Posted on 11/11/2017 8:28:17 AM PST by Leaning Right
Bodycam video allegedly shows an LAPD officer planting drugs inside a black suspect’s wallet.
*snip*
The suspect, Ronald Shields, 52, was arrested at the time and charged with felony hit-and-run and possession of cocaine. Officers claimed in the police report that they found a small bag of coke in the front left pocket of Shields’ shirt.
But bodycam video apparently tells a different story.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
You have asked the correct question. Of course, testing negative would not prove the bag of coke was not his.
“If a cop can’t keep himself under control, that’s in many ways understandable. It’s not an easy job. But then that cop needs to find another line of work.”
You have a point. However, if they control themselves well enough that their transgressions are as minor as this, that should be good enough.
Nobody’s perfect, but this is a perfect tempest in a teapot.
Go get caught red handed Lying on the Witness Stand under oath, and if you do not possess a Magic Blue Costume, I guarantee you will be REMANDED FOR CONTEMPT and referred to the DA for Criminal Charges.
In other words, you don't know and just think it should be that way.
Anyway, common sense should rule.
We agree on that, however in today's world that is rarely the case.
If you didn’t find two items together, don’t put them in the same evidence bag.
They were found together. They were found on the SUSPECT. One suspect, one EVIDENCE BAG. Only need TWO if the first one won't hold everything. That is the common sense rule that was invoked.
According to your suggestion, they would have to have a separate bag for EVERY ITEM that he had on him, as they seemed to come from different pockets on his person. Do you really believe they do it that way ? Come on, be real.
I suppose we are too far apart to continue this discussion much further.
Only because you willingly swallow crap the NY POST and other media spoonfeed you. Yet, I bet when they try to feed you lies about Trump that you are a bit skeptical. How can you NOT trust them on one issue, but suddenly believe them on another ?
Maybe you are being brainwashed by the media. They say BLACK and POLICE in a headline and you salivate expecting police bias against blacks. If the suspect in this incident was white, would you have known about it ? Would it be on the NY POST website ?
Show me where the officer tried to do something illegal and tried to hide it from the other officers and suspect, and I'll join your side of the issue.
Wouldn't they be impounding his car anyway for evidence of the hit and run ?
> Only because you willingly swallow crap the NY POST and other media spoonfeed you. <
I must unfortunately end our discussion. I’ve enjoyed most of it, even though we disagree. And I’ve tried to be respectful in my comments. But now it looks like we’re drifting into personal attacks. So, bye.
Wow, you really hate LEO’s don’t you?
Am I to believe that the cops, fully aware that their every move is recorded by SEVERAL cameras, openly and deliberately “planted” drugs on an arrested suspect for every one to see? Or, am I to believe that the suspect’s attorney is interjecting his own version of the video to “cast doubt” on the guilt of his client which would set him free?
Because that would require that actual journalism be practiced, a very rare thing nowadays—especially with journalists...
> Am I to believe that the cops, fully aware that their every move is recorded by SEVERAL cameras, openly and deliberately “planted” drugs on an arrested suspect for every one to see? <
Good question, and I wondered the same thing. So I checked around a bit. As I noted in post #19, evidently an LAPD officer can choose when to activate his body cam. And when activated, both video and audio are recorded.
The audio starts after the drugs have been planted (if they really were). But the video starts 30 seconds before that, without any audio. That video shows possible planting of evidence.
From what I read, when an LAPD officer activates his body cam, the camera automatically saves the last 30 seconds that were automatically recorded before the activation. The cop didn’t know, or forgot, that.
But like all recent news, there is certainly more to the story. Time will tell.
Yes. I'm quite sure that after an internal review that the officer will be vindicated.
*********************
Exactly right.
Impounding is not the same as confiscation. An impounded vehicle remains the rightful property of the titled owner, who can reclaim his property after paying the impound fees. Confiscated property is claimed by the government to be the proceeds of illegal activity, and its ownership is assumed by the government without due process - even if no criminal charge is brought (let alone proven) for any related crime. "Asset Forfeiture" is the innocent sounding name of this armed robbery scam, and every arm of government that administers "justice" has been corrupted by it.
Did they confiscate his vehicle ?
That's too bad. It was a good discussion.
But now it looks like we’re drifting into personal attacks.
I'm sorry you took it that way. It was not meant as an attack. Even you wondered why the word 'black' was in the title. My comment was meant to explain that the media is trying to bait you into hating the police. I should have worded it differently.
If you don't reply back, I understand. Thanks for the debate.
“Until someone gets out an evidence bag, and writes the ID on it, what do you do with evidence laying on the ground that is light enough to blow away by a shuffle of the feet? (remember the cop was behind the perp and picked the bag up off the ground). Which officer had official ‘control’ of the evidence bag ? Was it the officer that is the subject of this discussion ?’
The officer’s first responsibility is the safe handling of the suspect. He needs to know where the evidence is while doing that. When the suspect is secured (cuffed and in the backseat), then the officer can secure the evidence.
No, just dishonest ones.
See, I believe that when people take an”Oath” to preserve, defend, protect, or enforce the laws or the Constitution, they should be held to the highest of standards, and when those standards are breached by repugnant conduct and indifference to truth, justice and liberty they should be FIRED and maybe even prosecuted depending on the breach of standards. Lying Under Oath is one that calls for BOTH!
Your way of thinking is how we ended up in this screwed up Police State where Government Employees run rough shod over the People and trample on their God Given Right to Liberty with Impunity.
Sig Heil
> Thanks for the debate. <
And thank you for the gracious post there. Tip o’ the hat to you. Perhaps next time we converse, it will be about Hillary’s crimes, and we’ll be in complete agreement!
LR
Sounds like standard procedure
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.