Kaffis Mark V wrote:
My point was simply that, no matter the reasons for him not fathoming keeping a bag of coke handy, the notion that he would ask the question of why other people might shows his blind spot pretty clearly, especially when there's a video that the entire thread is about that makes the answer to "who would do that!?" clearly "That guy, apparently."
Just because you're a clean cop doesn't excuse having a blind spot that causes you to be unable to observe that some cops aren't, and it's that blind spot that is, I believe, at the crux of the vast majority of his disagreements and arguments with others on all matters cop here in Hellfire.
Again, you're begging the question. That video is enough evidence to say "that cop is probably dirty" not "that cop is definitely dirty". You can't dismiss points that call into question the finality of the video evidence by citing that same finality. It's a circular argument.
The video is very strong - near-conclusive- evidence that he was doing
something improper. It is not as strong (although still better than 50% likely) evidence that he was planting drugs; it is enough to make that charge against him, but not enough to convict him.
The biggest problem is why is there no audio? There should be. Without that audio, and almost as important, without an explanation as to why only 30 seconds are shown, there's considerable room to question the conclusion that he was planting drugs - not that he was doing something he shouldn't because he clearly was even if it was only carelessness with evidence, but what the exact nature of that impropriety was is very much open to question.
If you want people to question the government and question authority, you shouldn't be so eager to dismiss questions that go the other way in such an out-of-hand fashion. Let's pretend for a second that I could show conclusive evidence that this officer simply put the cocaine in his pocket in the course of a search, then, not thinking, pulled it out again while he was searching the car. Let's further pretend that I can also provide conclusive evidence that the news site in question truncated the video and suppressed the audio in order to make it appear the officer planted the evidence. (I can't show such evidence, and I'm not claiming it's likely such evidence will appear; this is purely hypothetical). What then?
That's the problem. Is that an unlikely scenario? Yes. But what if the audio simply wasn't working and the video was truncated because the newspaper simply didn't look carefully and only showed what they thought was relevant, but I could produce a full video that showed him taking the baggie off the guy and putting it in his pocket? Is that unlikely? Maybe, maybe not. It's likely enough that the conclusion that he planted evidence intentionally needs more than just a 30-second audioless video, and I guarantee if he were charged, he would be acquitted for exactly that reason, barring a terribly inept lawyer.
The fact is that while that evidence isn't available now, it could come to light since we know perfectly well that his cruiser camera didn't just work for those exact 30 seconds, not before and after.
I'm not arguing at all that he didn't plant evidence, or even that it's unlikely - just that it's far from proven beyond reasonable doubt at this point, and I'm doing it based on deficiencies in the video that demonstrably exist. You can't reasonably demand that I accept your conclusion about what the video shows then turn around and dismiss problems with the video out of hand based upon your own conclusion.
Again, if you want to question, you have to accept that you can be questioned.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Do you seriously think that most cops actually have a baggie of drugs handy "just in case?" How would drug-finding canines ever work if this were the case; they'd be constantly confused and alerting. Where do the drugs come from? How come they don't get caught with them on a regular basis if they just keep them right there in a hip pocket?
