How much more evidence do we need (of police corruption)?


This is totally screwy
: police in Tennessee chase down a suspect wanted on domestic assault charges, and let the dog bite him several times when he's already on the ground. Then they handcuff him and pat his pockets down multiple times. Then one officer makes a strange hand symbol to another officer, who then pulls something out of his pocket, reaches down to pat the suspect down again, and immediately finds drugs. Not only that, the whole thing is recorded on camera, including the officer looking at the camera while he fishes in his pocket.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to suppose that what was captured on video was the officers conspiring to plant drugs on the suspect. Maybe the suspect was a jerk anyway, but when they can do it to him, they can do it to you. And if they were bold enough to do it plainly in front of a camera, knowing the camera was there, even looking into the camera while they did it, it's plain lunacy, or a willful refusal to use your reasoning powers, to think that this doesn't happen all the time.

Yet another reason to immediately free all people convicted of non-violent drug crimes: it shouldn't be a crime in the first place, and many of them probably didn't even do it.

Via Radley Balko

Share this

It is just so sad that this

It is just so sad that this is the reality when it comes to policemen. What have they come to really? Are they not paid enough that they have to resort to corruption? I do not understand their motives to do this exactly.

Reasonable Doubt

This is something useful to keep in mind if one is ever a juror on a drug possession case. Instead of using direct nullification (and possibly only hanging a jury, or being under pressure in some form), one can say "I have a reasonable doubt because of numerous cases where the police have planted drug evidence. To convict this defendant of drug possession I need evidence from independent witnesses other than the police."