|
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/nyregion/police-recruiter-stays-upbeat-as-he-calls-on-skeptical-black-communities.html?_r=0quote:"The lanky black detective strode to the front of the school auditorium, grabbed the microphone and turned to face the crowd. He had a feel for the room, for the mistrust and doubt in many hearts, and a strategy to win them over.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
Devor posted:Does the foundation/authentication necessarily have to come from a subject in the video? It seems like the video technician responsible for retrieving the information from the system would be able to provide that, for cases where the subjects are hostile and/or accused of the crime in question. Again, you're trying to tear down years of protection for criminal defendants because you don't like the outcome of one case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
No. For it to be Brady the trial has to be over before the evidence is discovered. It's still wrong. But bad faith arguments are more damning in a late disclosure case when the court is trying to decide remedy, whereas in Brady good or bad faith motive is generally irrelevant and all that matters is the impact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In your hypothetical, you could probably get another employee to testify that, "Yes, that's our store, and the guy behind the counter is our (now deceased) night manager, and yes that appears to be someone shooting him in the face" but unless the other employee was there s/he couldn't testify that the person on the video was the suspect, or to the events leading up to the shooting. Frankly, if the only evidence the police have tying their suspect to the crime is that someone who looks like him is on the tape, that's a really weak case. Sure, but the actual, real case in question here involves 3 people, 1 detainee and 2 officers, and there are official records of who they are, where they are supposed to be, what they're doing, and the officers are wearing uniforms. If that's the detainee on the tape, and nobody doubts that, and that's not the officers in question - then we've got an even bigger problem and they should be in even more trouble. They should be stuck between a rock and a hard place here, but they're not, because the system is okay with brutality as long as it's directed at the right people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:Sure, but the actual, real case in question here involves 3 people, 1 detainee and 2 officers, and there are official records of who they are, where they are supposed to be, what they're doing, and the officers are wearing uniforms. If that's the detainee on the tape, and nobody doubts that, and that's not the officers in question - then we've got an even bigger problem and they should be in even more trouble. They should be stuck between a rock and a hard place here, but they're not, because the system is okay with brutality as long as it's directed at the right people. There is all those people but they all plead the 5th because they're all being investigated for a crime. Even the guy given immunity and compelled to testify evaded the questions out of fear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:They should be stuck between a rock and a hard place here, but they're not, because the system is okay with brutality as long as it's directed at the right people. It has nothing to do with "the right sort of people" though. If you or I got caught punching someone on video with no other witnesses, and for some reason the victim refused to testify, the result would likely be the same. It's just unusual to have a criminal case where there is: A) video evidence but no outside witnesses B) a victim who refuses to testify C) a defendant canny enough to not say anything incriminating I have to imagine that, if the accused weren't police, most prosecutors would have dropped a simple battery case or offered a deal when it became clear their only witness wasn't cooperating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
The prosecutor could have given the prisoner immunity to help put some crooked cops behind bars but chose not to. Makes you think
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
So again, if the victim had died of being punched in the head, would the result have still been the same as long as the cops still agreed not to tattle on each other?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
DARPA posted:The prosecutor could have given the prisoner immunity to help put some crooked cops behind bars but chose not to. Makes you think He tried that though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Lemming posted:So again, if the victim had died of being punched in the head, would the result have still been the same as long as the cops still agreed not to tattle on each other? If the prosecutor couldn't find some other way to authenticate the evidence, then yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If the prosecutor couldn't find some other way to authenticate the evidence, then yes. My issue with this case is that it seems absurd that you can't authenticate a video taken from inside a police car. It seems like a system that's deliberately setup so if it helps a cop they say "yeah the video was right" and if it implicates them they say "I remember it differently" and that's somehow an iron clad defense. Edit: in the video there are time stamps and the cop already starts accusing the guy of lunging at him. That it's the cop in question is beyond a reasonable doubt. Lemming fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Lemming posted:So again, if the victim had died of being punched in the head, would the result still have been the same as long as the cops still agreed not to tattle on each other? I imagine the prosecution's case would be greatly simplified, because they would have the police picking up a suspect, a suspect dead from being punched in the face, and the officer with bruised knuckles. Securing the cooperation of the victim to prove their case becomes unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I imagine the prosecution's case would be greatly simplified, because they would have the police picking up a suspect, a suspect dead from being punched in the face, and the officer with bruised knuckles. Securing the cooperation of the victim to prove their case becomes unnecessary. But if the officer was smart enough to kill their victim, say by leaving them unbuckled in an unsafe position then driving unsafely, there wouldn't be your smoking knuckles, now would there?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Lemming posted:My issue with this case is that it seems absurd that you can't authenticate a video taken from inside a police car. It seems like a system that's deliberately setup so if it helps a cop they say "yeah the video was right" and if it implicates them they say "I remember it differently" and that's somehow an iron clad defense. It isn't an ironclad defense but you need a person (human being) to say "yes, this video is an accurate representation of events and here is how I know." It's a basic rule of evidence - evidence has to be authenticated by testimony. It isn't always testimony based on personal knowledge - there are typically ways to authenticate a document based on standard business practices. But you still need some witness to sponsor the document. It sounds like they couldn't get one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I imagine the prosecution's case would be greatly simplified, because they would have the police picking up a suspect, a suspect dead from being punched in the face, and the officer with bruised knuckles. Securing the cooperation of the victim to prove their case becomes unnecessary. That the officer hit the victim was never in question, he says it was self defense. The point is whether or not you can authenticate the video and say that the officer hit the kid unprovoked without the testimony of the victim. If you can't, then it was self defense because the officer said so, case closed. You were insinuating that the result was reasonable because the victim didn't want to testify (gee, why does a kid who got harassed by a bunch of police not want to testify against police?), but my point was that the victim won't always be able to, if the video is only of the perpetrator and the victim (and in this case, the perpetrator's friend). Kalman posted:It isn't an ironclad defense but you need a person (human being) to say "yes, this video is an accurate representation of events and here is how I know." It's a basic rule of evidence - evidence has to be authenticated by testimony. So they can't get a technician to say "yeah, this video is of the events that occurred at the time stamp indicated, and it was taken from the car the teenager was arrested in"? The standards are literally that you need a person who can lie or misremember to say "this objective video is correct, maybe I think"? This seems absurd. EDIT: From https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-evidence.shtml quote:Bruce's attorney, Joseph Hogan, said his client was squatting down, performing a search, when the "guy makes a move," and Bruce jumped up and hit him with a forearm. What kind of insane asylum do I live in that it's reasonable to not use the video when both cops agree that yeah, we were there and one of us hit him in the face, but the video is wrong because I'm going to lie about what happened, and everyone's like "yep seems fine." Lemming fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Lemming posted:So they can't get a technician to say "yeah, this video is of the events that occurred at the time stamp indicated, and it was taken from the car the teenager was arrested in"? The standards are literally that you need a person who can lie or misremember to say "this objective video is correct, maybe I think"? This seems absurd. No, that would probably be fine, if such a technician existed. Like I said, testimony to authenticate doesn't necessarily require personal knowledge. quote:What kind of insane asylum do I live in that it's reasonable to not use the video when both cops agree that yeah, we were there and one of us hit him in the face, but the video is wrong because I'm going to lie about what happened, and everyone's like "yep seems fine." The kind that insists that a human being, who can be cross-examined, has to be willing to say that the video is an accurate representation of what it depicts so that we can avoid unrebuttable falsified evidence being introduced. I get that you dislike the result here, but we have rules about evidence to protect defendants. Sacrificing those rules to get a single cop is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, that would probably be fine, if such a technician existed. Like I said, testimony to authenticate doesn't necessarily require personal knowledge. I'm not saying we should sacrifice any rule, I'm saying if that the rules don't support prosecuting a cop in such an unbelievably cut and dry case, then there's probably something wrong with the rules. Or at the very least, with the people we trust to enforce those rules. Either way, the system obviously needs to change somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I'm not saying we should sacrifice any rule, I'm saying if that the rules don't support prosecuting a cop in such an unbelievably cut and dry case, then there's probably something wrong with the rules. Or at the very least, with the people we trust to enforce those rules. Either way, the system obviously needs to change somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The kind that insists that a human being, who can be cross-examined, has to be willing to say that the video is an accurate representation of what it depicts so that we can avoid unrebuttable falsified evidence being introduced. This is one of those situations where if this was about a non-cop, we'd find someone else to authenticate the video, but since this is a cop, strangely that effort is never made.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, what specific change are you advocating for? I'm neither a lawyer nor a cop so I don't know enough to make any reasonably informed suggestions, but my personal, uninformed, short-sighted, idiot suggestion would be that I'd imagine the cops shouldn't be the only ones with the ability to validate those sort of videos. I'd think that some third party watch dog should be able to have a technician verify that such a video was of a certain event at a certain time. I get the impression that the prosecutor's office couldn't get such a person from the police department to do that in this case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, what specific change are you advocating for? Maybe... quote:No, that would probably be fine, if such a technician existed. Some kind of department that can look at evidence and prosecute criminals using that evidence?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This is one of those situations where if this was about a non-cop, we'd find someone else to authenticate the video, but since this is a cop, strangely that effort is never made. That person might not exist. Given that they used immunity to attempt to force testimony, it's not really a safe assumption that they were trying to avoid prosecuting the cop. Lemming posted:I'm neither a lawyer nor a cop so I don't know enough to make any reasonably informed suggestions, but my personal, uninformed, short-sighted, idiot suggestion would be that I'd imagine the cops shouldn't be the only ones with the ability to validate those sort of videos. If you were a lawyer you would have understood the first two times I told you that cops aren't the only ones with the ability to validate videos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That person might not exist. Given that they used immunity to attempt to force testimony, it's not really a safe assumption that they were trying to avoid prosecuting the cop. I believed you, which is why the implicit assumption I was working on was that there was such a person in the police department who could have done that but didn't because they're on the cop's team, which is why I suggested a third party watch dog technician so hopefully they'd be free of that influence. I'm assuming that the prosecution didn't have access to such a person or they would have gone with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I believed you, which is why the implicit assumption I was working on was that there was such a person in the police department who could have done that but didn't because they're on the cop's team, which is why I suggested a third party watch dog technician so hopefully they'd be free of that influence. I'm assuming that the prosecution didn't have access to such a person or they would have gone with that. If that person existed, the prosecutor almost certainly would have subpoenad them to compel testimony rather than giving immunity to someone else to try to compel their testimony, which is what they wound up doing. That's why I say things like "that person probably doesn't exist," not "that person was under the influence of police."
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If that person existed, the prosecutor almost certainly would have subpoenad them to compel testimony rather than giving immunity to someone else to try to compel their testimony, which is what they wound up doing. Alright. That person should exist. Although it seems weird that they're capable of getting access to a video without being able to verify where they got the video from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If that person existed, the prosecutor almost certainly would have subpoenad them to compel testimony rather than giving immunity to someone else to try to compel their testimony, which is what they wound up doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
twodot posted:Right, I believe that Lemming is proposing creating a government agency, unrelated to the police, that somehow has the power to retrieve and, at trial, authenticate dash/body recordings as happening at specific times and places. Or gently caress, even if that was someone was in IA. If only police had some sort of training in maintaining a chain of custody of evidence and procedures to ensure it is tracked and not tampered with. I'd rather at least force people on record as covering for their buddies rather than the answer just being "oops, looks like the officer threatened their victim too much, guess we'll never know if that video was valid."
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:He tried that though? http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...c3d021affa.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I'm not saying we should sacrifice any rule, I'm saying if that the rules don't support prosecuting a cop in such an unbelievably cut and dry case, then there's probably something wrong with the rules. Or at the very least, with the people we trust to enforce those rules. Either way, the system obviously needs to change somehow. This statement pretty much sums up this thread and why its terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or gently caress, even if that was someone was in IA. If only police had some sort of training in maintaining a chain of custody of evidence and procedures to ensure it is tracked and not tampered with. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This statement pretty much sums up this thread and why its terrible. Haha yeah one post by one guy perfectly sums up all the police abuse that has been cataloged in this thread for sure
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
quote:Justin Fenton @justin_fenton 1m1 minute ago After those reports out of Baltimore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
One wonders how the video even came into being, let alone how it magicked itself out of the recording device and into a playable format on a lawyer's desk. Too bad we'll never find out what manner of sorcery enabled its creation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:One wonders how the video even came into being, let alone how it magicked itself out of the recording device and into a playable format on a lawyer's desk. Too bad we'll never find out what manner of sorcery enabled its creation. Well, see, that is exactly what you need a witness to testify to in order for it to be admissible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't think the name of such an agency or the procedures it would apply is a major issue, I think the bigger question is "Are you proposing to suspend the rules of evidence specifically for footage captured by police, for all footage, or something else?". The footage in question wasn't lost or tampered with, we have the actual film, it's just that existing rules of evidence prevented it from being introduced. (edit: Also the buddy was forced on record as covering for the other buddy and they were both fired) If a CCTV camera sees a criminal breaking into a store at night, do we need the criminal to agree that the film is valid before the film before it can be evidence? Kalman posted:Well, see, that is exactly what you need a witness to testify to in order for it to be admissible. So is the issue that they couldn't get a witness to admit to who took the tape out of the machine? (also how is that not a custody issue?) How could that not be solved by having someone other than the officer be responsible for removing said tape?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If a CCTV camera sees a criminal breaking into a store at night, do we need the criminal to agree that the film is valid before the film before it can be evidence?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If a CCTV camera sees a criminal breaking into a store at night, do we need the criminal to agree that the film is valid before the film before it can be evidence? No. quote:So is the issue that they couldn't get a witness to admit to who took the tape out of the machine? (also how is that not a custody issue?) How could that not be solved by having someone other than the officer be responsible for removing said tape? Yes, possibly, and it could potentially be solved in that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Have you neckbeards never heard of the confrontation clause?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Well, see, that is exactly what you need a witness to testify to in order for it to be admissible. That's a hell of a system. Surveillance footage from a police vehicle unable to be verified because nobody is willing to step forward and claim responsibility for downloading it. If only they had cameras pointed at the recording interface this could all have been avoi.. oh wait
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Have you neckbeards never heard of the confrontation clause? There were only 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights: the first amendment, second amendment, fourth amendment and fifth amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:26
|
|
