What if Toucan Sam was a Drug Enforcement Officer?

in D.Buzz2 months ago

This lawyer's video on YouTube forgot to mention the part of the police officer's testimony in which the aroma of the pot formed human hands and lifted the officer in the air as he floated...Oh, I am thinking about a cartoon. Almost as realistic as the officer's testimony.


I'm pretty sure there are some exaggerations, (or a lot of it,) but some people can do stuff close-to-impossible when they need to, even themselves can't do it again.

Posted via D.Buzz

Assuming that's all true and for the sake of argument that in that one situation the police officer for a brief period of time gained an acute smelling sense through a process not yet understood by current biology's knowledgebase: The officer's testimony under oath reflects on his credibility. The officer either swore or affirmed to tell the truth. It was a case involving drugs which is criminal and not civil. The burden of proof is "beyond any reasonable doubt". If something caused the officer to gain a superhuman smelling ability and it can't be explained then by default there's reasonable doubt. There's no empirical way to verify the claim and nobody else experiencing such a similar phenomenon was available to testify.

A superpower can be both a blessing and a curse.

If I were that police officer who really had superhuman smelling ability for that brief time leading to the arrest I would have told the prosecutor, "Look, I am going to go up on the stand and tell the truth. I temporarily had a superhuman nose. I can't explain it. The defense is going to ask me questions that I probably won't know how to answer. That's going to make me look bad and being arrogant about it or exaggerating won't help. How will you putting me on the stand make you look? Maybe under the principle of "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" we might at least consider dropping this case so I don't get remembered as being an idiot the next time I testify in the court."

I agree that cases like this, (if true,) shouldn't be treated as a proof in court, especially without other evidence unrelated to it.

I was more saying "who knows? science can't explain everything yet" than "the story should be taken seriously."

Posted via D.Buzz