Well, I had it drycleaned....when are you taking me out?

No, opportunity is not the same as evidence, but is an important part of making a case.

I'm pretty sure there was body camera evidence of him saying he was going to kill the guy during the chase (maybe a different case), but none of the shooting or aftermath from any officer's body camera. This is the uselessness of a camera they control, it should be always on, live streamed to a secured server, not with an on off switch and no backup.

Remember, the only evidence we know of that he's a drug dealer came from the same suspicious search. Once the cop has opportunity to plant evidence, the case is blown because it's reasonable to think they might have, so any conviction is out.

Once he shoots, there's no reason he should have anything else to do with the case (unless he was alone, but that's not the case here). Allowing the shooter to be the investigator is a clear conflict of interest and allows a suspect to investigate himself and tamper with evidence. Normal procedure would be for him to let others take over immediately and surrender his gun pending investigation....so there is no legitimate reason for the killer to be in the car.........

Edit: and how to explain he cop DNA on the gun but not the victim's? It makes no sense unless it's the cop's gun never touched by the victim and placed afterwards, otherwise it would at a minimum have his blood on it and logically his sweat and fingerprints inside and out.

The cops had reason to search, on camera, but not the shooter with his body cam turned off.

Bob
You're so dishonest. You've said clearly that you go to bed hating me. ;-)

In the tape, I see the clear opportunity to plant evidence (with no other explanation for what he was doing retrieving something in his squad car after shooting him but before he's even removed from the car, and sitting in the victims car with his body camera off), which he hides from the cameras in his uniform instead of showing it off to bystanders in his hands, and when tested, the gun only had the officers DNA and fingerprints, and the victim wasn't wearing gloves, the cop was. No explanation given for any of that.
Edit: that's motive, means, and opportunity, and unexplained evidence with no other reasonable explanation.
Case closed.

EDIT: Given the exact same circumstances but a black citizen shooting another citizen, then performing the exact same hyper suspicious actions, you would absolutely, zero question in my mind, say it's incontrovertible that the black man murdered the other man and planted a gun and drugs to get away with it.

Funny, you and your side of the isle has spent at least 8 years in the streets over sour grapes, now you suddenly think you're reasonable and thoughtful....but you don't even understand the words.

If blacks were killing officers at the rate that officers are killing blacks, you would say they've declared open season on law enforcement...oh wait, you've already said that, even though cops actually kill 25 times more citizens than people kill cops, and by far most of those citizens are black.

Do you get your info from, faux or Trump?
I'm...wow...where to start?
"Neo-liberals" are anti war, so positive peaceful relations are what they're after, not illegal collusion and absolute capitulation to our (and our allies') detriment. The 'neoliberals' didn't even use the military to protect the Ukraine, even though we are bound to do so by treaties.
War profiteering companies are almost 100% owned and run by neocons, not liberals.

There is proof, publicly released proof. There is not yet a completed report submitted to congress, those take time to put together, verify, edit, recertify, sign off, and submit. 17 intelligence agencies have publicly stated they have plenty of 'proof', some hackers have gone on record as working on this project for the Russians at their direction, the methods and programs used have easily identified 'fingerprints' from previous Russian hacks.

The contents of the emails were completely innocuous, with absolutely no smoking gun. If you think differently, I think you've been duped by the fake news industry.
'No one cares' about the RNC emails because the Russians didn't release them, they weren't trying to hurt Trump, he's their dream president, a moron under their thumb that doesn't understand the idea of diplomacy, much less how to practice it. (That no one cares is totally not true, btw, I care...I even care that they were hacked, but I care far more that they were protected and helped repeatedly by a foreign nation they invited to illegally become involved in our election with the clearly stated intention of skewing our election for their benefit).
Sweet zombie Jesus, if Clinton had won after asking a national enemy to illicitly and illegally help her like Trump did, the right would be inconsolable and frothing at the mouth calling for revolution and blood.

Fingerprinting is a nice analogy, Buttle. How can we be sure that all that pollution, CO2 levels, nitric oxide levels and cow farts are A) our fault, and B) actually causing changes in climate?

We cant be sure unless we predict, and then wait a few decades and keep measuring, can we? So we have to say, along with the man falling from the skyscraper, everything OK so far!

So the hysteria about nuclear weapons was a bit silly, beacause we would not all die in an all-out nuclear war. Because people high on hillsides on the far side of New Zealand with food and water and seeds and medical supplies for a couple of years would make it fine. They would not freeze, it now turns out.

Then maybe climate change will be OK too.

There are many biasing factors that current scientists must deal with. Consider the sad state of such "sciences" as criminal bite analysis, or shoeprint analysis, or even fingerprinting. Poor results come from huge external pressures to come to the "right" conclusions, regardless of the truth.

One boycotts hysteria by refusing to become hysterical, and refusing to parrot hysterical claims, even if it seems socially or professionally advantageous.

When I got mine, I had to get 2 passport photos, submit a fingerprint, take a day long class, take a written test, and pass a range test with my preferred CCW handgun. There are a bunch of other restrictions which I'll list below; not all states have these but Texas is one of the easiest states to get licensed in, so this should give you an idea for a baseline. When it comes to 'may issue' states like the ones I listed earlier, they have the same hoops to jump through generally, but the main one is you have to prove good cause to a police entity to carry. In many cases, those entities are either 'suggested' or blatantly told "Do not give out any permits". I suppose power or money could get around that, but you would still have to pass the other requirements.

Texas CCW pre-reqs:

A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

is a legal resident of this state for the six month period preceding the date of application,

is at least 21 years of age (military 18 - 21 years of age now eligible - 2005 Texas CHL Law change),

has not been convicted of a felony,

is not currently charged with the commission of a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Sec. 42.01 of the penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is not a fugitive from justice for a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense,

is not a chemically dependant person (a person with two convictions within the ten year period preceding the date of application for offenses (Class B or greater) involving the use of alcohol or a controlled substance is ineligible as a chemically dependant person. Other evidence of chemical dependency may also make an individual ineligible for a CHL),

is not incapable of exercizing sound judgement with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun,

has not, in the five years preceding the application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Section 42.01 of the Penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun,

has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making child support administered or collected by the attorney general,
has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, state treasurer, tax collector of a policital subdivision, Alcohol Beverage Commission or any other agency or subdivision,

is not currently restricted under a court protective order subject to a restraining order affecting a spousal relationship,

has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law in the grade of felony,

has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174 or in a request for application submitted pursuant to Section 411.175.

P.S. if you screw up on any of the above 'after' you get your ccw, it gets suspended until you go before a board for review. My instructor said when I took the class, almost every single review case is denied.

My point...the police (for the most part) know it doesn't work, yet they continue to use it as a 'tool' to trick people....people who think it DOES work....so teaching them that the cops are lying to them (again) about this is 100% appropriate and useful information for them.

I had no idea what you were saying about Africa...let's drop it.
If 1/2 million people (a HUGE number, and yet I think not 1/100 of the likely true number) still believe in them, that's 500000 people out there ready to convict you based on lies...and it's probably 100 times more than that. Americans were told for decades that lie detectors work, and barely told at all that that was all a lie. Many many people believe in them as factual devices, not just boxes to trick people with.
EDIT: The same could be said today for fingerprint evidence...which the public perception is that it's an infallible science (just like we were told about lie detectors), when the truth is it's closer to an interpretive art form than a science.

As to your second post...plenty of people still believe, far more than you give credit for, and these people may sit on a jury. If you have one person who KNOWS that lie detectors work, and 11 who think they don't, but aren't sure, the mere mention of 'the defendant failed a lie detector repeatedly' during closing can put many a defendant in prison....and has.
Again, I think you give the public too much credit, first by saying that only .3% think lie detectors work...I would bet that a survey would show more like 10% still think that, and the idea that the rest of us all KNOW for certain that they don't, and can't be convinced by one of the 10%.
For those, and other reasons, repeating 'lie detectors are liars' over and over is proper and useful to both those who don't know, and those who do.

Unfortunately, I disagree. Far too many people believe lie detectors work, in the same way many believe finger prints are completely unique and identifying them is a science...it's not, that's why computers can't be used to identify fingerprints, it takes a human 'fingerprint artist'. Even many law enforcement agencies still use polygraphs as factual tools.

Wait...so in your second paragraph you admit that many probably really believe in lie detectors...but because that doesn't make them degenerates.....um.....what?!? If only SOME Africans believe raping a virgin cures AIDS, you seem to be saying that educating them about their mistaken belief is dumb and a thing to ridicule...ignoring the immense damage those few can do with their mistaken beliefs.

So, you have personal experience with the fallacy of lie detectors, and so you assume everyone knows they don't work? You give others too much credit, I think.

Many law enforcement agencies still treat polygraph results as fact, and have actually tried many times to have them admitted in court as evidence....just like fingerprints, eye witness identification, and even psychics. perhaps most know it's pseudo science, but enough don't know, or don't understand what that means, that pounding it into their heads that it's junk is not just reasonable, it's a necessity.

Congratulations! Your video, Real Mjolnir (Electromagnet, Fingerprint Scanner), has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 29 Badge!

Your video, Real Mjolnir (Electromagnet, Fingerprint Scanner), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If you think looking at tit's is a sexual advance I would imagine you live in northern Alaska where other "people" aren't even near you. How do you walk around in society? Do you dictate what everyone is allowed to look at? If you really "treat people as people" you should tolerate what other people decide to set their eyes upon. People like you would have us all become androgynous clones so that no one is different than the next. I like diversity - which is another reason tits are so seductive - they come in all shapes and sizes, they're like fingerprints or snow flakes. You should look into your Scopophobia. I imagine as the world becomes increasingly more populated it will be intolerable.

It's not a bad idea, but it feels like a stopgap measure.

Surely the way forward is something like a payment app on your phone coupled with NFC and possibly a pin/fingerprint id.

they were showing what they could, for comparison to the other algorithm-representation model of the other slides.

they chose the amino acids triplets... then showed a string of DNA (codons) and the PCR/electrophoresis was a visualization again of the strings of DNA... and make up fingerprints eventually with the protein they output.

the mathematical themes here are recursion, at least

Hmm cool, but the fingerprint/DNA collage doesnt really make sense, the "script" window seems to show the 60-something codons that matches the 20 different amino acids that makes up the proteins , and the middle part shows a PCR result in gel electrophoresis, a system of displaying DNA markers, (Admittedly sometimes referred to as DNA fingerprinting, but it doesnt actually have much to do with actual fingerprints..) In short, while these three things are linked in that they all have to do with living cells and identifications, there isnt actually any direct links, and, importantly no direct link to math..

Sure, math is used in genetics, protein folding and I guess fingerprint-recognition, but that particular slide made a mess of it.

well first off, I think to answer your first point. As with most things, there's a grain of truth to most scandals, but it's distorted, exaggerated and sensationalized.

But here's the thing, I freely acknowledge that I make no claim to understanding the whole topic and I call BS on most people who do. Because of the sorry state of our 4th estate. I assume there is some bias one way or the other in just about everything they report, especially when it's political. You don't trust gov't? I don't trust media. With gov't even people who are just ultimately seeking power, they're typically seeking power because they think they can wield it for good. even if they ultimately do bad things with it. No one wakes up and says "you know what? I'm going to totally use my power to fuck over some people, woo hoo!" Even the most crazed elected official deep down thinks they're trying to help out. or they honestly believe their ideas will ultimately benefit everyone.

meanwhile, with the media, it's just pure profit motive there. give me ratings, give me money.

as for your remaining arguments. I think the whole privacy issue is a bit hypocritical. Whenever you buy something with a credit card, that's a fingerprint that gets left behind that can track you. Whenever you use your smartphone GPS, that's something that can track you. Whenever you use the internet, there are a myriad of technologies all designed around tracking you. all for the sake of selling you something, to extract more money out of you.

..and we accept that, hell we demand it.

But when gov't does it, suddenly it's bad. But they're supposedly using that tracking to catch terrorists. So let's see, catching people who mean to do us harm, or ads and methods to extract money from you. I know which one I'd rather have. Sure, both types of surveillance could be abused, but one we tolerate, the other is not. I think that's rather hypocritical. either it's all bad, or it's not.

I also just tend to think our sense of privacy is exaggerated. (and no I felt this way even when Bush was in power). While I don't agree with the Patriot Act, I do think our fears of surveillance and are outdated and as I explained above, hypocritical. Just like virtually every tool, there are good positive uses for surveillance data, and the tool can be abused as well. That doesn't stop us from using it, we just try to put safeguards in place to try and reduce the incentive to use it for harm.

I think our sense of privacy comes from two things. Either we're doing something we shouldn't be doing..ie illegal or unethical, in that case tough shit. Or we're doing something that we consider embarrassing. In that case you're just being human and really shouldn't be embarrassed about it at all.

lets take two cases. First one: homosexuality. Lets say it was the 80s when most people were still quite firmly in the closet. and bam. because of no more privacy, everyone was instantly outed. no more hiding. Everyone knows. People would be forced to accept it. Even though they would be in the minority, there would be just too many people out to dismiss it anymore. You couldn't lock them up or ostracize them without committing holocaust-level atrocities.

Same thing with my 2nd case, marijuana. If it were suddenly possible to know each and every person who ever smoked. It would force the issue out in the open. You couldn't lock them all up as there would be too many. Even if you could, it would be a huge hit to our workforce and our families. We'd be forced to re-evaluate it and legalize it.

it would be impossible to commit physical abuse if there was no privacy.

In many ways, our views on sexuality and privacy are SO puritanical. In the long run things would be so better if we could just get it out there in the open and thus solve problems and help.

I get what you're saying about corruption and power. but historically speaking, ANY time there has been widespread corruption and abuse of power, it's always been stamped out in some way. It has to be. corruption and abuse of power are ultimately unsustainable and it eventually falls apart and gives way to something better that is sustainable. otherwise we wouldn't have survived this long.

If enough people are wronged, they WILL do something about it. If things were REALLY that bad here in America. There wouldn't be pundits talking about revolution and tyranny. There WOULD be revolution and tyranny.

Talk. is. cheap.