suspect pwns police during search.

[Danny]

dared to do it even with a camera on him

[Mike70]

dared to do it even with a camera on him that's absolutely priceless!

[Philly_SWAT]

Lol !

[MikePizzoff]

He's the man!

[Danny]

He's the man! he's the pac-man, specifically. WAKKA-WAKKA.

[krakenslayer]

Regardless of whatever immoral things he may have done, you gotta admire this guy for his: a) quick thinking b) guts and most of all... c) amazingly expressive face After he swallows the thing, without realising the camera is on him, he has this hilarious little smirk to himself that just says: Bank robbery: $20,000 Arrested by the cops: 15 years in jail Eating the evidence... PRICELESS!

[DjfunkmasterG]

LMGDAO... F*cking priceless!

[deadpunk]

WTF?! Oh man...my new hero

[DubiousComforts]

Bank robbery: $20,000 Arrested by the cops: 15 years in jail Eating the evidence... PRICELESS! It's more like... Bank Robbery: $20,000 Being Caught: 15 years Forcing the police to search your poop for three days: Priceless

[bassman]

I saw this on the tube a few days ago and it's still funny... Too bad it was all for nothing. I thought it was common knowledge that 99.9% of police have the mounted cameras in their cars?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Even if they have cameras the camera can't read what is on the paper, and you can't have heresay in court, if that was say the hold up note and he ate it they would have to prove it, but they can't all they have is him eating a piece of paper and without it being proof it was evidence they can't even charge him with destroying evidence... It has to be logged as evidence in order for it to be considered as evidence. Brilliant!

[darth los]

Even if they have cameras the camera can't read what is on the paper, and you can't have heresay in court, if that was say the hold up note and he ate it they would have to prove it, but they can't all they have is him eating a piece of paper and without it being proof it was evidence they can't even charge him with destroying evidence... It has to be logged as evidence in order for it to be considered as evidence. Brilliant! Exactly. In criminal law the burden of proof on the prosecution is beyond a reasonable doubt, that's something like over 99%. They could have him on tape swallowing a bag of white powder and it could be baking soda for all anyone knows. It would be on them to prove that it was drugs not on him to prove that it wasn't.

[bassman]

You guys are right about what the law states.....but I've seen video and audio evidence used often to prosecute the offender. I've got a family member that's a cop and this happened on cases involving himself...

[darth los]

You guys are right about what the law states.....but I've seen video and audio evidence used often to prosecute the offender. I've got a family member that's a cop and this happened on cases involving himself... It's not that video evidence can't be used. For example a guy gunning somone down in coold blood on a survielance camera leaves no doubt as to what happened. But someone swallowing something that could be anything is inconclusive and doesn't prove anything other than he swallowed something.

[DubiousComforts]

But someone swallowing something that could be anything is inconclusive and doesn't prove anything other than he swallowed something. Destroying evidence?