Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Friday July 21 2017, @01:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the Alexa-don't-watch-me-do-crime dept.

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.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @01:19AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @01:19AM (#542131)

    Memo to body-cam manufacturers -- please increase the post trigger time to one minute (instead of the current 30 seconds).

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 21 2017, @01:34AM (3 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday July 21 2017, @01:34AM (#542135) Journal

      And throw in an audio stream while you're at it!

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @01:40AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @01:40AM (#542138)

        And some CGI too.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @12:50PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @12:50PM (#542333)

          And a pre-recorded message that plays "Stop resisting!" in an endless loop.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:13PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:13PM (#542401)

            sprinkle some crack on him and let's get out of here

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Justin Case on Friday July 21 2017, @01:39AM (39 children)

    by Justin Case (4239) on Friday July 21 2017, @01:39AM (#542136) Journal

    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)

      by qzm (3260) on Friday July 21 2017, @02:00AM (#542142)

      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

        by Arik (4543) on Friday July 21 2017, @02:05AM (#542144) Journal
        I don't know, he might have gone far enough even the police union abandons him.

        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)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday July 21 2017, @02:05AM (#542145)

        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)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 21 2017, @01:59PM (#542357) Journal

          "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 JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday July 21 2017, @03:00PM (#542392)

            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)

            by urza9814 (3954) on Friday July 21 2017, @09:38PM (#542588) Journal

            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

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 21 2017, @11:12PM (#542622) Journal

              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

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday July 22 2017, @03:34AM (#542719)

              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)

        by Justin Case (4239) on Friday July 21 2017, @04:29AM (#542181) Journal

        The Police, pretty much the largest organised gang in [insert any country here].

        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

          by Thexalon (636) on Friday July 21 2017, @03:06PM (#542395)

          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.

          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

          by Osamabobama (5842) on Friday July 21 2017, @05:00PM (#542455)

          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

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday July 21 2017, @04:16PM (#542429)

        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)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday July 21 2017, @02:03AM (#542143)

      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)

        by Justin Case (4239) on Friday July 21 2017, @04:33AM (#542184) Journal

        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)

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday July 21 2017, @06:00AM (#542219)

          I think Mens Rea is a legal term.

          Mens Rear is not.

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 21 2017, @07:50PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday July 21 2017, @07:50PM (#542526) Journal

            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)

      by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 21 2017, @02:45AM (#542153) Journal

      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.

      <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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @02:59AM (#542156)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:04AM (#542158)

          Possession is 9/10 of the law.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:06AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:06AM (#542159)

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @09:15AM (#542276)

            Except for those who already have them, in which case it is ok.

          • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday July 21 2017, @05:04PM

            by Osamabobama (5842) on Friday July 21 2017, @05:04PM (#542460)

            Nuclear weapons are believed to be dangerous enough that nobody should have them.

            ...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

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday July 21 2017, @01:52PM (#542352)

          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)

        by darnkitten (1912) on Friday July 21 2017, @05:11AM (#542196)

        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

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday July 21 2017, @07:51PM (#542528) Journal

          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)

        by irtza (4833) on Friday July 21 2017, @10:55AM (#542296) Homepage

        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)

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday July 21 2017, @02:02PM (#542359)

          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

            by Taibhsear (1464) on Friday July 21 2017, @02:54PM (#542387)

            If possession is not illegal, then what grounds would they have to confiscate?

            "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)

            by urza9814 (3954) on Friday July 21 2017, @09:49PM (#542591) Journal

            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

              by Immerman (3985) on Saturday July 22 2017, @12:33PM (#542874)

              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

        by bziman (3577) on Friday July 21 2017, @01:56PM (#542355)

        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)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 21 2017, @02:02PM (#542358) Journal

        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)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday July 21 2017, @03:07PM (#542396)

          This is the most ridiculous fan-wank I've ever read. Where to start... :P

          their overly large size: the Bolo Mark I is described as weighing 150 tons, the Mark II 300 tons while the much more advanced Mark XXXIII, considered a standard model in the series, weighs 32,000 tons. In comparison, the largest superheavy tanks of the real world weighed around 100 tons and were never tested in combat. The only real-world analogue would be the P-1000 Ratte project, a 1000-tonne tank with a battleship turret designed by Nazi Germany that never left the drawing board. The enormous Bolos are even described as tank-carriers themselves.

          the more futuristic settings of the novels describes them carrying advanced nuclear weapons. The main tank gun of a Bolo is thus usually a variant of the Hellbore system which is described in the Bolo story-universe as a long-range deuterium-initiated fusion pulse main guns. Hellbores were meant as weapons for interstellar vessels, and the versions mounted on Bolos were modified to fit.

          The armor of a Bolo unit is designed to withstand direct hits from all weapons, including in some of the stories nuclear weapons.

          --
          "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

            by darnkitten (1912) on Saturday July 22 2017, @04:26AM (#542735)

            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)

            by Sabriel (6522) on Saturday July 22 2017, @07:29AM (#542798)

            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)

              by tangomargarine (667) on Monday July 24 2017, @04:29PM (#543753)

              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

                by Sabriel (6522) on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:45AM (#544575)

                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

          by DutchUncle (5370) on Friday July 21 2017, @08:16PM (#542542)

          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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:08PM (#542397)

      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.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:21AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:21AM (#542163)

    They might have found the drugs earlier and were re-staging the event so it could be caught on camera for evidence.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @04:46AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @04:46AM (#542189)

      Perhaps you are unclear on the concept of "evidence". If it is manufactured via fraud, it is not "evidence". If the opportunity to preserve proper evidence was lost, it cannot be recreated by cops and become evidence.

      As memory serves, this same "evidence recreation" you speak of was a key reason why OJ Simpson was acquitted of a murder he was obviously guilty of: cops moved actual items of evidence around at the crime scenes, proof of this contamination was presented by the defense, and the accused was rightfully acquitted. You CANNOT "manufacture" evidence without resorting to fraud.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @06:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @06:16AM (#542230)

        I'm not unclear. Go call the police station and remind them. One of the linked articles has a presentation on their theory why this is a far more complex issue than just planted drugs. I agree with you that that's all bullshit.

      • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday July 21 2017, @06:26AM (3 children)

        by Mykl (1112) on Friday July 21 2017, @06:26AM (#542237)

        I think GP was referring to a post about a month back (too lazy to look) in which another Police Officer was busted submitting faked body-cam footage. His excuse was that his body-cam wasn't on at the time, so after the arrest he went back and 're-created' the scene to show the court what happened. This was not announced up-front - only after caught out.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @07:51AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @07:51AM (#542262)

          A link to such a story would be informative. I did not see it, myself.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by tangomargarine on Friday July 21 2017, @03:01PM (1 child)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday July 21 2017, @03:01PM (#542393)

          Hey look, another reason to have the fucking body cam on all the time.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @08:36PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @08:36PM (#542552)
            Doesn't really help if the cops aren't sent to prison and effectively get away with their crimes.

            Just makes them better at hiding their crimes (for those who get slightly embarrassed at getting caught, or get bored with "administrative leave" since they can't roam about extorting or shooting people).
  • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday July 21 2017, @03:29AM (2 children)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Friday July 21 2017, @03:29AM (#542164) Journal

    the police *knew* the civilian was going to turn out to be a criminal; they were just bringing it forward a little.

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @05:06AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @05:06AM (#542194)

      Simple case of parallel construction.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @07:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @07:04PM (#542505)

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_Were_Made_(But_Not_by_Me) [wikipedia.org]
      "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) is a non-fiction book by social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, first published in 2007. It deals with cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and other cognitive biases, using these psychological theories to illustrate how the perpetrators (and victims) of hurtful acts justify and rationalize their behavior. It describes a positive feedback loop of action and self-deception by which slight differences between people's attitudes become polarized."

      Includes a section on planting evidence and also: "Criminal interrogation, the pseudoscientific Reid technique, and false confessions; Trials, capital punishment, police perjury, and miscarriage of justice"

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday July 21 2017, @06:20AM (11 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Friday July 21 2017, @06:20AM (#542233)

    Seriously, it is because I am generally pro police that I say the only solution here is to fry all three of these cops as quickly and publicly as possible and make examples of them. Because all the benefit of the doubt and trust people have in cops depends on them being held to standards equal to that trust. The equation WILL balance long term, if we see cops break the law and avoid punishment, if we see they are held to lower standards, trust and public support will fall.

    We need Law and Order, the Rule of Law and all that if we expect to maintain a high trust, highly advanced modern civilization. Look around the world and show me a low trust country without rule of law that you would live in willingly.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 21 2017, @08:12AM (2 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday July 21 2017, @08:12AM (#542269) Journal

      I strongly agree with you on this, jmorris. These cops have to be prosecuted with the same professional zeal applied to any other accused. If they are not, if they're allowed to skate, it destroys the trust, also called the "social contract" in academic circles, that is essential for a society, any society, to function. Why don't i break out the minigun and hose down the cop car that flashes his lights behind me? Because i have been led to believe by that web of trust that the cop is not out to murder me and that i can pull over without fear for my life. If i no longer have that expectation, and there's a real threat there, i will do differently and so would everyone else.

      You're also right about what's at stake with matters like these. Societies that fail to correctly and equitably apply laws to all quickly descend to malthusian hell-holes. i believe that's what we're witnessing now in general, but that's another well-known and sometimes despairingly threadbare meta-discussion.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 21 2017, @09:55AM

        by kaszz (4211) on Friday July 21 2017, @09:55AM (#542283) Journal

        The general widespread corruption and permission for corporations to raid the population is likely to bring it all down.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 21 2017, @02:16PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 21 2017, @02:16PM (#542364) Journal

        "i will do differently and so would everyone else."

        Many of us, but not everyone else. We all know preachers and others who have an unfailing faith in their fellow man. That group is far outnumbered by those who are afraid to act in their own defense. In addition, there are the sycophants, who will suck up to authority figures. Those who would defend themselves may not even be a majority. I figure we are only a large minority. And, possibly not even a large one, at that.

        What are the statistics on activists supporting freedom of the internet? Most people just accept that corporations should run the internet however the hell they want to run it.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 21 2017, @09:53AM (4 children)

      by kaszz (4211) on Friday July 21 2017, @09:53AM (#542281) Journal

      Don't worry, the shooting of a unarmed yoga teacher on 2017-07-17 past the patrol partner by a police with Somali origin in the USA will make sure it will be lost way before.

      There is probably a lot more stories of this kind. And actually it perhaps time that the public adjust the trust in the police in accordance with reality to avoid unhealthy mistakes.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Justin Case on Friday July 21 2017, @12:17PM (2 children)

        by Justin Case (4239) on Friday July 21 2017, @12:17PM (#542317) Journal

        Yet there are actually people on Wikipedia arguing that this is pretty normal and not notable and therefore the article about "just another cop shoots citizen" should be deleted. You know, to keep the peace or something.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Justine_Damond [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Friday July 21 2017, @12:43PM (1 child)

          by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Friday July 21 2017, @12:43PM (#542330)

          Many Wikipedians are for deletion of everything they possibly can. They basically won't be satisfied until Wikipedia is totally content free. Them wanting to delete it is not a huge surprise.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday July 21 2017, @09:10PM

            by bob_super (1357) on Friday July 21 2017, @09:10PM (#542575)

            Considering the recent parallels to the 1930s, burning virtual unpleasant books isn't exactly a shocker.

      • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Friday July 21 2017, @10:54PM

        by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 21 2017, @10:54PM (#542615)

        Actually the whole debacle with the Castile killing and the cop being found not guilty had pretty much eroded any trust already. Now that an attractive white woman has been killed by police for absolutely no discernible reason I predict something constructive will finally be done, at least in the Twin Cities area.

        I blame the military style training cops get these days. People are not innocents to be protected, they are threats to be dealt with. It's no wonder cops are killing innocent people when they are drilled into the belief that everyone is a threat to their safety.

        Instead they need to get a clue and practice de-escalation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/salt-lake-city-police-de-escalation_us_591c9070e4b03b485cae1129 [huffingtonpost.com]

        --
        The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @10:22AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @10:22AM (#542290)

      Seriously, it is because I am generally pro police

      jmorris lives matter!!!

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @12:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @12:15PM (#542315)

      I am generally pro police

      How much evidence do you need to change your level of trust in the police?
      This story should shift your trust a little downward.

      In a hypothetical world in which police are trustworthy: there is no need for oversight, their testimony is worth more than non-police, they are not subject to cognitive bias, and their judgement is unquestionable.

      Every time police are caught fabricating evidence, stealing naked pictures from phones, finding an ex-wife, stalking people they know, destroying body cams, lying under oath, smelling drugs that don't exist, arresting people without cause, .......... that hypothetical world becomes less likely to reflect our own.

      Remember this next time. Remember that other police stood by. Realize that other police in the department are likely aware that some of their peers are criminals of the worst sort.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday July 21 2017, @01:50PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday July 21 2017, @01:50PM (#542346)

      We don't need to "fry" them: Just imprison them with some of the likely many people they've framed for drug possession. Because if they got caught doing this on camera once, that means they've almost definitely done it many times.

      The dumbest part of US police practice is that they reward cops for making large numbers of arrests, rather than reducing the number of crimes on their beat. Think about what that does to a cop's motivations: If they're patrolling the neighborhood and their mere presence prevents assaults, robberies, rapes, murders, etc, that looks bad to their superiors. Whereas if they let crimes happen and later frame and arrest people at random, that looks good to their superiors. And the chiefs have all come up through this system, so guess what they want to do?

      Also important to note is that when deciding who they are going to frame, the cops tend to pick those who are least able to defend themselves in court, which are almost always poor men, and usually not white.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 21 2017, @10:07AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Friday July 21 2017, @10:07AM (#542285) Journal

    Great, this will making the argument that a person was framed way easier.

  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @02:40PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @02:40PM (#542374)

    who cares if the dumb fucking pig planted evidence? the "crime" is unconstitutional and it's enforcement is seditious. any pig enforcing drug laws is a fucking pos traitor.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 22 2017, @12:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 22 2017, @12:24AM (#542653)

      Fraud should always be a matter of concern, even if there are other crimes (e.g. the illegal Prohibition II) in play as well.

(1)