A suspected terrorist is arrested in connection with an imminent terror threat. A bomb has been discovered at a local shopping
center.The timer shows that the bomb will detonate in 2 hours. The man in custody is believed to be the bomb maker and the only person who knows how to disable the bomb. You and your partner are brought in to interrogate the suspect. An hour passes, and you haven’t made any progress. Your partner unplugs all of the recording equipment and asks you to leave the room. Twenty minutes later the officer exits the room with the code to deactivate the bomb. You look inside the room to find the suspect unconscious and his face covered in blood. Your partner asks you to back up his story that the suspect became aggressive during the interrogation and that he was simply defending himself. There is no tape to challenge your version of the events. It would be the terrorist’s word against yours. Would you follow your partner’s instructions? Why or why not? Be sure to include in your answer the ethical and legal consequences of your decision.
I would not follow my partners instructions, there are many laws in place that are put against this, it would be police brutality, and despite there being a bomb it is still wrong.
I would not follow my partners instructions. When you are in law you have to always tell the truth even if that means you are hurting someone who you are close to because of their wrongdoing. If you go along with the lying that makes you almost as bad as the suspect. Plus you are most likely to be caught which can cause serious consequences such a jail time.
No, because local law enforcement has other priorities especially to protect the people of their community, by adding extra task to local law enforcement would obstruct how they respond to local issues and apply more stress that they already have.
