk]

@@mizu7662 Hes a bootlicker

[@modelmajorpita]

I think one of the most telling and obvious bits of copaganda in Law & Order is the opening. It says that the people - not victims, the people - are represented by the cops and the prosecutors. At the very start, the show tells the audience not to consider the suspects represented by defense attorneys to be people, so that they are ok with the cops abusing them. It claims that the defense is not serving the interests of "the people."

[@modelmajorpita]

"In the United states, only one side of the criminal legal system gets treated as working in the public interest" you don't have to speculate as to whether or not Dick Wolf has spread that ideology, the start of every episode literally says only one side represents the people, dehumanizing criminal suspects.

[@angelorosso4871]

Dick Wolf really went and called the Right to Privacy a fantasy even when it's called a right by the UN

[@CowMaster9001]

The UN is about as relevant as SPECTRE

[@angelorosso4871]

@@CowMaster9001 uh no, the United Nations has made declarations on human rights both general and for minors and privacy is on both. The UN is relevant as the US is a part of it

[@konstantinosnikolakakis8125]

@@angelorosso4871The UN is irrelevant. None of those rights mean anything unless someone goes to war to enforce them.

[@LuizAlexPhoenix]

​@@angelorosso4871 While I generally agree, the US has the Hague Act that makes it explicit that it will NOT allow international courts to judge soldiers and other state servants. So, basically, the US will use the UN to fuck with Iran and Russia, even spread lies about Iraq. Then when the UN actually brings up evidence against the US and its allies, the US will cut funding, threaten and outright kill UN officials. The US goes as far as not allowing diplomats into New York so they can't get into the UN building to make their case, talk to people in person and so forth. Point in case, Bustani was fired from OPAQ, Sergio Vieira de Melo got killed by a CIA asset in Iraq because the US didn't want them showing evidence of the blatant crimes committed in Iraq.

[@youmukonpaku3168]

bet it'd change real fast if it was Dick Wolf being investigated, but he's a wealthy cop-sucker, so he never will be.

[@cdotwinterr]

Really interesting video! I've only watched a few episodes of Law and Order, but a couple years ago I was obsessed with Criminal Minds and something that drove me insane about the show was how the characters would always complain when a suspect "lawyered up." Like, how dare this person use their constitutional right to a lawyer! It was my least favorite thing about Criminal Minds. I can see now that this is a reoccurring theme in crime/cop shows.

[@Nocturnalux]

Criminal Minds loves to demonize metalheads and goths, too. It is also utterly absurd.

[@Not_Always]

I used to like watching true crime shows like Forensic Files, the First 48, etc. It wasn't until I learned how bullshit the concepts of forensic is in this country, and just how many ways they want to do guilty until never proven innocent, I became disgusted with the entire cop culture and can't do it anymore.

[@caseyjarmes]

Imagine a scenario where you kidnap someone at gunpoint, lock them in a small room, then threaten them with violence if they don't sign a contract. In no other circumstance would that contract be considered legally binding, but of course plea deals are, because why the hell would the law apply to cops?

[@MomirViggwilv]

I wish there were a crime show from the perspective of criminal defense attourneys, specifically public defenders. Mostly on false accused people, but also unironicly guilty people shown getting a fair trial with a fair sentencing and punishment.

[@immanuelivanovich8638]

Those kinds of shows sort of exist. The Good Wife and The Good Fight for example. But the problem is that those shows are more like “work place dramas” than crime shows. They take place in law firms that handle defenses and what not and regularly have court cases defending people but they shows mostly end up being about the drama of running the business and personal relationships of lawyers Also there’s How To Get Way with Murder and Better Call Saul but those two shows are mainly about the lawyers themselves committing crimes and just occasionally by accident actually doing law sometimes

[@thenightstar8312]

Just play the "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy". It will literally give you every single thing that you want.

[@cweaver8518]

There are several. The Good Wife, The Practice, etc. Usually these shows don’t really do a good job of portraying questionably innocent people or showing the corruption of the prosecutorial part of the system, but the shows do exist

[@carrotspice5749]

If you're okay with a more cartoony depiction, I personally recommend the Ace Attorney games. Its definitely not a serious crime show, but the first trilogy has all the things you mentioned wanting.

[@lisah8438]

There is.

[@FlaviaMorton-lq3ek]

I was charged with a crime on baseless grounds and the judge decided to drag the case out to have a big landmark decision for reelection. When the prosecutor found out the DA was going to throw out the case they gave sealed records to the police who leaked them to the press just before the ruling. Legally it was the cops who did it and I couldnt sue but the prosecutors still held up the leak as a victory and I had to explain the now very public charge to people and jobs.

[@bananabanana484]

And who are the ones exploiting the system and using technicalities again? Doesn’t seem like it’s defense attorneys

[@bearmarco1944]

I don't know how it is in your jurisdiction, but ordinarily criminal cases are public. That's why people can come and watch in the gallery.

[@anna-flora999]

​@@bearmarco1944 weird, in my jurisdictions it's the complete opposite. Cases are very rarely public

[@bearmarco1944]

@anna-flora999 Where I live, cases become public after first appearance, except in the case of juveniles. Sometimes the case won't get much attention from the media, sometimes it will, but in every case anyone can watch.

[@jcaesar19871]

I was falsely arrested when I was 17, because I was at the wrong place, wrong time, when someone stole a car radio. Police never did their jobs. They've went and dusted the car for fingerprints to know I didn't do it. The old security guard, who was at retirement age, told the cops I did it. Probably because it was past 11 at night, and didn't want to deal with catching the actual thief. Cops, by the way, threw me to the ground, and pointed their guns at me. Remember, this was over a car radio. They have absolutely REFUSED to call my parents. Remember, I was 17. Still a minor. And yes, they didn't read me my Miranda rights. Oh yeah, my friend was there too. Also got cuffed. And my arresting thug officer actually had the balls to tell me "the jig is up. Your friend told me everything." First off, who the fuck still says "jig is up" in 2004? LOL Second, my friend told you what? What did I do? Oh yeah, nothing. Most inconvenient school year ever. Of course, they've eventually found me not guilty. Unfortunately, I still have to expunged the bullshit charge from my record. Not that I'm going to pay their extortion for THEIR fuck up. At least the best thing I got out of the whole thing was I got a hot lawyer. lol

[@RomanvonUngernSternbergnrmfvus]

You didn’t get a private lawyer? You can sue for a good amount, both the security and the cops for your pain and suffering so do it. My brother got 100 grand after a cop hit him going down the wrong side of the street while intoxicated. They detained him and tried to frame him but it was so obvious that not even the ukrop cop could frame my Russian brother for their late peers screw up.

[@przemekdude]

​@@RomanvonUngernSternbergnrmfvuskacap

[@RomanvonUngernSternbergnrmfvus]

@@przemekdude ?

[@Bodharas]

Same thing happened to me at 15. I was sneaking to go see my girl friend at the time. It was the weekend, and wasn't too crazy late. Like 11 or something. Cop comes around and starts throwing us around, and searching us, because they were looking for someone else. Thought we were them. Changed the whole trajectory of my life.

[@bearmarco1944]

In fairness from the perspective of the police, they have a witness who has told them that you did it, you were in the area, and then they did fingerprinting which you say exonerated you. You were taken to court and found not guilty. From what I'm hearing, it sounds like the system worked out right. And in spite of that, you complain about it not working. The jig is up. yeah but the guns, handcuffs, force, lying, that's all probably a bit much.

[@bertbaker7067]

Movies, TV shows, and the news have conditioned us to think that if you're acquitted, then you got away with it. Rather than the truth, the prosecutor failed to prove you did anything wrong.

[@johnbradley1139]

Not only does the Court keep creating ways where you have to know magic words to invoke your right to an attorney, they KEEP SAYING that *NO* magic words are required to invoke one's right to any attorney. Literally.

[@DancingTiger]

Do you mean revoke instead of invoke in the last line?

[@johnbradley1139]

@@DancingTiger No. Invoke. As in "Effectively ask for an attorney."

[@Turamwdd]

There are no magic words other than "I want an attorney" with no qualifiers like "might want" or "I think." It isn't complicated.

[@johnbradley1139]

@@Turamwdd Actually, no. "I want a lawyer" is expressing a desire, but isn't a request. Seriously.

[@quademasters249]

Same thing for "right to remain silent". Unless you open your mouth and invoke your right to silence, it'll be used against you. The supreme court has OK'd this interpretation too. It means you don't have rights that are inherent. You only have rights if you know the secret code words.

[@geoffreysorkin5774]

In any interaction with police that you did not initiate, you say these words: Am I free to leave? If they say yes, you leave, if they say no or don't answer you, you say this: I invoke my right to counsel. Then, you shut up until your lawyer arrives.

[@bearmarco1944]

open scene, smiling uniformed police officer walks up to a cafe counter police officer: "Good morning! Can I please have a coffee?" barista: "Am I free to leave?" police officer: "I mean, I suppose, I mean it's your cafe-" barista quickly leaves open second scene, smiling uniformed police officer walks up to a cafe counter police officer: "Good morning! Can I please have a coffee?" barista: "Am I free to leave?" police officer: "Sorry, say again?" barista: "I invoke my right to counsel." police officer: "Is this a joke?" barista: "I plead the fifth." police officer: "Oh, uh, okay." police officer goes to the next employee

[@peacemaster8117]

In practise this advice doesn't work. You can watch cop interaction videos and see how they will happily ignore the question "Am I free to leave", and just hold you in place and badger you with questions while wasting hours of your time.

[@bearmarco1944]

​@@peacemaster8117 ​ Police, by nature, probably ought to answer that question, but you need to understand that the goal of the police is to sniff out information such as that. If someone is free to leave, the police are still suspicious of them and want to extract more information by asking more questions, questions that may seem pointless but which, to the officer, are important enough to be asked. If a police officer wants to get information, what should they do in that scenario?

[@geoffreysorkin5774]

@@peacemaster8117 If they don't answer "Am I free to leave" you invoke your right to counsel. Courts have consistently held that police refusing to let you leave on request is custody. Once you unequivocally invoke your right to counsel, they cannot ask questions without your attorney present. If they do, you sue for wrongful imprisonment and get paid.

[@bearmarco1944]

@@geoffreysorkin5774 Not answering whether you are free to leave and refusing your right to leave are not the same. The first doesn't necessarily imply that you aren't free to leave, the officer might not be answering for a number of reasons, such as if it's irrelevant, or if you're trying to avoid something by asking it. They can ask questions as much as they want after you've asked for counsel, it's only specifically after you've told them that you won't answer questions when they must stop. Wrongful imprisonment suits require that the decision to detain or arrest violates the law, some places require specific intent on the part of the police to engage in wrongdoing for the suit to work. A procedural error, even if what you're describing was one, is not enough for wrongful imprisonment. The advice you've provided will not get anyone rich.

[@ReverendLeRoux]

Something I want to point out about Wallace, as it's rarely brought up about him and he is a very interesting political figure historically, by the time he died, he grew to resent the political beliefs he had held as a younger man, including the 'segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.' speech he gave. In 1979, he claimed 'Those days are over, and ought to be over.' in regards to his speech about segregation. He also reached out to several black rights activists personally to apologize for his treatment of their movement in his younger days. While he was a conservative until the day he died, and eventually became a republican (he was a Dixiecrat, remember), he did do some groundbreaking work for black rights in the state of Alabama, including putting the first black people in positions of power within the state. While not a good person, he improved drastically over the course of his life.

[@darwinism8181]

One of the more frustrating things about people learning most of what they 'know' about the legal system from cop shows is that most of them will pretend otherwise; the fictional worlds copaganda sets up are more real to many people than the actual world they inhabit, and they will aggressively defend their chosen reality over the actual one.

[@sovereignbrehon]

Precisely

[@dissonanceparadiddle]

it would be nice if america actaully outlawed slavery then there wouldn't be the sickening incentive to incarcerate at every stop and level.

[@JammKhon]

Would be even nicer if the Americas as a whole never imported slaves.

[@colonelweird]

Suggestion: maybe take a look at some British cop shows. They offer propaganda similar to American shows, but with a somewhat different slant. For example the British shows seem to put a lot more emphasis on how bureaucrats and bureaucratic rules prevent the cop heroes from dealing with the bad guys. It's such a common trope that it's really tired by now, but British shows keep using it. I've watched quite a few of these shows recently, especially older ones, and the best (e.g. Inspector Morse) can be amazingly good, as long as you remember they're fantasies with little connection to the real world.

[@DahVoozel]

Ah. The Dirty Harry trope. He'd bust those dirt bags if it weren't for those pesky rules and regulations holding back justice.

[@kwarra-an]

My mum adores crime procedurals, but only British/European ones, so that's basically my only exposure to the genre. Definitely noticed the trope you describe, and it's SO overplayed by now. Seconding your Morse recommendation, too.

[@stalfithrildi5366]

Life On Mars is pretty short by US standards and has a repeating bit where one cop uses modern British Miranda and cops from a previous era tell him its wrong; Since implementing them Britain has changed its Miranda system so that "...anything you do not say that you will later rely on in court could be used against you" which is pretty fucked up

[@colonelweird]

@DahVoozel A little like Dirty Harry, but not really. More like: "Inspector, you will refrain from questioning the Baroness about the unfortunate incident in her garden! I will not have my career derailed because of your impertinence. Good day, sir!"

[@Cheepchipsable]

They are all bogus. Maybe learn they are structured in such a way for dramatic purposes...

[@DavidRYates-tk2tq]

"Hunting children for sport on Billionaire Island" lmao

[@marc21256]

100% silence is protected. Speaking, then going silent without indicating you are invoking the right to silence allows a guilty inference. If you simply don't speak at all, your right to silence is preserved. It's only when you start talking, then stop where they can infer anything from your silence. But the magic words "I invoke my right to silence" protects your silence. Yes, it's unreasonable to expect the average person arrested to know that, but it works.

[@keirhardy6470]

Just to add the plea deal situation is very similar in the UK. If you plead guilty immediately you get 30% off any fines. Which is insane as many folk who get charged won't be able to afford a lawyer and a reduced fine seems like a good deal. But without a lawyer to sort out proper charges from bs ones they get stuck with an inflated or even false criminal record for the unforgivable crime of being poor. And a denied a proper trial.

[@jakejanssen4319]

Do you not get a lawyer for free in the uk? In America you get a public defender, which isn’t that great, but they are still a criminal lawyer and a lot better than nothing

[@keirhardy6470]

@@jakejanssen4319 you can get one for free if you go to court or when the police interview you. But consultation and plea deal shit costs unless you have under 3 grand in savings.

[@steviewolfeofficial]

After being unjustly railroaded by the system at a young age, i came to really hate these shows. They're practically expressly made to give people such a delusional view of the world.

[@mrkv4k]

As an European, everytime I saw the Law&Order series, I was surprised it doesn't show law nor order.

[@kwelikaley]

As a criminal defense attorney, THANK YOU FOR THIS

[@lemon93]

Elliot's actor went on to play a ex cop turned hitman in Happy. It works way to well Elliot was violent af in the show

[@HadalStreetlights]

Meloni is a vision in Happy! I choose to believe Eliot Stabler as the canon origin point for his character in Happy!

[@whywelovefilm7079]

I’ll never forget the episode where McCoy wanted to Pubic Defender to break client confidentiality because “it was the right thing to do” and that his license wouldn’t be taken away because the Bar “would understand why he did it.” Complete nonsense…

[@simpulacra]

something you didn't point out that's also very upsetting about the system. as much as I appreciate what public defenders do, a lot of them are very burnt out and callous. they sell you on these pleas. you watch them be buddy buddy laughing and chatting with the people pursuing you on these false charges. they don't ever have time to talk to you. and while it's not all their fault and they are not cops, they are still bought into in the soul crushing bureaucracy of the law.

[@Cheepchipsable]

I think the problem is a lot of the clients are guilty but will grasp at any chance to stay out of prison or do a plea deal. I imagine dealing with that over and over will probably get you to assume most are guilty from the get go.

[@LuizAlexPhoenix]

It's the nature of the system to filter out those that care. They are swamped with cases and whoever plays along with prosecutors gets an easier day, less stress and is more likely to be promoted. The ammount of effort necessary to be good can lead people into burn out, depression and psychosomatic results such as early aging, heart attacks, etc. It's the same in any field and the reason why "getting good people in" doesn't work. In defense law the burden is much bigger though, you are the only lifeline for several people and there are no rewards for being a decent human being that seeks to help those in need.

[@G-LukeJA]

Once again requesting a Copangada analysis of the Power Rangers SPD series, particularly its take on "illegal immigrants" and minorities.

[@thepriceisright048]

I second this!

[@Rhyndrop]

Yes please

[@wmdkitty]

"Alien Nation" would be a good one, too.

[@Dave102693]

Why not do it on PR in general

[@LexYeen]

We've seen Paw Patrol, let's get Power Rangers next.

[@haruki_nyan]

33:32 When I was little, I used to think that "the right to remain silent" meant that you were not allowed to speak; i.e., I thought that they meant "you have the right to shut up", because of how aggressively I would hear the Maranda Rights said in police show clips. It wasn't until my high school history classes that I learned I was incorrect.

[@bunnyfrosting1744]

I grew up wanting to pursue forensics, but then eventually (and thankfully) became informed on how horrible our “justice” system is. This series and your account are highly appreciated :,) Watching feels like a bridge between my former and current interests.

[@gavinpotter9286]

me too!! I wanted to be a forensic anthropologist until I learned the truth about the justice system, now I'm going to university for social work in the fall :)

[@angrynerdgirl]

Hell yeah, a fellow social worker! Good luck in school!

[@squirrelgadget3498]

Same! I wanted to be a forensic pathologist. Instead I just went into nursing.

[@notaperson9831]

I still stan Bones.

[@mobiasmobility_sixteen]

I'll become a metallurgist.

[@darknagaadventures7884]

Between failure to prosecute bad cops, even when the judge orders them to, to failure to hold their staff accountable for prosecutorial misconduct, I have known for decades that bad DA's are more common than good DA's from coast to coast.

[@AlienRelics]

I saw a preview of Law and Order... "We knoiw he did it, let's go get the evidence!" That is the OPPOSITE of how it is supposed to work!

[@ShadowPa1adin]

You think that's bad, you are really going to hate "The Closer."

[@JC_Cali]

What upsets me the most is that the whole underlying motivation for the existing Criminal (in)justice system as it stands today is to imprison the accused instead of ACTUALLY REDUCING CRIME,REHABILITATING FOLKS, and SOLVING THE CASE. I completely believe if we re-oriented policing to be focused more on detective work and less on cops and, we'd have a better system.

[@reneedennis2011]

Good point.

[@kappadarwin9476]

Yeah the system is so committed to putting people away they don't think about the aftermath. What happens when the person gets out? What kind of job will they have or skills learned? How are they going to be kept from reoffending without job or education prospects?

[@bearmarco1944]

What does police tactics have to do with the focus of the criminal justice system? Police just act when they see crime, and drawing police resources away from patrol police, community policing and crime deterrance would make crime more common, make responding to crimes more difficult, and would create a worse system. Most police agree that the system is broken, and plenty of coppers also agree that the system doesn't stop repeat offenders. Reducing crime an rehabilitation are social and legal policies that the police aren't at fault for, and as for solving cases - police do what they can to get solves, it's often a resources or strategy issue.

[@Stellar_Politics]

Putting people into isolated spaces with dehumanizing treatment to prevent crime is as useful as one more lane fixing traffic. Eventually you gotta realize the car is the problem. What urks me especially about the US justice system is the fact that after you serve your time and reintegrate into society, you're forever under class. It doesn't matter how much you've changed. You're going to be that much more disadvantaged in job seeking than those without criminal records, suspected of guilt that much more in police confrontations and trials, and felons? A label that will never leave you. Pretty sure it also affects things like loans, migration/traveling, buying a home, and adopting a child. Justice and rehabilitation do not coexist.

[@singlereedenjoyer]

@@kappadarwin9476 there's a reason 80% of people who get arrested in the US will get arrested again. because having a criminal record completely fucks up your future

[@aceoflights.]

The American legal system genuinely scares me a lot.

[@76678-m]

It never did before, but the more I read about it, the more I hear about the tactics cops and detectives use, the more I hear about the horrors that go in our prison system, the more I hear about how probation officers pretty much make it impossible to stay out of prison once a person has been released, and the more I hear about the lifetime of collateral consequences people suffer for even the most minor crimes, the more I realize the US “justice” needs to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

[@thatguy22441]

I have run afoul of our "justice" system (don't drink and drive; it doesn't end well), and that changed my whole view. Our system is corrupt to the core.

[@76678-m]

@@thatguy22441 yep, and the reason our “justice” system is so corrupt is punishing people is incredibly profitable, not only for the justice system itself, but those businesses working with it. Why pay someone a minimum wage when you can force prison laborers do it for 13 cents an hour (or free), and without all those annoying safety standards (some) of the law-abiding public works under. If it were ever mandatory to pay inmates a minimum wage, incarceration numbers would be cut in half.

[@NelsonStJames]

It should.

[@cyrussoxlegion]

I don't blame you. There's a very bad reason why our prisons are seriously overcrowded.

[@simonnachreiner8380]

Nothing says "equality before the law" quite like being found innocent by a jury.... Before being forced under threat of jail to pay $1500 USD in court costs.

[@ogto]

this copaganda series is one of my favorite things on youtube. i recommend it every chance i get, powerful insights into a neglected problem.

[@WeirdWonderful]

Talking about "pesky civil liberties" getting in the way of a guaranteed culprit being found guilty, there is an old episode of Law and Order where one of the cops follows a suspect, puts a gun to his head and orders him to go confess at the nearest police station, or he will be shot. And once the person recants his confessions later because of absolutely undeniable coercion, everyone just treats this as an annoyance, and I believe the cop in question faces no repercussions for this.

[@lich109]

The show was just being realistic.

[@Lilyanna298]

The number of films and television shows that glorify police violence is disgusting. The amount of threatening suspects with prison rape to get confessions too

[@Denuhm]

In 2022, I watched all of law in order in 1 go. All of it. By the end i was suicidal, depressed, irritable and so anti-establishment I started working (voluntary unpaid)for the public defender. I cannot stress enough just how disgusting Law and Order is as a series. I cannot stress enough how bad it is as an example of the justice system and frankly if this is the only exposure most people have with what they think of as "the justice system". It's a travesty and the fact that it went on for over 20 years, over multiple franchises is the worst part.

[@kappadarwin9476]

I get the same feeling after learning more about the justice system. The World of Law and Order is only really enjoyable if you know nothing about how the justice system works.

[@duderama6750]

The truth is much worse.

[@bearmarco1944]

@@kappadarwin9476 Especially SVU, the bizarre plot twists make the whole thing unbelieveable.

[@John-gq7vt]

The lead connection might sound crazy on the surface but as you stated, it maps onto the crime rate extremely well - in the US. But there's more to it than just that. It does the exact same thing in many other countries giving more support to the idea.

[@Gillsing]

Mad as a hatter: People making hats used lead to polish hats. Even the Romans knew that lead was bad.

[@5t4r.Dr490n]

50:50 “There is NO RULE in the Constitution” “That says a DOG CANNOT BE A LAWYER!!”