Should cops that lie about tye law be executed.

No. I am not even sure if they should be punished at all.  

I didn't watch the link, so if you want to explain what happens, feel free. Have you considered the police don't know the law? Or they interpret it differently? They are enforcers, and if they act in good faith, that is not an abuse. 

Having worked in highly regulated fields, which require interpretation of the law, different people have different beliefs, and that assumes they bother to think for themselves, and not default to the interpretation they are told.

Yeah just watch the link, but filming the police is legal in every state and thay is pretty widely known. He knew that it was not illegal. He lied about the law. Also acting in good faith is not enough. They need to strive for perfection. Hell even if filming the cops were illegal, it would be unethical to enforce the law. 

There is no point in watching the link, if you can't tell me what specifically is at issue. We may notice or focus on different things.

You are wrong about the law - which is precisely why it should not be expected police are experts in it. That is what courts are for, unfortunately. The police should be experts in the procedural applications of laws (e.g. probable cause, search warrants, etc.). 

The law is that police can be recorded in public in general. It is not carte blanche, and there are obvious limits to this, in addition to any specific statutes or ordinances that may apply in the jurisdiction. In certain circumstances, it is illegal to be filming police. 

It is illegal to record the police in some contexts (like, giving testimony before a grand jury), but in the context of a traffic stop there is nothing illegal about recording the police in North Carolina or anywhere else in the United States. 

The video linked by Wylted, which formerly went viral, depicts an "attorney" who was moonlighting as an Uber Driver in the context of a traffic stop.  The video does not show anything more than a rather awkward and tense exchange of words between an obviously frightened late-20 something or early-30 something attorney, related to whether police can be recorded in general (i.e., not *only* in that specific context) and what implications some "new law" invented by the cop who seemed to be in charge had to this situation.  The cops searched his car after bringing a dog who presumably gave an "alert" that there was something to be found in the car, found nothing, and the "attorney" was released. 

There are four issues, related to the video recording, at least two of which are not obvious.  The first issue is whether the police had a right to demand that the guy stop recording, which they did.  The second issue is whether the guy had to comply with that demand.  The third is whether the cop could actually make the guy stop recording.  The fourth regards the implications of the search, following the guy's refusal to stop recording. 

The cop could demand that the guy stop recording, but that's it.  The cop can't make the guy stop recording, because there is no legal justification for that.  After all, the guy was free to record whatever he wanted in the context of a traffic stop.  The post-refusal search feels retaliatory, and the cop likely knew it which is why he brought a dog rather than just saying that he observed something suspicious which would be recorded by the mic on his vest.  So, the cop knew he didn't have even reasonable suspicion, which is why he likely coached the dog to signal the presence of drugs. 

Side note:  dogs aim to please owners and are less precise at identifying drugs than the flip of a coin.  Dogs get it right about 35-40% of the time.  A coin would get it right about 50% of the time.  Was the guy's fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches violated?  Probably, but there are no damages.  It's not like he's going to file a lawsuit.  He might file a complaint, which will almost certainly be disregarded. 

Should the cops lie?  No, because lying is wrong.  This rule applies to cops as much as it applies to everyone else.  It's that simple. 

Is there anything even approaching a conceivable good faith attempt to enforce the law as it is written contained in the video?  No.  The cops were well over the line.  The standard they are and ought to be held to is one of a reasonable police officer, and a reasonable police officer doesn't make shit up when it suits him, as this cop did here.

Should we permit creative interpretations of the law, that approach outright lies?  No, because we are a country of laws and not one of men.

The Supreme Court (maybe a lower court) ruled a while ago the cops CAN lie, to which the videos of people not answering questions.  You should be very careful talking to the police, especially if they approach you.  Their training involves how to get you to talk and other manipulative tactics.

It's one thing to lie to say you have dna evidence somebody committed a crime to elicit a confession, and quite another to lie about what the law is when you are in a trusting position. It is also unethical for them to make any unlawful commands. If something is a request, they should bend over backwards to let people know it is a request.

sure I agree with all of that, and yet ignorance of the law isn't a defense.......there's no way to enforce or prove it and people should protect themselves accordingly.

some, probably very few take any kind of ethics seriously, social media and the news kind of proves that is very few.

I would disagree that even in the context of a traffic stop. recording the police is legal - if in doing so you are impeding the ability for the police to function. Ironically, this would suggest that a suspect cannot record his own arrest or interrogation.

Of course, dash cams or third parties are not interfering if on the sideline.

I would not be surprised if the search of the car was due to retaliation, and if so, then this "attorney" could have a claim for unlawful detainment or whatever it is called. The retaliation should be the meat of the outrage, not confusion about a law. I would prefer police are fair handed in times of adversity rather than be experts on laws and likely failing in interpreting them.

I also do not have an issue with them lying, as long as the purpose of the lie is for the greater good. For example, lying about evidence to get a confession (from a stable suspect) or lying about a free car to execute arrest warrants, or, of course, any undercover work or sting operation. Lying about what is legal is difficult, because a general rule serves well in the heat of the moment, and can be useful for crowd control, although, this type of lying is narrowly acceptable.

Killing is a bit far. I think it would be far more humane and practical to remove their pinky finger in public. It would be a mark of shame for the rest of their life, as well as a chastening experience.

The subhect was not under arrest or interfering with an arrest, nor was he at an unsafely close distance to the action. This was not a misunderstanding. Cops now days are extremely well trained in regards to laws on filming.

This is not a discussion about that incident as much as it is supposed to be a discussion on acceptable ways to precent miscarriages of justice. Which in my opinion is to execute people responsible, be it a DA who locks up an innocent person, a juror or some cop.

So you think they can be reformed? I've seen one take a bullet to his face and still return to work adamant that he would not change as a result of his divinely inspired punishment.

I think that once they lose both pinkies they should be expelled from service and then ritually shunned by society in a way that's similar to India's untouchable caste.

This is why you need to be elected President, or me if you give a shit about not being assassinated

I would not be cut our for it, lol. I would make a much better evil chancellor.

This is why I see BLM as the biggest branding disaster in modern history. If someone really wanted to address shitty cops, they should have started with a slogan which was just 'cops suck', which everyone can get behind. Making it racial from the getgo just makes me think it was likely an astroturfed attempt to cause dissension and maybe even discredit real critics of overreach picked up by an odd melange of earnest but dumb black people and shitty bougie white kids.

True, I hate cops and I can't even gey behind BLM. Sad, it's just that these goons harm individual rights every day and then when Michael brown puts a cops life in danger and is killed for it, they get behind that. The 1/100 instance where a cop is in the right, they call him wrong. Every time. Not a movement that connects with me. An angry white guy

If the lawyer was being a jerk, and then the cop called in reinforcements to search the car in retaliation, and then upon seeing the additional police the lawyer started recording, that could be seen as an abuse of power. But, that is not what is being claimed happened. 

Let's examine the video, shall we?

- First, as usual, the video doesn't start at the beginning. We do not know what happened before (or after).

- We know there are five cops - which is three police cars. Multiple officers out of their vehicles does not happen with a routine traffic stop.

- We only see the cop lying about some law about filming, and we are led to believe the search is due to the lawyer being a "jerk". However, it sounds like the car was going to be searched long before the taped conversation, evidenced by the numerous police on the scene.

So, was the cop out of line? That is debatable.

On the one hand, he clearly lied about some new law.

On the other hand, from a safety standpoint, some suspect who's car is being searched is not necessarily the kind of person you want making wild movements with their arms. Further, an incomplete record of events can be problematic for any professional.  

Your position is to take anyone, including a juror, who is involved in any miscarriage of justice, no matter how slight, and punish them is excessive and ridiculous. Further, you call lying about a law a miscarriage of justice, yet have no problem manipulating people into confessing by lying about evidence.

I have a hard time taking your position seriously.      

For the record, BLM is more than about cop shootings. However, that is what is picked up by media.

Completely different scenarios, I am clearly not advocating for all forms of lying to be illegal. With the DNA evidene lie, you can eliciet confessions and the person assumes they are going to prison regardless of their actions, so it destroys one motivation for them to lie. The motivation, not to get caught, if they are caught. Let's not kid ourselves though, subjecting somebody to arrest is a form of violence. State sanctioned violence, but violence none the less. So when you lie about what is an arrestable offense it allows you to threaten the violence of arrest for almost anything. SO yes saying "Stop filming or I will commit an act of violence on you" should clearly be illegal or even "Let me have $10 or I will arrest you" or any other such equivalent threats.