Well I guess that’ll teach me to try to have a rational and respectful discussion with a random stranger on the internet.

Calm down, smoke a bowl, read books on critical thinking and question the narrative even when if fits your worldview.

I like the example you chose because the facts reported support what I’m saying: eventually, if cops get too comfy planting evidence everywhere, someone down the line is going to notice and the judge will dismiss the case.

How is this related to the police planting evidence on suspects?

High-profile case also means more scrutiny from everyone, which means there’s a bigger risk someone finds out what they did.

I know they do, but they usually keep it somewhat subtle because the goal is to reinforce the bad guy image of someone they already know is guilty (but can’t prove). Planting the main piece of evidence such as a gun is risky.

A lot of people on all platforms trying to explain why he kept his gun, why he was caught so easily, and most coming up with easy explanations that fit their conspiracy theories.

The simple explanation is, he might be smarter than most, but maybe not enough to outsmart the whole NYPD police department. Maybe he kept his gun because he didn’t want to leave a trace. Maybe he wanted to get caught peacefully in a McD rather than dying in a shooting.

Also, to those who still don’t believe he’s the killer: he is. Police don’t go capture a random dude and then plant every evidence on him “because they need a scapegoat”. There’s a whole judicial process that goes on after the arrest, and if he’s found not to be the killer, the police will have to go back to square one on a cold trail. They usually don’t want that.

Also : what does the government plan to do with all this new tax money?