Baltimore Police Commissioner stands with officers despite video evidence of cops planting drugs.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: notsure1

Point 3 was police have sometimes planted drugs on guilty people.

If they were guilty of a crime, why the need to plant evidence? Would not being obviously guilty already incur a charge?

a reply to: gladtobehere

Its almost impossible to have any faith in law enforcement these days. There are good cops out there who have good intentions in there hearts but guys like those we see in the video makes all cops lose there integrity in the eyes of the public. We need big changes in this country.

originally posted by: badw0lf

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: notsure1

Point 3 was police have sometimes planted drugs on guilty people.

If they were guilty of a crime, why the need to plant evidence? Would not being obviously guilty already incur a charge?

Jesus I can't believe somebody actually supports a cop planting drugs or faking evidence on anybody for anything.

a reply to: badw0lf

Not to mention, people aren't guilty until they've been convicted in court. It's not up to police to determine who's guilty or not because the facts may show that a suspect is actually innocent. So "planting drugs on guilty people" doesn't legally make sense.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

What I meant, and what I thought was clearly expressed, is police have planted drugs on criminals. It's a clear post. No idea why it's managed to confuse people.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: badw0lf

Not to mention, people aren't guilty until they've been convicted in court. It's not up to police to determine who's guilty or not because the facts may show that a suspect is actually innocent. So "planting drugs on guilty people" doesn't legally make sense.

And for so long, people have been convicted in a court based on the corruption that is inherent in the police force, which I would think this video shows... almost like entering the realm of Dexter, when we dismiss the act as part of the job..

:/

We're ebbing towards Judge Dredd land when cops get away with being the Judge and Jury... and.. executioner.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: enlightenedservant

What I meant, and what I thought was clearly expressed, is police have planted drugs on criminals. It's a clear post. No idea why it's managed to confuse people.

it's not confusing at all, just blatantly misguided and hypocritical and ignorant. it's OK for those sworn with integrity to uphold the law to break the law and conspire and frame people as long as those people are criminals to begin with...
so with this logic, I can conspire and frame those LEOs too while they are attempting to frame the person, since it makes them criminals by framing the person when they plant evidence....

there are no asterisks in the written law, no caveats, no exemptions...
and no, I'm not trying to find technicalities in your statement to make it sound ignorant, don't need to.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I think you raised good points w/1, 2, and 4. However, I think the 3rd point is confusing because it can be interpreted a few different ways, all of which are horrible.

1. How are they "criminals" if they haven't been convicted yet? It's more accurate to say "police have planted drugs on suspects", not criminals. Just saying it like that makes the scandal seem obvious, wouldn't you agree?

2. If we're saying "planted drugs on criminals" while referring to suspects w/already existing criminal records, then that still doesn't excuse the police of planting drugs on them. It also doesn't mean the suspect w/a criminal record is guilty of any crime in that particular instance. But the police drugs and police testimony are just going to send them back to jail because no one's going to take the word of a person with a criminal record over a cop's testimony.

3a. If we're saying "planted drugs on criminals" while referring to a suspect who would later be found guilty of another crime in that specific situation, then that still doesn't excuse the police of planting drugs on them. The suspect would've likely been found guilty of whatever other crime they committed anyway. In fact, the police drugs may actually be the deciding factor in convincing the judge or jury to convict the suspect on those additional charges, which just means the police's illegal & false evidence helped convict someone who wouldn't have been convicted otherwise.

3b. It also raises the question of police credibility. Let's suppose the suspect was reportedly caught doing a lot of crimes. After catching & apprehending the suspect, the police then plant drugs on them for whatever reason. If police are willing to plant illegal substances on suspects and lie about the source of those substances, how can any of their other testimony be trusted? Unless there's hard evidence that the suspect is the perpetrator of whatever crimes they're being charged with, we'd be relying on the words of police who are literally lying about the drug charges.

And who's to say that any other hard evidence presented at the trial wasn't also planted? The police would've literally set the precedent for fake evidence by planting drugs in the first place & lying about it. In fact, in the OP's 1st video, the cops weren't just trying to fake the drugs being there; they also were trying to manipulate the video footage of them "finding" the drugs. They turned off the audio while planting it (I'm assuming they thought it also turned off the video), walked out of the alley, turned the audio back on (while thinking it was the video being turned back on), and then walked back into the alley. Then they put on an act as if they found the drugs, knowing full well the video would be used in court as evidence against the suspect.

I simply don't think there's a positive way to spin this type of situation. They're literally creating false evidence against a suspect, lying about the source & possession of this false evidence, and willingly allowing that false evidence and false testimony to be used in court against a suspect who is completely innocent of that specific "crime".

ETA: To give you an idea of how prevalent this is, African American comedians like Dave Chappelle have been joking about it for decades. Here he was in his 2000 special "Killing Them Softly" (disclaimer: a lot of cursing).

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: enlightenedservant

What I meant, and what I thought was clearly expressed, is police have planted drugs on criminals. It's a clear post. No idea why it's managed to confuse people.

That is cool then because they were criminals?

Dude really..... 😬

Wonder why there isn't havoc in the streets there unless the majority just don't care. It's the old "it won't happen to me" thinking. No reasonable person can expect these to be the only occurrences.

Another question should be what was the source of the planted drugs. Drugs not turned in after arrests? "Loaned" out of evidence? Stolen from one of the local dealers? Looks like the officer was in illegal possession of the drugs.

This thread demonstrates one of the many social pathologies generated by the poor policy of prohibition.

If drugs were returned to being legal, we would not be discussing cops planting drugs.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: gladtobehere

Wasn't Serpico shot up because he actually went against the common practice? Oh yeah, he tried to expose the big blue lie.

The police chief is backing his guys because he's probably in on it.

Where do you think those cops got the drugs from to plant on innocent people in the first place.... Thanks chief...

Exactly...police evidence lockers are full of it.

a reply to: gladtobehere

There is nothing more repugnant, IMO, than those in positions of authority who use that authority in unjust, illegal ways.

Baltimore, and a large area surrounding D.C., is just filled to capacity with just those types of people. Why an average citizen would want to live there is beyond me.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

a reply to: enlightenedservant

a reply to: odzeandennz

Guys, I appreciate the attention raised by my post. Glad you've all taken the time to chastise, educate or criticise. At the same time, I'm not going to apologise or start doing 20 Hail Marys in penance.

In the first post, I wrote:

The thing is, the laws have to be upheld and LEOs should abide by them.

In the second clarification, I wrote:

Point 4 was they need to uphold the law and not plant drugs.

There's nothing I can do to stop people interpreting these statements as celebratory endorsements of police planting evidence. Not seeing it myself.

THe blind support for cops is ridiculous.

In my newly former hometown, a cop was convicted late last week of using his position to molest little girls. THere are half a dozen cases of various sexual deviancy being exercised on underage females by this guy.

Upon the guilty verdict, the judge let him leave the court room stating that he isn't a flight risk. The law states that if you allow the judge to sentence you, there has to be a sentencing investigation (a day or 2 is allowed) so that background information on the convict can be presented to the court.

But he is already convicted. He has had it proven that he used his badge to gain access to peoples children, and then performed sexual acts with them. Its a proven, settled matter. All we need is sentencing....and the logic a judge used to set this convicted child sex offender loose on our streets again was that "he isn't a flight risk". If that is the logic, why incarcerate to begin with? Why would he ever want to leave, with such kind treatment?

Meanwhile, you get drug offenders that (once picked up) never see the light again until their sentences are complete.

www.newswest9.com...

Its all true. And speaks to the exact issue The People have with the Police.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Nowhere in my posts did I say you were celebrating it or endorsing it. I'm just pointing out that that particular phrasing/argument has no justifications. I'm literally trying my best to simply focus on the legal argument itself & the precedence it would set, instead of focusing on the poster (you).

It's the same way I'd break down or reject the phrasing of "I may hate what you say but I'll die for your right to say it." I think that phrasing/logic is equally wrong because I'm not going to die for someone's "right" to sexually harass my niece or their "right" to threaten me.

I'm just focusing on the argument itself. I have no problems w/you.

If the police commissioner doesn't stick up for his black police officers accused of a crime wouldn't he be considered racist?

a reply to: Kandinsky


Just lurking here, it seems the point is that if these people were actually criminals, if they had actually committed a crime, what need is there to plant evidence on them?