Too funny.

Always a story, eh?

Look, just turn on the nightly news- a citizen in a car crashes into a building and the police are more than happy to come up with a pronouncement as to the cause while the camera are rolling.

BUT, make that a police car and the 'story' is 'we need to investigate', 'pursuing a suspect', etc, etc. News reports and police are painfully circumspect in this case (since the reporters know if they don't 'play nice' they will not have access to the police on other stories). Everyone shuts up until the 'truth' can be synthesized.


Only once all the evidence is in will they determine the 'final story'... and this is where a fundamental bias occurs, IMO: for officer involved crashes it is "Believe the officer's story, unless there is independent proof he is at fault". For civilians it is "assume the driver is lying, unless they can prove it wasn't their fault"... and "just go with your 'expert opinion', no need for the same level of proof as when it is one of us"

Does anyone think this is incorrect? Even officers, if they were honest, would say "yeah, you're right- but since we are police we get to do that".

Has this changed over the years? Yes. Is this 'change' universal in all communities and all markets? For sure not.

So notwithstanding the fact that one officer here did pay for two of his "too many to count" crashes, I still think the deck is stacked.



A