7 ms·

A Baltimore police officer accidentally recorded himself planting drugs

79 points by urahara 9y ago

GuiA 9y ago
> Body cameras don’t always work out as many activists envisioned. Last week, the officer who shot Justine Damond in Minneapolis and his partner didn’t turn on their cameras, leaving us in the dark about what exactly happened in the case. This week, prosecutors in Cincinnati dropped charges against former University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing after two mistrials — even though body camera footage clearly showed that the man Tensing shot, Samuel DuBose, never posed a threat to him. Cameras work out exactly as advocates said they would - exposing how corrupt police forces can be. Police officers not turning on their cameras or judges disregarding clear evidence is what's not working out.
- solipsism 9y ago
  DAs not prosecuting police officers. Members of the public being biased (pro-rated police, and often anti- some race or culture). Legislators not caring. Police stations hiring officers who had to leave other locations due to being caught (but not prosecuted) doing something illegal. The system is stacked in favor of police, from top to bottom. It's an endless stream of travesties. It's enough to turn an optimist into a cynic.
- justadeveloper2 9y ago
  Sometimes, but not often. Cops seem to lose the in-car footage anytime it reveals something damaging to them. Also, "inadmissable as evidence" happens to damning footage as well. Judges and DAs side with the cops because there is no real impartiality. One protects the other because it's a machine designed for domination of the citizenry and it works extremely well. Look how many cases get plead out instead of going to trial. I don't hate cops or anything, I just see the system for what it is. I don't know how we do better, but it's tiring to watch. It's the same way I feel about our Congress--all these establishment politicians doing work for big donors and working against the interests of the public.
mabbo 9y ago
> He apparently didn’t realize that body cameras often save the last 30 seconds of footage before they’re manually activated. So all of that preparation for his big faux discovery was caught on tape. Why do we even allow cops on duty with the camera off? Why do we give them the choice of when it will be turned on? Apart from going to the washroom, or going off duty to eat lunch, I say the cameras should record constantly.
- steanne 9y ago
  because then they 'mysteriously' break.
- generalledger 9y ago
  I think you answered your own question. "going to the washroom". It seems unlikely that a police officer is going to radio the police station to say, "I gotta go to the bathroom," each time they need to relieve themselves.
  - thinkfurther 9y ago
    Not with that attitude, no. But if that is too much to ask of them, in light of why it's needed, why should they be cops? If it's too much for us to ask it from them, how are we citizens? I'm not American, but it's not like I'm happy with the state of things in my "own" country either, and feel those things, those responsibilities, are rather universal. If you don't practice singing, and never sing, you're not a singer, and if it was written in your passport that you are anyway that would just show that letters can't help the order they get arranged in. If we put up with this kind of stuff, we're not being citizens in any sense I would find valuable, no matter what else we might do or enjoy. For every cop planting evidence and being as dumb about it as this one, how many are never found out? How many people rot in jail as we speak or are dead because of that? And does anyone remember Colin Powell's WMD presentation in front of the UN? So they didn't "plant evidence", but really, if this is the top, and if it's accepted by millions of people, what's a cop planting some drugs or killing some incapacitated people in self-defense? I'm not saying one excuses the other, but the fish does stink from the head, too.
- 9y ago
Neliquat 9y ago
Why are the other 2 cops that witnessed and said nothing of the crime not also held to a standard of conduct?
SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
What sometime happens in cases like that is that the officer's previous arrests are gone through, and many of them thrown out as unsafe. Which is harsh and the police force concerned will absolutely hate. But that's too bad; if you don't want that outcome then don't plant evidence.
- vorotato 9y ago
  Exactly if cops aren't held accountable they're just another gang.
  - thinkfurther 9y ago
    Replace "if" with "as long as".
- maxerickson 9y ago
  How is questioning the evidence presented by a known fraud "harsh"? It seems like a minimal step if you want to keep even the pretense of justice.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
    "harsh" might be the wrong word, but re-opening cases after months or years and maybe overturning convictions is not painless for anyone involved.
    - Fjolsvith 9y ago
      It certainly alleviates some of the pain that wrongfully convicted people felt.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
        If you overturn every single conviction that involves a bent cop, then you will in all likelihood free both the innocent and the guilty. It the principle of ""It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" An "unsafe" conviction is not the same as proof positive of innocence, just no longer meeting the necessary standard of proof. It may be necessary to overturn a number of convictions but isn't easy. You seem angry, I'm absolutely not trying to apologize for this behaviour. But it is a mess, and the consequences of the mess ought to be severe so that it doesn't happen.
shalmanese 9y ago
The cop who did this is being disciplined right now but not the other two cops who stood right there and watched him do it.
mcbobbington 9y ago
That cop should get the same punishment that he tried to foist on the innocent man. The level of crime we tolerate from "law enforcement" is astonishing. Why do people no longer care about justice?
- justadeveloper2 9y ago
  It was all explained extremely well in "Team America: World Police."
- cpncrunch 9y ago
  >tried to foist on the innocent man I'm not sure if that's the case. The article seems to be saying that they did actually find the drugs in the alley, and the officer was essentially recreating the finding of the drugs using his body camera. Obviously that isn't an acceptable way of using the body camera, and it has the unfortunate effect of causing the case of a potentially guilty drug-dealer to be dropped.
  - jdenning 9y ago
    Another way of saying "recreating the finding of the drugs using his body camera" is "falsifying evidence". Edit: In the US, people are innocent until proven guilty.
  - calvano915 9y ago
    Why wouldn't the initial search be conducted with the body cam on? This is falsifying evidence, whether the person was guilty or not.
    - cpncrunch 9y ago
      Presumably because he didn't know they were going to find anything. We already know he didn't know about the 30 second thing. If he did, it wouldn't have been a problem, he wouldn't have needed to do the recreation at all. I'm saying it was possibly illegal but not amoral. There is a difference. Compare to planting drugs to frame someone innocent.
thebigspacefuck 9y ago
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers? I've heard about drugs being planted before, but I think there was always some doubt in my mind that it was just an excuse by those being prosecuted. This is the first time I've seen solid evidence that it's real. That is fucking terrible! How many times has this happened and put innocent people in prison? We can't let this continue to happen when the cameras are off. We need these cameras everywhere and we need them on all the time.
- convolvatron 9y ago
  it happens a lot. i think the misunderstanding is that we the citizenry think that the police should held to certain standards of objectivity, that each citizen is presumed innocent, and there is a legal framework that very carefully evaluates guilt before taking punitive action. the police think are they fighting a war where people don't wear uniforms and intermix freely. part of their job is to put on one side of the front or the other, a citizen or a criminal. once you are determined to be a criminal the goal is to first and foremost instill fear and compliance. after that as many bad people as possible should be sent away - cleaning up the streets. unless this context is changed, extra-legal tactics like planting drugs and overt police brutality won't go away. and if those things continue to be part of the job, then obviously cameras aren't acceptable. unfortunately, as horrified as i am, i'm not sure i can judge this war perspective as unconditionally wrong.
  - dTal 9y ago
    Very interesting to read this comment immediately after this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14813206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14813206
hirundo 9y ago
While I think the cop in the video deserves discipline and/or dismissal and/or criminal charges, and the person accused deserves a stronger than usual presumption of innocence, the video is not hard evidence that the cop planted drugs. He may have been simply recreating his previous discovery of the drugs. I've watched lots of youtube videos of rock hunters recreating their discoveries on camera for the sake of drama and upvotes, often admitting it. Police are surely affected by similar incentives. The above argument is brought to you by someone who thinks that all drugs should be legalized, and that all cops who work to enforce drug laws are acting immorally.
- Roodgorf 9y ago
  That strikes me as a very, very generous assumption. Even assuming this were the case, it still seems to me akin to perjury, that is, instead of being up front about what they are doing "I am recreating how and where I found these" rather than deliberately putting on an act. I understand that you say you still believe the officer was wrong to do so, but I think this should be sufficient evidence to assume innocence here.
- Brockenstein 9y ago
  Someone re-enacting a scene for entertainment purposes is one thing. The police should absolutely not be "recreating" events and passing them off as the actual occurrence. This is one step away from using reenactments on Unsolved Mysteries as actual evidence for the crime. Whatever bits the cop wanted to add in or leave out, if it became acceptable for them to recreate evidence in this way, how would we ever be able to manage that? Seems like most people agree that this behavior is bogus, and that cops shouldn't be fabricating or recreating evidence. And even if some do-gooder was doing so innocently, they probably shouldn't forget to mention that that video was a recreation, not actual evidence. That's an oops that cop and his dept will have to address while they're making excuses for it.
- Xoros 9y ago
  If cops starts acting to get YouTube popularity, geez, where are we going ???? Of course he didn't. Don't hide your head in the sand.
- 9y ago
revmoo 9y ago
What is this journalists issue with planting tweets in the middle of an article? It looks really really really dumb.

79 points by urahara 9y ago

GuiA 9y ago

> Body cameras don’t always work out as many activists envisioned. Last week, the officer who shot Justine Damond in Minneapolis and his partner didn’t turn on their cameras, leaving us in the dark about what exactly happened in the case. This week, prosecutors in Cincinnati dropped charges against former University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing after two mistrials — even though body camera footage clearly showed that the man Tensing shot, Samuel DuBose, never posed a threat to him. Cameras work out exactly as advocates said they would - exposing how corrupt police forces can be. Police officers not turning on their cameras or judges disregarding clear evidence is what's not working out.

solipsism 9y ago
DAs not prosecuting police officers. Members of the public being biased (pro-rated police, and often anti- some race or culture). Legislators not caring. Police stations hiring officers who had to leave other locations due to being caught (but not prosecuted) doing something illegal. The system is stacked in favor of police, from top to bottom. It's an endless stream of travesties. It's enough to turn an optimist into a cynic.
justadeveloper2 9y ago
Sometimes, but not often. Cops seem to lose the in-car footage anytime it reveals something damaging to them. Also, "inadmissable as evidence" happens to damning footage as well. Judges and DAs side with the cops because there is no real impartiality. One protects the other because it's a machine designed for domination of the citizenry and it works extremely well. Look how many cases get plead out instead of going to trial. I don't hate cops or anything, I just see the system for what it is. I don't know how we do better, but it's tiring to watch. It's the same way I feel about our Congress--all these establishment politicians doing work for big donors and working against the interests of the public.

mabbo 9y ago

> He apparently didn’t realize that body cameras often save the last 30 seconds of footage before they’re manually activated. So all of that preparation for his big faux discovery was caught on tape. Why do we even allow cops on duty with the camera off? Why do we give them the choice of when it will be turned on? Apart from going to the washroom, or going off duty to eat lunch, I say the cameras should record constantly.

steanne 9y ago
because then they 'mysteriously' break.
generalledger 9y ago
I think you answered your own question. "going to the washroom". It seems unlikely that a police officer is going to radio the police station to say, "I gotta go to the bathroom," each time they need to relieve themselves.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  Not with that attitude, no. But if that is too much to ask of them, in light of why it's needed, why should they be cops? If it's too much for us to ask it from them, how are we citizens? I'm not American, but it's not like I'm happy with the state of things in my "own" country either, and feel those things, those responsibilities, are rather universal. If you don't practice singing, and never sing, you're not a singer, and if it was written in your passport that you are anyway that would just show that letters can't help the order they get arranged in. If we put up with this kind of stuff, we're not being citizens in any sense I would find valuable, no matter what else we might do or enjoy. For every cop planting evidence and being as dumb about it as this one, how many are never found out? How many people rot in jail as we speak or are dead because of that? And does anyone remember Colin Powell's WMD presentation in front of the UN? So they didn't "plant evidence", but really, if this is the top, and if it's accepted by millions of people, what's a cop planting some drugs or killing some incapacitated people in self-defense? I'm not saying one excuses the other, but the fish does stink from the head, too.
9y ago

Neliquat 9y ago

Why are the other 2 cops that witnessed and said nothing of the crime not also held to a standard of conduct?

SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago

What sometime happens in cases like that is that the officer's previous arrests are gone through, and many of them thrown out as unsafe. Which is harsh and the police force concerned will absolutely hate. But that's too bad; if you don't want that outcome then don't plant evidence.

vorotato 9y ago
Exactly if cops aren't held accountable they're just another gang.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  Replace "if" with "as long as".
maxerickson 9y ago
How is questioning the evidence presented by a known fraud "harsh"? It seems like a minimal step if you want to keep even the pretense of justice.
- SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
  "harsh" might be the wrong word, but re-opening cases after months or years and maybe overturning convictions is not painless for anyone involved.
  - Fjolsvith 9y ago
    It certainly alleviates some of the pain that wrongfully convicted people felt.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
      If you overturn every single conviction that involves a bent cop, then you will in all likelihood free both the innocent and the guilty. It the principle of ""It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" An "unsafe" conviction is not the same as proof positive of innocence, just no longer meeting the necessary standard of proof. It may be necessary to overturn a number of convictions but isn't easy. You seem angry, I'm absolutely not trying to apologize for this behaviour. But it is a mess, and the consequences of the mess ought to be severe so that it doesn't happen.

shalmanese 9y ago

The cop who did this is being disciplined right now but not the other two cops who stood right there and watched him do it.

mcbobbington 9y ago

That cop should get the same punishment that he tried to foist on the innocent man. The level of crime we tolerate from "law enforcement" is astonishing. Why do people no longer care about justice?

justadeveloper2 9y ago
It was all explained extremely well in "Team America: World Police."
cpncrunch 9y ago
>tried to foist on the innocent man I'm not sure if that's the case. The article seems to be saying that they did actually find the drugs in the alley, and the officer was essentially recreating the finding of the drugs using his body camera. Obviously that isn't an acceptable way of using the body camera, and it has the unfortunate effect of causing the case of a potentially guilty drug-dealer to be dropped.
- jdenning 9y ago
  Another way of saying "recreating the finding of the drugs using his body camera" is "falsifying evidence". Edit: In the US, people are innocent until proven guilty.
- calvano915 9y ago
  Why wouldn't the initial search be conducted with the body cam on? This is falsifying evidence, whether the person was guilty or not.
  - cpncrunch 9y ago
    Presumably because he didn't know they were going to find anything. We already know he didn't know about the 30 second thing. If he did, it wouldn't have been a problem, he wouldn't have needed to do the recreation at all. I'm saying it was possibly illegal but not amoral. There is a difference. Compare to planting drugs to frame someone innocent.

thebigspacefuck 9y ago

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers? I've heard about drugs being planted before, but I think there was always some doubt in my mind that it was just an excuse by those being prosecuted. This is the first time I've seen solid evidence that it's real. That is fucking terrible! How many times has this happened and put innocent people in prison? We can't let this continue to happen when the cameras are off. We need these cameras everywhere and we need them on all the time.

convolvatron 9y ago
it happens a lot. i think the misunderstanding is that we the citizenry think that the police should held to certain standards of objectivity, that each citizen is presumed innocent, and there is a legal framework that very carefully evaluates guilt before taking punitive action. the police think are they fighting a war where people don't wear uniforms and intermix freely. part of their job is to put on one side of the front or the other, a citizen or a criminal. once you are determined to be a criminal the goal is to first and foremost instill fear and compliance. after that as many bad people as possible should be sent away - cleaning up the streets. unless this context is changed, extra-legal tactics like planting drugs and overt police brutality won't go away. and if those things continue to be part of the job, then obviously cameras aren't acceptable. unfortunately, as horrified as i am, i'm not sure i can judge this war perspective as unconditionally wrong.
- dTal 9y ago
  Very interesting to read this comment immediately after this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14813206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14813206

hirundo 9y ago

While I think the cop in the video deserves discipline and/or dismissal and/or criminal charges, and the person accused deserves a stronger than usual presumption of innocence, the video is not hard evidence that the cop planted drugs. He may have been simply recreating his previous discovery of the drugs. I've watched lots of youtube videos of rock hunters recreating their discoveries on camera for the sake of drama and upvotes, often admitting it. Police are surely affected by similar incentives. The above argument is brought to you by someone who thinks that all drugs should be legalized, and that all cops who work to enforce drug laws are acting immorally.

Roodgorf 9y ago
That strikes me as a very, very generous assumption. Even assuming this were the case, it still seems to me akin to perjury, that is, instead of being up front about what they are doing "I am recreating how and where I found these" rather than deliberately putting on an act. I understand that you say you still believe the officer was wrong to do so, but I think this should be sufficient evidence to assume innocence here.
Brockenstein 9y ago
Someone re-enacting a scene for entertainment purposes is one thing. The police should absolutely not be "recreating" events and passing them off as the actual occurrence. This is one step away from using reenactments on Unsolved Mysteries as actual evidence for the crime. Whatever bits the cop wanted to add in or leave out, if it became acceptable for them to recreate evidence in this way, how would we ever be able to manage that? Seems like most people agree that this behavior is bogus, and that cops shouldn't be fabricating or recreating evidence. And even if some do-gooder was doing so innocently, they probably shouldn't forget to mention that that video was a recreation, not actual evidence. That's an oops that cop and his dept will have to address while they're making excuses for it.
Xoros 9y ago
If cops starts acting to get YouTube popularity, geez, where are we going ???? Of course he didn't. Don't hide your head in the sand.
9y ago

revmoo 9y ago

What is this journalists issue with planting tweets in the middle of an article? It looks really really really dumb.