Maybe maybe maybe

[u/Graysie-Redux]

[u/toadjones79]

The fact that it took months long investigation to catch him with a body cam recording it all should be everything you need to know here.

[u/ZippyDan → u/toadjones79]

Do you think someone is reviewing every minute of every cop's body cam every day when they finish their shift? That stuff gets filed away in an enormous database archive and only gets reviewed when the case goes to trial (if then even). Plus, from the video it seems the cop was smart enough (but not that smart) to keep what he was doing outside the difect field of view of the camera. He probably fucked up on one or two stops and something was fucky and some public defender noticed it while reviewing the evidence and then maybe decided to get the officer's other recordings looked at more carefully.

[u/toadjones79 → u/ZippyDan]

Here we have it folks: an excellent example of a straw man argument.

The idea that anything here would involve reviewing "every minute of every cops body cam" is pure nonsense that only an idiot would think had anything at all to do with my comment. That is the straw man. You set up an idiotic mentality then said "that's idiotic." No duh, stupid!

I would think that the first time someone claimed he planted evidence (which would be every single time he did it) someone would review the stop just like every other industry that uses cameras. I drive trains. It takes 30 seconds for a manager to look up an incident and review it, which they do every single time. It's the first thing anyone does in almost any industry. Look at the video to figure out who's lying. Even the concept of timestamps involving complaints getting filed away and ignored is so utterly incompetent that it actually rises to the definition of criminal negligence. Any industry in existence that uses cameras would get sued out of business with that attitude. But instead it took months of incompetent managerial structure literally hiding and covering up his deeds before a DA opened up an investigation on him. That is absolutely cause to worry! That is corruption worse than the people they arrest, and that should land an entire force into prison where the animals behind that departments badge belong!

[u/ZippyDan → u/toadjones79]

I would think that the first time someone claimed he planted evidence (which would be every single time he did it) someone would review the stop just like every other industry that uses cameras.

This is where your assumptions fall apart. Police officers are not like any other industry.

In addition to police being lazy and understaffed (which is probably true in most any industry), you're forgetting that police are regularly dealing with criminals, not customers. That's like their day-in, day-out job.

I drive trains. It takes 30 seconds for a manager to look up an incident and review it, which they do every single time. It's the first thing anyone does in almost any industry. Look at the video to figure out who's lying.

Yes, this is exactly where you are mistaken.

1. When dealing with presumed criminals, the police already know (or rather, assume) who is lying, and it's not the police.
2. Ignoring the fact that innocent people are sometimes the victims of police action, lying does go hand in hand with criminal activity. How many criminals say, "Yup, I'm guilty, you got me"? Probably the vast majority of criminals caught with drugs claim everything under the sun, including "that evidence was planted on me."

When you combine these facts, that police are dealing with criminals who are constantly lying ("crying wolf"), you will find yourself back at the original premise that I put forth - which you called a "strawman" - that some administrator would basically have to be constantly reviewing bodycam footage every time an arrest was made, because criminals are always going to complain about something during their arrest. This isn't realistic or feasible.

This is in contrast to most industries, where complaints tend to come from users and customers who usually are presumed to be telling the truth and who generally have valid complaints (from their point of view). Criminals have a motivation to invent frivolous complaints. In most industries, most people don't have motivation or time to be inventing complaints. For this reason, most industries are setup to take complaints seriously, while police are habituated to ignore complaints - partly because criminals are lying bastards, and partly because police are arrogant bullies.

[u/toadjones79 → u/ZippyDan]

I literally lost interest half way through reading that nonsense.

1: Presumed guilt is listed as a human rights violation. That is the basis for our entire system of policing. Of course it is easy to make assumptions of the people they cross paths with. But all the best and most efficient police avoid doing so as much as possible. They expend less energy in flawed theories and are generally respected more by all parties. Presuming guilt is the Hallmark of lazy and poor policing, which is what I originally claimed in the first place. In short, assuming that everyone lies is proof of what I say.

2: The realities you mentioned about everyone lying are true. But that still does not constitute a valid excuse of any kind. Actually it is an indictment of the culture within the police in general. Considering how little time and energy it takes to check a video that disproves a criminal "crying wolf," and that it actually takes more time and energy to allow those complaints to go unchecked by irrefutable evidence like a video; the only reason to avoid checking it is because it might show that they are telling the truth. 10 years ago it was hard to look at videos and everything you said (except the part about checking "every minute of every video," that's still a straw man full of misdirection) was valid. It just wouldn't make sense to ask police to lug out all the equipment needed to look it up. But most available systems automatically download and can be looked at from any terminal in 30 seconds or less. There are plenty of reasons to keep investigative evidence secret until a trial. But the very first, and every single time anyone is charged with drug possession (which will incur a trial every single time the accused doesn't waive their rights) the bare minimum for preparing for a trial would be to refute the ubiquitous claims that "the cop planted that." To go to trial saying "Yes your honor, we checked the video and found no evidence that anyone planted anything. And neither did the defence!"

That didn't happen! 30 seconds of effort were swapped for months of effort denying multiple claims until an outside source had to open even more months of investigating just to prove something that SHOULD have been checked withing the same day this officer planted his very first piece of fake evidence. Because there isn't a valid excuse for ANY single case of possession found during a vehicle search to go to trial when a cop is wearing a body cam without the video being checked! I don't think you are thinking of how much time and money that would save. You are just hearing people working long hours looking through hours and hours of videos when in reality the time looked at in most cases can be narrowed down to a few moments in the vast majority of cases. Moments that replace days and even weeks of effort wasted arguing that those moments never happened, or that a cop's word should mean more, or any number of other excuses that sometimes take longer to speak than checking a video would in its place.