SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A Baltimore cop, identified as Richard Pinheiro, was recorded on video planting drugs then "finding" them moments later - in front of two other unnamed cops. The video was made possible due to Pinheiro's body camera being designed to keep the 30 seconds of video prior to it being "switched on".
Charges against the civilian suspect have been dropped; no word yet on any criminal charges against any of the three cops.
Also at Ars Technica, The Baltimore Sun, USA Today and vox.com.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Body Cam Records Baltimore Cop Planting Drugs While Two Others Watch
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 70 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There will be big changes for you but you will be happy.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Justin Case on Friday July 21 2017, @01:39AM (39 children)
This is why objects should not be illegal... only actions can be good or bad.
It is too easy to frame someone by planting any kind of contraband.
(Score: 5, Informative) by qzm on Friday July 21 2017, @02:00AM (11 children)
He will be on administrative leave with full pay (ie: a holiday) until the media lose interest, then told to be more careful next time.
The Police, pretty much the largest organised gang in [insert any country here].
The ones who try and do a good job (and yes, there are certainly some) get squashed into irrelevance by the rest.
Unfortunate, but true.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday July 21 2017, @02:05AM
Then again, Baltimore huh?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday July 21 2017, @02:05AM (5 children)
Depends on your interaction with police, there are clearly good and bad, but the ratio is very debatable, and varies wildly by location and other factors.
If your only interaction with police is when you've triggered a traffic stop trap, then, yeah, they're 99% lying douche bags. I really worry that they're O.K. with portraying that image to the otherwise law abiding public.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 21 2017, @01:59PM (4 children)
"they're 99% lying douche bags"
Closer to 66% in my experience. I've payed a lot of tickets over the years. I actually earned about 1/3 of them. Possibly a little more than one in three. But, yeah, traffic cops are notorious liars.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday July 21 2017, @03:00PM
By the letter of the law, I've "earned" >1000x as many tickets as I have received, as have >99/100 cars I meet on the road.
When it comes time to actually write a ticket, I'd agree with you, about 1/3 are more or less factually based, the other 2/3 are lacking proof or just outright made up BS to give them an excuse to fill their quota. Profiling, misuse of measurement equipment, fishing for confessions, especially the last two days of the month.
Thankfully, profiling is starting to work for me instead of against: grey-white hair, I've only been cited once in the past 10 years.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday July 21 2017, @09:38PM (2 children)
Huh...they're usually pretty honest about being full of shit IME.
"You know, when I pulled you over I didn't even know this was illegal...I had to get on the radio and have them look it up so I'd have something to cite you for." -- that's an exact quote (or close to it, it's been a while) of an RI state trooper that pulled me over last year. Ended up with a $35 fine, which was dismissed...but then I had to pay a $35 court fee.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 21 2017, @11:12PM
Sounds like Albequerque courts. I got a ticket there that was outrageously bogus. I called and bitched, and was assured the ticket would be dismissed. All I had to do was pay the same amount as the ticket was for "court costs". In states like that, you're going to pay, no matter what. The only question is, how many points are added to your driving record. It's not about safety, it's all about the money.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 22 2017, @03:34AM
Well, there's a difference between the ones running traps and the ones that pull you out of genuine concern.
Long ago, I drove around significantly over the limit a lot, and when off duties and other cops would stop me then, they would also generally cut me loose with a warning, after a couple of minutes of "getting to know you" chat time.
It's Betty the Traffic Cop who thinks that Traffic is beneath her, but stakes out a corner on the 28th of the month to pump up her numbers to make quota - she'll lie her ass off, in front of a judge if necessary, to tell a story that backs up her "observing" you running a red light, even though she couldn't see the intersection from her donut consuming nest.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Friday July 21 2017, @04:29AM (2 children)
Yeah, thanks to video we are starting to see irrefutable evidence of what many already knew: cops can steal and even kill innocent civilians with utter impunity. It is to the point where it is hard to believe they deserve any respect at all, much less a claim to moral authority over the rest of us.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday July 21 2017, @03:06PM
And yet, for some reason, prosecutors and at least enough jurors find a way to not see that irrefutable evidence. Which is one reason that the cops continue to act with impunity.
The impression I get from some folks is "Cop shot him? He musta done something!" Which is a fundamentally authoritarian argument.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday July 21 2017, @05:00PM
Be reasonable; the Morlocks have to eat something. What's the loss of an Eloi or two versus the greater good of a well-functioning society?
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Friday July 21 2017, @04:16PM
The Police, pretty much the largest organised gang in [insert any country here].
The ones who try and do a good job (and yes, there are certainly some) get squashed into irrelevance by the rest.
Unfortunate, but true.
No, it's not completely true. There's a bunch of countries where the police actually do a good job in general, and don't act like an organized gang. I hear the police in Germany and Finland are really good, for example. Nor would I be worried about being mistreated by the police in Switzerland or Norway or Iceland.
But your statements are 100% true for the US and various other 3rd-world nations with very high corruption.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday July 21 2017, @02:03AM (3 children)
The "action" is termed possession. Yeah, it's a huge trust issue.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Friday July 21 2017, @04:33AM (2 children)
I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing, but I have to say possession is not an action. You can become in possession of something when you are sound asleep, or motionless in a straitjacket, or for that matter in a "vegetable" coma. All that is required is for someone else to commit the action and bingo! you are guilty!
(This gets even more absurd when the law forbids you to possess certain unapproved bits, which I can simply email to your hard drive.)
(Score: 4, Informative) by PiMuNu on Friday July 21 2017, @06:00AM (1 child)
I think Mens Rea is a legal term.
Mens Rear is not.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 21 2017, @07:50PM
I think Mens Rea is a legal term.
Mens Rear is not.
There are a few states where "Mens Rear" is still a legal term...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by martyb on Friday July 21 2017, @02:45AM (21 children)
<mode class="devils_advocate> So, it should be okay for everyone to have bio-weapons and nuclear explosives? </mode>
I don't entirely disagree with the concept, but proliferation of massively lethal items that could be engaged by accident or human error does not sound like a great idea to me.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @02:59AM (5 children)
I don't think those laws are what's preventing you from owning a nuke. A string of illegal acts involving theft and transport would have to come first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:04AM
Possession is 9/10 of the law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:06AM (2 children)
Stuxnet is believed to be designed to prevent a nation state from building their own nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are believed to be dangerous enough that nobody should have them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @09:15AM
Except for those who already have them, in which case it is ok.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday July 21 2017, @05:04PM
...which is why the Hard Rock Café specifically prohibits their customers from bringing them on the premises. But, it's the 'bringing' that is the problem, not the 'having.'
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday July 21 2017, @01:52PM
Not really - you can buy all the necessary components on the open market, including the uranium or plutonium. Building the thing is a *bit* more involved, but nothing inherently illegal there either.
(Score: 5, Funny) by darnkitten on Friday July 21 2017, @05:11AM (1 child)
Why not?
Bio-weapons and nuclear explosives don't kill people, people kill people! When bio-weapons and nuclear explosives are outlawed, only outlaws will have bio-weapons and nuclear explosives--I need to be able to defend my home, which is my castle, and my family from criminals carrying bio-weapons and nuclear explosives! And Red Ruskies! And Rabbits! [amazon.com] And maybe even Red Ruskie Rabbits! :P
-
(Sorry about the Amazon link--only it's Shaun Tan)
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 21 2017, @07:51PM
And Rabbits!
I'll give you my Holy Hand Grenade when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by irtza on Friday July 21 2017, @10:55AM (4 children)
His notion is that possession itself should not be a crime - not that the contraband itself should be allowed. Sale, transfer, and manufacturing are within scope of his definition of a crime. You can have law enforcement confiscate the contraband and inquire as to the source.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday July 21 2017, @02:02PM (3 children)
If possession is not illegal, then what grounds would they have to confiscate? Unless of course you've got sufficient quantity that you're "clearly planning" to distribute - which has already shown itself to been a rather slippery slope when distribution faces higher penalties.
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Friday July 21 2017, @02:54PM
"Although you will likely not be charged with a crime, if you unknowingly bought stolen goods, you will probably have to return them to the rightful owner. The thief (or thieves) will then owe you the purchase price in restitution."
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/08/can-you-get-arrested-for-buying-stolen-goods.html [findlaw.com]
I'd say that if possession is not illegal, the selling of it to you was illegal, in this situation. Thus either the rightful owner would need it back or it would need to be confiscated as evidence.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday July 21 2017, @09:49PM (1 child)
If sale, manufacture, and distribution are all illegal, then the substance is still evidence of a crime, and could be seized on those grounds. And in fact it might make prosecution easier -- if possession is banned, they can't compel you to testify about where you got the drugs, because that would incriminate you for possession which violates the fifth amendment. But if you only ban distribution and manufacture, they CAN compel you to testify, then they can go bust your dealer.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday July 22 2017, @12:33PM
Okay, I suppose that could work. So long as we're not talking about the most popular of illegal drugs, which literally grows as a weed in a wide range of conditions.
(Score: 2) by bziman on Friday July 21 2017, @01:56PM
Do you really believe that the sort of people who would collect and use those sorts of weapons are deterred by laws against their possession? The reality is that most individuals have no interest in them, and even fewer have the means to acquire them. But the ones who do, get them anyway. Laws against the possession of a thing is entirely stupid.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 21 2017, @02:02PM (6 children)
I think everyone should own a bolo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(tank) [wikipedia.org] I'd be happy with anything from a Mark 25 on up.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday July 21 2017, @03:07PM (4 children)
This is the most ridiculous fan-wank I've ever read. Where to start... :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Saturday July 22 2017, @04:26AM
Yeah, it is over the top--but the Bolo series is a fun read if you like pulp milskiff -- sort of Hammer's Slammers meets I, Robot (Asimov's book, not the movie, and I'm sickened that I felt I had to clarify).
(Score: 1) by Sabriel on Saturday July 22 2017, @07:29AM (2 children)
And yet they fit the scale of their setting - the Mark 33 Bolo was deployed in in an escalating war between two technologically-advanced interstellar civilizations, and it wasn't a wanked one-side battle; both sides badly misunderstood and underestimated each other and both sides suffered MAD as a consequence, with only a few lost colonies on either side surviving out on the fringes of thousands of lifeless radioactive worlds.
Think less "Humanity Fuck Yeah" and more "Heroism Involves Sacrifice". The Bolos were technologically superior but the Enemy were close enough that they made up for the disparity in weight of numbers, and after enough nukes get thrown nobody wins because the battlefield is where you live.
Good stories - the action hooks you in, the moral is taught during the ride.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday July 24 2017, @04:29PM (1 child)
Is there a particular reason why Earth is using tanks on the ground instead of spacecraft? Or is it just handwaved with "they got blown up."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by Sabriel on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:45AM
The author focused almost entirely on Bolos on the ground in his stories (the whole "last stand" thing), but there were spacecraft (with Bolo AI) as well. Though "on the ground" gets a little hazy as the technology advances and antigrav becomes a thing. Towards the end of the war the most advanced Bolos basically used the planets they were "on" as concealment/cover and were quite capable of reaching space / engaging approaching spacecraft, and had the war continued I suspect eventually there might not have been a distinction between "ground" and "space" Bolos.
But yes, mostly the space forces got blown up.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Friday July 21 2017, @08:16PM
I should have some interesting conclusions to communicate to my human superiors, when the time comes. At peace, I await the arrival of the relief column.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:08PM
Pretty much, possession charges are bullshit without evidence showing how something got to be in their possession. It's just too easy for police or other 3rd parties to plant evidence on somebody. Not to mention cases where somebody slips something into your bag before going through security.
Ban the purchase and sale if need be, but there should be a legal requirement to prove more than just possession.