I can understand getting criminals to spy on their own cohorts in exchange for leniency. But asking them to investigate suspects they have no relationship with seems like a terrible practice. Even if the police don't explicitly ask for false evidence to be planted, it seems like entrapment to anyone who can read between the lines.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'police, drugs' to 'police, drugs, framing, planting, setup, crack, caught on tape' - edited by lucky760

What, you didn't know that our drug laws are rooted in racism? WAKE UP

What in the world is that woman going on about?? Was it a setup? Yes. But why in the world would she think it was racially motivated?!

Here's to all the guys who didn't have cameras! Sleep well fellas..

She could think that because they tried to plant crack in a black person's business.
This in itself does not make it racially motivated, but does indicate a racial component. I think the implication is that they would have likely tried to plant either pot or cocaine if the owner had been white.
Perhaps she has evidence not produced here that they only targeted black owned head shops? That's just conjecture, but it would give her legitimate a reason to imply racial motivation.

Isn't the title a bit misleading or am I confused? I believe it was an informant that placed the drugs not an officer no?

zip code 12345

Misleading title. A police informant with motivation to incriminate someone sloppily planted drugs and ran away when he was caught on camera.

-edit-
redacted for another time.

Racially motivated?
The guy is selling bongs.
I don't think him being black was the issue here.

Nevermind, this was covered above.

Indeed, ironically stereotyping him as "all black people sell/use drugs" with the other stereotype "all smoking accessories are pot smoking accessories"

What, if not drugs, would you smoke in a bong? Tobacco? Lint? Elvis' pubes?

And yes, I know Tobacco is actually a drug too. And then there's crack and meth and salvia and so on...

Its not a question of whether because Tobacco is also a drug shouldn't it be restricted as well, which of course technically it is (18+). Its more that just because it looks like he might be selling weed or coke doesn't mean he actually is. Yes, he very much might be selling to consumers who do consume, but he isn't doing the selling himself (At least no proof is available). Legally there's a line there, much like there is a line between tobacco and cocaine. Its a fallacy.

But in his (community) defence they pulled the race card, when it seemed like police were targeting for the above fallacy instead. That's the point I'm making. Idiots all around.

And I know it might be far too conclusionary, but I literally have no other information to go off of besides this video. The journalist didn't ask why they thought race was involved and not because he could cater to existing drug users (see lecit and illicit can apply here). If the informant is going to do something retarded, let that retardation stand on its own merit against him.