Your first scenario is unlikely given that he wasn't otherwise uniformed, the second we could assume for both scenarios.

>...he was not in uniform...

Why would the officer have a body cam if not on duty? GP is correct, you're ignoring what was written and fabricating details.

Isn’t the presence of cameras on buildings in the second case and not in the first case also easy to imagine. Unless you believe that’s implausible in SF? It’s interesting that you ignored addressing the second part of my two part comment while also throwing the same accusation.

You don't get credit for throwing crap against the wall, even if some of it might hypothetically stick ("hypothetically" being the key word, you are still imagining details that weren't in the original account). That's indicative of bad faith.

Making an accusation of bad faith is different from giving credit. The standard behaviour on HN for disagreement is not to immediately jump to accusations of bad faith but to have a polite discussion without necessarily giving credit. I can make the same accusation of bad faith against you but that leads nowhere.

They don't wear body cams while off duty, in plain clothes.

Another one on duty could have been nearby? Anyways I’m not saying that is how it happened since obviously it’s just someone’s story on the internet, but the point is that there are so many possibilities for more solid evidence in a hit-and-run than half a plate number in a city like SF.