|
Raerlynn posted:http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-cops-get-body-cameras-after-michael-brown-shooting-n193196 I believe it was actually dashboard cameras that the department had in their possession at the time the time of the shooting, but had never gotten around to making any sort of effort to install and use them.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
Raerlynn posted:That implies that these are recent acquisitions, after the shooting. Hardly seems like they're willfully not using the cameras. So where is the footage from Darren Wilson's dashcam that can help back his account? Seems like they were willfully not recording their activities before this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Police body cameras are not the answer, for the reasons laid out above. Civilian body cameras are the answer. Constant recording and uploading the last hour of your life to a cloud-based buffer, with backup copies saved at the touch of a button. The technology already exists and is available to civilians now, although at potentially prohibitive cost. It'll become much more widespread in the next few decades, though. People are already talking about the ability to pull out their phones and record cops being a game-changer, just imagine if you didn't have to do anything and it was always-already happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-cops-get-body-cameras-after-michael-brown-shooting-n193196 I wasn't even talking about body cameras. Dash cams. They had some before the incident, but opted not to install them and put them into storage instead. Just so you understand the police aversion to cameras in Ferguson, they were unwilling to install even Dash cams despite already having them (they already had body cameras they weren't using too, though!). Obviously things are a bit different now that they've got national attention, but who knows how much penetration the cameras were get or how long they'll last once eyes are off them. quote:On topic, we've already covered what would happen if the grand jury doesn't indict Wilson. What about if they did indict, and the jury trial proves him innocent... Where would we go from there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Regarding the uncomfortable with cameras thing, It's worth pointing out that some folks don't want to be recorded when they interact with police. However that seems easily cured by just having that person say they don't want to be recorded which authorizes the police to stop the camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
UFOTofuTacoCat posted:Regarding the uncomfortable with cameras thing, It's worth pointing out that some folks don't want to be recorded when they interact with police. Who is that comfortable interacting with police to begin with?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Who is that comfortable interacting with police to begin with? Snitches? Informants? Weirdos? Militia Men? Unicorns?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Who is that comfortable interacting with police to begin with? Other police. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Police body cameras are not the answer, for the reasons laid out above. Have you seen how the cops react to being recorded?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Zwiftef posted:Have you seen how the cops react to being recorded? The funny thing is they can't do a drat thing about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Ferguson police were given body cameras after the shooting but then a week later there was a shooting involving a police officer whose camera had been "turned off." Cameras aren't going to solve police brutality unless there are consequences for not running them at which point you run into the same issue of "if there were consequences they wouldn't do this"
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Apthous posted:The funny thing is they can't do a drat thing about it. Sure they can't but they can. I hope you look forward to being held up for three hours while they wait to bring in the K9 and at least 5 other squad cars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Zwiftef posted:Have you seen how the cops react to being recorded? That type of behavior will tail off once always-on recording becomes widespread enough. Eventually they'll have to assume everyone is broadcasting live. Note that I'm not saying whether this should happen, only that it will happen. I'm sure lots of people will get a busted face for their trouble, but eventually the cops' self-preservation should win out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Sure they can't but they can. I hope you look forward to being held up for three hours while they wait to bring in the K9 and at least 5 other squad cars. There is a limited amount of time they can force someone to wait for a k9. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Apthous posted:The funny thing is they can't do a drat thing about it. They can if they can get your phone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:They can if they can get your phone. Under what conditions? They can't just take someone's phone without probable cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Apthous posted:Under what conditions? They can't just take someone's phone without probable cause. If a police officer grabs your phone and destroys it, what recourse do you have? Are you going to sue the police department? How do you propose to win that suit?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
mdemone posted:If a police officer grabs your phone and destroys it, what recourse do you have? Are you going to sue the police department? How do you propose to win that suit? Are we talking about me personally here or the common man?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Apthous posted:There is a limited amount of time they can force someone to wait for a k9. Sorry. What are you apologizing for? I don't think you've done anything wrong. Although I was using K9 as an example. Officers can and have used whatever is at their disposal to be as inconvenient as possible to ensure compliance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Are there apps that let you record video while saving to a secure cloud location? It's probably overkill but it'd be really nice to have if you needed it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Apthous flew too close to the sun with his trolling. RIP in peace.Dr. Arbitrary posted:Are there apps that let you record video while saving to a secure cloud location? Ustream It eats up battery, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Apthous posted:Under what conditions? They can't just take someone's phone without probable cause. In the real world, they don't need any more probable cause than Lowtax just needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:It's not about the legal system sheltering cops who commit crimes, it's about ethics in courtroom conduct! I would submit to you that without legal ethics, especially by prosecutors, the legal system fails. And this is a complete tangent. We don't know whether what's his name is being ethical or not because it's a closed proceeding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
So if we accept the given that the prosecutor here is purposefully hamstringing his own case in front of the Grand Jury in order to attempt to avoid an indictment or at the very least, not be responsible for one, then what exactly are you guys expecting to happen if Wilson IS indicted? The case would still be given to this guy anyway, wouldn't it? So now you have a guy who wants to protect Wilson "prosecuting" him. Seems like he would just lay down and take one for the team to let him walk at this point. It would be basically up to the jury to some how divine the truth from thin air in order for Wilson to be convicted of anything serious, if anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:So if we accept the given that the prosecutor here is purposefully hamstringing his own case in front of the Grand Jury in order to attempt to avoid an indictment or at the very least, not be responsible for one, then what exactly are you guys expecting to happen if Wilson IS indicted? The case would still be given to this guy anyway, wouldn't it? So now you have a guy who wants to protect Wilson "prosecuting" him. Seems like he would just lay down and take one for the team to let him walk at this point. It would be basically up to the jury to some how divine the truth from thin air in order for Wilson to be convicted of anything serious, if anything at all. Protestors in Ferguson want a trial. They don't expect Wilson to be indicted let alone convicted, but they want a trial. They know that it would take essentially an act of god to get a police officer convicted for shooting a black person, but they want to see the justice system treat this like an actual crime. One of the eyewitnesses I spoke to while I was there told me that if he goes to trial she will go sit in the courtroom every day, so I guess that's what some of them will do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:One of the eyewitnesses I spoke to while I was there told me that if he goes to trial she will go sit in the courtroom every day, so I guess that's what some of them will do. Violent coercion!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:Protestors in Ferguson want a trial. They don't expect Wilson to be indicted let alone convicted, but they want a trial. They know that it would take essentially an act of god to get a police officer convicted for shooting a black person, but they want to see the justice system treat this like an actual crime. One of the eyewitnesses I spoke to while I was there told me that if he goes to trial she will go sit in the courtroom every day, so I guess that's what some of them will do. Fair enough. But it is a sad state of affairs when the best thing people are hoping for is a phoney trial put on for appearances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Tortured, nuanced as representative of how people exist in reality, whatever. It's easy to simplify people down to beep boop algorithms but that doesn't make your argument any less absurd. bassguitarhero posted:Protestors in Ferguson want a trial. They don't expect Wilson to be indicted let alone convicted, but they want a trial. They know that it would take essentially an act of god to get a police officer convicted for shooting a black person, but they want to see the justice system treat this like an actual crime. One of the eyewitnesses I spoke to while I was there told me that if he goes to trial she will go sit in the courtroom every day, so I guess that's what some of them will do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I would submit to you that without legal ethics, especially by prosecutors, the legal system fails. And this is a complete tangent. We don't know whether what's his name is being ethical or not because it's a closed proceeding. I submit to you that the reality of the legal system applying ethics in a way that is or appears to be biased makes it a failure for large sections of our population. It would be great if every defendant received the consideration that Officer Wilson is receiving, but it is clear that they do not, which can certainly be seen as biased when that consideration ONLY seems to be extended to certain groups of people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:40
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Fair enough. But it is a sad state of affairs when the best thing people are hoping for is a phoney trial put on for appearances. No poo poo. But it really is the best that can be hoped for, that is the sort of world we live in. Waco Panty Raid posted:So going through the grand jury process isn't treating it like a crime, but a trial protesters thinks is a forgone conclusion is treating it like a crime? Who aside from the media outlets benefits in a trial for show? Since the process with this grand jury is so different than normal everyone assumes it is being changed to favor Wilson. I don't really see any problems with that assumption because the prosecutor has shown himself to be corrupt and biased in the past. As for who benefits, the family, the protesters, the community? Don't they matter? Wilson actually going on trial, even a trial where he will probably be found not guilty because he's a cop, as a tiny, tiny step forward, a minuscule acknowledgement from the justice system that a black person being shot dead like a dog in the street by a cop just might, maybe be a crime. That just maybe those in power don't want to see every black person in the state hanging from a tree. Just a maybe, just a possibility is all they want right now, because it's the best that can be hoped for.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:It's absurd to point out that being incorrect on a detail means being incorrect on said detail? It isn't actually incorrect, though. The autopsy is not conclusive. The absurd part is that you have this idea that Johnson's testimony is incorrect, but you have no proof, so you stick to this meaningless pedantic detail because you have nothing else to discuss. Like I get your point, maybe Johnson's perception of what happened is not correct, but A) the detail is so inconsequential it doesn't matter and B) you can't even demonstrate that he was wrong, so you're building a hypothetical on top of pedantry to serve no seeming purpose other than provide a platform for you to inject yourself into this argument. People who bend over backwards to pick holes in the testimony of people who claim to have seen a policeman murder someone for no reason aren't exactly uh the most objective or credible individuals themselves, buddy. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:The case would still be given to this guy anyway, wouldn't it? Bob McCulloch wouldn't actually present the case to the GJ or do the trial. He would supervise and direct the attorneys who did, because he runs the show, but the case would probably be handled by a senior deputy with substantial homicide experience. This is probably common in (and has been my experience with) large jurisdictions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:No poo poo. But it really is the best that can be hoped for, that is the sort of world we live in. Is it really a step forward if all the trial does is legally cement the idea that cops can get away with shooting unarmed black people? In the end, it would have the same result as not being indicted it, he walks free. That he might be majorly inconvenienced by a trial he stands little chance of losing doesn't seem like something worth hoping for. Accepting a bogus trial is harmful to the community, in my opinion. They should be trying to get this prosecutor off of the case, and they shouldn't want anything less. zzyzx posted:Bob McCulloch wouldn't actually present the case to the GJ or do the trial. He would supervise and direct the attorneys who did, because he runs the show, but the case would probably be handled by a senior deputy with substantial homicide experience. This is probably common in (and has been my experience with) large jurisdictions. I was going to type something to that effect, but yeah, what you typed is basically what I meant. By "given to this guy" I meant given to his office or whatever. Like he would be overseeing the case for the most part and have control over it, not necessarily that he would be in the court room himself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Since the process with this grand jury is so different than normal everyone assumes it is being changed to favor Wilson. I don't really see any problems with that assumption because the prosecutor has shown himself to be corrupt and biased in the past. As for who benefits, the family, the protesters, the community? Don't they matter? Wilson actually going on trial, even a trial where he will probably be found not guilty because he's a cop, as a tiny, tiny step forward, a minuscule acknowledgement from the justice system that a black person being shot dead like a dog in the street by a cop just might, maybe be a crime. That just maybe those in power don't want to see every black person in the state hanging from a tree. Just a maybe, just a possibility is all they want right now, because it's the best that can be hoped for. And of course this is being treated differently. It's a justified homicide case (which is really rare compared to most crime) and it is extremely high profile. Popular Thug Drink posted:It isn't actually incorrect, though. The autopsy is not conclusive. The absurd part is that you have this idea that Johnson's testimony is incorrect, but you have no proof, so you stick to this meaningless pedantic detail because you have nothing else to discuss. When a witness gets details wrong it is going to impact his credibility at trial. That's all this was about and you flailing around doesn't change that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Hah so you're now ignoring the several times I conceded that the witness could be correct to attack me on something I didn't say and handwaving everything else away as "inconsequential" (which it isn't, it's a pertinent fact) and that old chestnut of pedantry. I don't even know what you mean by "inject yourself into this argument." It doesn't actually matter if Wilson shot Brown from behind, as it is very well established that Wilson was shooting at Brown while he was fleeing. I'm kind of thinking you're just very interested in ways to discredit witness testimony that portrays Wilson as the aggressor, because I can't see a rational reason you would be so hung up on this. You're trying to paint Johnson as unreliable because his perception of events isn't conclusively backed, that's pretty scummy dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
"I'm just saying that when a witness gets things wrong, it impacts his credibility. Not that it would apply here, no sir. I'm speaking entirely theoretically about this one specific thing. You know, hypotetically, in general, but right here about this one statement sort of generally."
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It doesn't actually matter if Wilson shot Brown from behind, as it is very well established that Wilson was shooting at Brown while he was fleeing. I'm kind of thinking you're just very interested in ways to discredit witness testimony that portrays Wilson as the aggressor, because I can't see a rational reason you would be so hung up on this. You're trying to paint Johnson as unreliable because his perception of events isn't conclusively backed, that's pretty scummy dude. Of course it matters when we're talking about credibility at trial (which I've noticed you keep ignoring or deflecting). It very well may not have a big impact on the "moral" culpability or whatever of Wilson but you're fooling yourself if you think those kinds of mistakes won't haunt a witness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Frankly putting someone on trial just to placate a mob or grieving family members or as a gesture to subjective notions of social justice is disgusting. Trials aren't without risks to innocent defendants, trials aren't without costs and as we learned from the Zimmerman affair trials don't even silence critics or family members. I get that your thing is you're trying to treat the discussion like you're in a courtroom and want to be a smarmy pedantic gently caress, but here we know that we're not talking about putting on a sham trial to placate a mob. We're talking about people wanting a police officer who killed a teenager to be not be treated like he's above the law. All the publicly available evidence either supports or does not rule out what the witnesses say they saw, which is Wilson killing a teenager with no good cause. "Frankly putting someone on trial just to placate a mob or grieving family members or as a gesture to subjective notions of social justice is disgusting." holy poo poo how much of a disingenuous gently caress do you have to be to accuse the people who want Wilson to go on trial of thinking this way? Jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Wait so am I injecting myself into this discussion or are you? It's not actually a mistake, though. You keep ignoring that. Like if you want to make the basic point that "getting things wrong on the stand looks bad" you might want to pick an instance where the witness was actually wrong. I mean speaking in tongues on the stand is also a bad idea but you don't see me laboring to prove this simple point for mysterious emotional reasons. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It's not actually a mistake, though. You keep ignoring that. Excuse me, I know it's a mistake, because of perfect access to and understanding of all the evidence. How dare you want Wilson to go on trial, you don't even know what any of the evidence is, how can you know if he even might have done anything wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:19
|
|