Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n
1. Well, according to the current system, the cop is perfectly within his rights to drop his bodycam and kill an unarmed black person. After all, the cops who did exactly that are not only walking free, but are still cops.
Which is why such behavior needs to be banned. It's no different from turning them off or otherwise tampering with them. In a couple of states (Illinois and Oklahoma) it's a felony to tamper with CCTVs and similar security equipment. Tampering with police-held bodycams could be considered to be in this category, along with a form of obstruction of justice.
And if the cops are walking free is simply because the DA lacked evidence to prosecute (or so he thinks). If so then the issue is to make sure this is not something cops can argue, which is entirely possible thanks to modern technology.
But I guess that in your view lynch mobs are better and people should be jailed because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is how presumption of innocence is demolished. Although of course doing away with such presumption is not fun when applied against minorities in the Southern US circa 1925 or communists in Chile circa 1975.
Pants-of-dog wrote:2. That source sucks and os so vague that it does not support your claim. Except where it talks about constables, which actually supports my claim and contradicts yours.
Cherry-picking much? Constables had a supervisory role but were not professional police.
Pants-of-dog wrote:3. How does a cop afford $750,000 bail?
What does this have to do with the topic?