Who cares? Cops can't plant evidence. End of story.

If they did, even if the rest of the bust was legitimate, the entire thing goes out the window. If they had an actual reason to arrest him, they should have followed procedure and the law rather than going around trying to plant evidence.

There is a video of an officer planting evidence. That should be the end of the story. But for you it is not.

You trying to control the debate shapiro-style. You create a fictional story, first in conditionals ("if they suspected ... then they had every reason"), and by asking questions ("Did he refuse a breathalyzer test at the scene? Was one offered?"). Now there is a vivid image in the readers head, that you use to derail the discussion into a completely different direction ("Bottom line here: What was this man’s blood alcohol level?").

But the counter to this is very simple: Instead of following your tangent, I will simply un-derail the topic by asking something like:

"Why do you think the officer felt the need to plant evidence?"

I strongly recommend the youtube series "the altright playbook" https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ

Just for giggles I also asked GPT4 oppinion on the subject. His response

To support the officer's actions and shift the blame onto the accused individual, leveraging the scenario as described would involve a number of stratagems, focusing heavily on hypothetical questions, assumptions, and diverting attention from the core issue. Here's how such tactics might be applied:

1. Emphasize Uncertainty and Technicalities: Begin by stressing the complexities and procedural nuances of DUI arrests. Highlight the importance of blood alcohol content (BAC) testing and the legal protocols involving field sobriety and breathalyzer tests. This shifts the debate from the ethics of planting evidence to the technicalities of DUI arrests, muddying the waters.

2. Frame Hypotheticals as Probabilities: Use hypothetical situations—such as the accused refusing a breathalyzer test or having a reason for arrest due to a suspended license—as almost certain probabilities. This reframes the narrative, suggesting that the officer had just cause for suspicion, thereby indirectly justifying their misconduct.

3. Construct a False Dilemma: Imply that there are only two possibilities - the accused was either guilty of DUI or not, completely sidestepping the issue of the officer planting evidence. This narrows the debate's focus to the accused's potential guilt, diverting attention from the officer's actions.

4. Utilize Red Herrings: Introduce unrelated facts (e.g., the suspended license) to distract from the primary issue of evidence tampering. By focusing on these details, you can create a narrative where the officer's actions seem minor compared to the accused's alleged law-breaking behavior.

Through these strategies, the conversation can be steered towards scrutinizing the accused's behavior and the procedural aspects of DUI arrests, rather than the ethical implications of a police officer planting evidence. Such tactics, while effective in shifting debate focus, rely heav...

Can I plant a nazi sign on you, say you're a nazi and then have prove your innocence?

And was he charged with “open container”? The defense attorney says they describe the container as open in the police report, if that’s true, and if the bottle really was sealed when the officer found it, then it’s misconduct despite the specific charges.

Rule 2 - If you're supporting the police here, you're trolling. Comment removed.

The fact of the matter is the driver had no open alcohol in the vehicle until the officer placed it there.

"wait, Im racist against all black people and I have an opinion about this black person. I promise its not because he's black"