I was kicked off a jury for saying that.

The judge asked us all if we can all agree that the words of the cops was considered valid evidence.

I said no, because cops are human and infallible like all of us, and they can lie.

Judge got so mad and I wasn't part of jury after that.

Yup. Require them to wear body cams at all times. If anything is taken to court and "malfunction" "broken "corrupted data" is ever an issue then their testimony is immediately thrown out.

I guarantee you will start seeing 100% uptime on those body cams after that.

Also yes, always record cops

Innocent until proven guilty comes with a skin color and bank account requirement.

In a really sane world they'd be arrested for attempted false imprisonment

Police testimony consistently gets the benefit of the doubt among plebs who don't understand that these people are constantly lying.

Increasing more exposed to have already been common.

Reading comprehension. It says right there in the headline that he is black.

It describes a technically accurate sequence of events: His son recorded the video, and some time after that the jury acquitted him. But yeah, the wording weirdly seems to imply the son did the recording because the jury wasn't yet convinced, and only then did they decide to acquit. Your phrasing is way better.

If body camera footage doesn't exist, then there is no crime, and the person goes free, no matter what the cops testify to.

Cop testimony is ALWAYS fabricated, and should not be allowed as evidence. The body camera is their only voice. If it doesn't exist, there is no evidence.

Or a small swarm of recording drones.

Perjury? What are they Democrats?

At this point I will never believe a single cop's word.

Police testimony should not be allowed. The body cam is their only voice. If they turn it off, then they have no testimony, so without it, you better have some other evidence, or the guy is going free.

There are times it's reasonable for an officer to turn their camera off. E.g. some people might be willing to share information, but not go to court over it. Turning off their camera to get information unofficially then makes sense.

That said, a malfunctioning body camera should be seen in the same light as destruction of evidence. It is assumed to be the worst case, unless proven otherwise, or reasonably explained.

FYI, apparently a lot of UK police love the body cams. It makes their paperwork so much easier. It's also apparently quite satisfying to watch a hungover idiot realise exactly how rude they were to the officer trying to defuse things outside a pub.

officer testimony should be inadmissable. they should be required to just use body camera. its on them to have them always going.

If I were on a jury I would 1000% consider police testimony as biased and unreliable.

Sadly, I probably won't ever get picked for jury duty, because I know what jury nullification is, and I will absolutely tell my fellow potential jurors all about it.

Porcine centipede them and make them hunt each others families or be castrated segment by segment.

Then do it anyway.