|
ActusRhesus posted:Have you neckbeards never heard of the confrontation clause? Great contribution, as usual 
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Have you neckbeards never heard of the confrontation clause? With that in mind, what is required so that bodycam video of a lone officer killing someone could be admitted as evidence, if that officer invokes their right against self-incrimination?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:With that in mind, what is required so that bodycam video of a lone officer killing someone could be admitted as evidence, if that officer invokes their right against self-incrimination? The term "confrontation clause" and "witness" is kind of confusing, all it's saying is that if you're being accused of a crime you are allowed to look the person accusing you "in the eyes" (and cross-examine by the defense). In the case of an officer abusing someone and refusing to testify, the prosecutor for the state or whoever would compile the evidence and present it and an "expert witnesses" would confirm the video was of the event because of X Y and Z. The problem with the case in question was that apparently nobody could verify the source of the video, why that is is a mystery... or you know, someone using legal loopholes to bolster their defense and the prosecutor let them (possibly because of corruption). ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
This is how a typical post in this thread goes: 1. Here's a hosed up case X, here's a link. 2. It sure sucks that Y event happened! 3. Z seems to be the cause of these sorts of problems. It would be good if we could fix it. The immediate response from the police apologists is often 1. Provide a concrete example of how we can fix Y events from hot happening 2. Here's why your solution can't work because of current laws 3. Your proposed change to laws is stupid! That argumentation style is loving stupid and contributes nothing. You can just nod along and think "yeah that sucks". This thread is all about "yeah that sucks" and none of us is going to come up with the WEIRD OLD SECRET that will stop cop abuse from happening
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Devor posted:This is how a typical post in this thread goes: Don't forget the whole "It's totally cool that Y happened because the law says it's ok, you guys are so stupid for complaining, the law already told us it's totally cool!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:The term "confrontation clause" and "witness" is kind of confusing, all it's saying is that if you're being accused of a crime you are allowed to look the person accusing you "in the eyes" (and cross-examine by the defense). No. Check out Crawford. You also have a right to confront (via cross examination) evidence against you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Devor posted:That argumentation style is loving stupid and contributes nothing. You can just nod along and think "yeah that sucks". This thread is all about "yeah that sucks" and none of us is going to come up with the WEIRD OLD SECRET that will stop cop abuse from happening
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Just raising awareness about a problem can go a long way towards fixing it. If you have a suggestion of your own, let's hear it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think that evaluating whether proposed policy changes can work or be implemented at all contributes significantly more than doing nothing more than literally just agreeing with an already expressed sentiment that things suck. I don't see any reason why D&D needs a thread where people just express sadness that police murder people a bunch. If you really think the cop abuse problem is intractable, it's basically no different from making a thread where people post every time someone dies of cancer. I think it's good to talk about issues and potential solutions, so I disagree with Devor about that, but I think his point about how the apologists are generally just trying to shut down conversation is accurate. When they say things like Dead Reckoning posted:Since it's really hard to compel testimony, and making it possible to demand self incrimination or allowing the prosecution to introduce unverified video evidence are both Really Bad Ideas, it's not surprising that a case where the victim refuses to testify sputtered out. The result has nothing to do with the fact that the accused was a cop. Since administrative remidies don't have the same burden of proof, both officers lost their jobs. they're obviously trying to make the argument that gee, this is just one of those unfortunate edge cases that falls through the cracks. It's not an issue with cops at all! When he knows full well that there can be ways to validate the video without the cop being taped validating it, he's trying to provide just enough plausible deniability that if you are a regular layperson you won't be able to argue back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. Check out Crawford. You also have a right to confront (via cross examination) evidence against you. I'm no lawyer, I was just explaining something that was a bit confusing, it gets more confusing when you start going down the rabbit hole. Though the Crawford case is quite a bit different than the case in question. Lemming posted:they're obviously trying to make the argument that gee, this is just one of those unfortunate edge cases that falls through the cracks. It's not an issue with cops at all! When he knows full well that there can be ways to validate the video without the cop being taped validating it, he's trying to provide just enough plausible deniability that if you are a regular layperson you won't be able to argue back. Also the fact that they can't see why an officer losing their job isn't the same as a normal civilian facing jail time is ridiculous. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. Check out Crawford. You also have a right to confront (via cross examination) evidence against you. So how about that previous question. If an officer is alone but has a bodycam recording and murders someone, the bodycam is effectively inadmissable absent another witness? The officer could literally be caught with a smoking gun standing over a dead body, and you're saying the appropriate legal response is just to shrug your shoulders?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:So how about that previous question. If an officer is alone but has a bodycam recording and murders someone, the bodycam is effectively inadmissable absent another witness? The officer could literally be caught with a smoking gun standing over a dead body, and you're saying the appropriate legal response is just to shrug your shoulders? Isn't that what we do already with killer cops anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:So how about that previous question. If an officer is alone but has a bodycam recording and murders someone, the bodycam is effectively inadmissable absent another witness? The officer could literally be caught with a smoking gun standing over a dead body, and you're saying the appropriate legal response is just to shrug your shoulders? No, that's not what she's saying. It's inadmissible absent a sponsoring witness who can testify to the reasons the recording should be trusted. You don't necessarily need an independent witness to the events the video records.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, that's not what she's saying. It's inadmissible absent a sponsoring witness who can testify to the reasons the recording should be trusted. You don't necessarily need an independent witness to the events the video records. Right, which you've both already said and explained much more clearly than her drive by shitposts. It's almost as if those posts are meant to muddy the waters, which sets her up to swoop in to correct someone when they misinterpret or misunderstand what is an intentionally vague statement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, that's not what she's saying. It's inadmissible absent a sponsoring witness who can testify to the reasons the recording should be trusted. You don't necessarily need an independent witness to the events the video records. What does it take to determine a recording made by police should be trusted? In the reverse of the situation I posted, if an officer on patrol alone is killed during a traffic stop but the person being stopped invokes their rights against self-incrimination, what is generally required to prove the dashcam video of the killing should be trusted?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Right, which you've both already said and explained much more clearly than her drive by shitposts. It's almost as if those posts are meant to muddy the waters, which sets her up to swoop in to correct someone when they misinterpret or misunderstand what is an intentionally vague statement. Because if we go all the way to the source, that muthafuck exists and he works at the police department in question. That evidence made it from the squad car to the station, in view of multiple cameras. Somehow, an army of trained professionals with like serious degrees in stuff, just cannot loving find him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What does it take to determine a recording made by police should be trusted? It's simple, the police are always right as long as they believe they are right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm no lawyer, I was just explaining something that was a bit confusing, it gets more confusing when you start going down the rabbit hole. Though the Crawford case is quite a bit different than the case in question. But you were explaining it wrong. And Crawford is different only insofar as it deals with specifically who is needed to lay foundation for testimonial reports, but it gives a good basic overview of what exactly the confrontation clause requires generally. You can't introduce videos, pictures, whatever without someone testifying about their authenticity and giving the defense the opportunity to challenge that testimony.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What does it take to determine a recording made by police should be trusted? The exact same thing in either case: a human being who can testify that the thing is what it is being claimed to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:But you were explaining it wrong. And Crawford is different only insofar as it deals with specifically who is needed to lay foundation for testimonial reports, but it gives a good basic overview of what exactly the confrontation clause requires generally. You can't introduce videos, pictures, whatever without someone testifying about their authenticity and giving the defense the opportunity to challenge that testimony. No, was just trying to clarify that witness doesn't necessarily mean "a person that was there when the event happened". Specifically because people were (and apparently are still) confused about how an officer can still be prosecuted if the leaves no witnesses. Kalman posted:The exact same thing in either case: a human being who can testify that the thing is what it is being claimed to be. Yeah, but if nobody wants to verify the source we get the problem at hand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The exact same thing in either case: a human being who can testify that the thing is what it is being claimed to be. Can you be specific about how this is supposed to work, using my dead cop example. Would the person that testified be the investigating officer or the officer who found the tape in the cruiser? Or the police technician that maintains the recording equipment fleet? Or the shift lead the can testify that car X was the car the officer took and thus the tape from car X is the tape from that day? Or someone with trained expertise on videos just could testify that yup, that's a tape from a dashcam?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Devor posted:This is how a typical post in this thread goes: Lemming posted:they're obviously trying to make the argument that gee, this is just one of those unfortunate edge cases that falls through the cracks. It's not an issue with cops at all! When he knows full well that there can be ways to validate the video without the cop being taped validating it, he's trying to provide just enough plausible deniability that if you are a regular layperson you won't be able to argue back. The problem is, no one has been able to prove that these officers were extended any privilege or courtesy under the Missouri rules of evidence that wouldn't apply to a non-police officer with the same set of facts. The whole discussion started with the assertion that, since the officer blatantly got away with a crime due to inadmissible evidence, there must be a fault in the law. However, when challenged you admitted that you don't actually understand how the law works, only that there must be something wrong with it because of an unjust outcome. I disagree with the entire premise of that argument. Trabisnikof also insinuated that the prosecution had to be sandbagging the case, without any evidence aside from bellyfeel, the assumption that there must have been some way to get the tape in if only the defendant was a non-police. This despite no one being able to explain what that way might be, and despite the prosecutor going as far as seeking a last minute grant of immunity in order to try to get the evidence in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Can you be specific about how this is supposed to work, using my dead cop example. There are sworn statements, documentation with signatures all up and down the chain of custody. It's most likely a hard drive... gonna run wild with and say there's some type of device signature that would be used to establish authenticity were it to be removed by anyone other than a cop. Documenting and storing evidence is a thing they train for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But 2. and 3. are actually really important points. Our current legal system didn't spring up overnight, and a lot of the things that posters in this thread bring up as "problems" are actually features that were put in place to protect defendants from the state. We've created a system that is designed to be biased in favor of the accused, and anything that lessens those protections deserves careful consideration. Crafting good law is hard, and the impulse that "we have to do something" has led to a lot of bad laws. Laws that protect defendants protect both the falsely accused and the obviously guilty, but lowering those protections is far more likely to hurt vulnerable defendants without means than it is to hurt those who work with the legal system on a daily basis. For example, do you think making police body and dash camera footage admissible without verification is more likely to be used to secure convictions of police officers, or to secure convictions of the people they arrest? We are not lawmakers. No one is going to take a paragraph written by Dead Reckoning and turn it into an actual factual law that will be used to put minorities in jail. Your contributions to point out why our well-intentioned laws are sure to fail! is loving pointless. You poo poo on the minutiae, and then disagree that there is even a problem. How about we start with the fact that a problem exists, and work from there? Because your denial of the fact that the legal system abuses minorities seems to be pathological. I think that it is possible, and desirable, that a law could be written such that police officers are more likely to be held responsible for bad acts caught on camera, that otherwise go unprosecuted or dismissed for specious reasons. This hypothetical law would target police officers specifically, who exercise immense power over the rest of society. quote:The problem is, no one has been able to prove that these officers were extended any privilege or courtesy under the Missouri rules of evidence that wouldn't apply to a non-police officer with the same set of facts. The whole discussion started with the assertion that, since the officer blatantly got away with a crime due to inadmissible evidence, there must be a fault in the law. However, when challenged you admitted that you don't actually understand how the law works, only that there must be something wrong with it because of an unjust outcome. I disagree with the entire premise of that argument. Trabisnikof also insinuated that the prosecution had to be sandbagging the case, without any evidence aside from bellyfeel, the assumption that there must have been some way to get the tape in if only the defendant was a non-police. This despite no one being able to explain what that way might be, and despite the prosecutor going as far as seeking a last minute grant of immunity in order to try to get the evidence in. Let's not try to start by proving hypotheticals to you. You disagree that there is a problem, so why should anything you say matter? Every post you make is meant to negate and absolve bad acts by the police.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You could always, y'know, address me directly. I've called you a bootlicker to your face many times. And yeah, no poo poo nobody here can prove anything, because all we have access to is loving news reports about it. The best detective/lawyer team in the world couldn't prove jack poo poo from the position we're in. It's just incredibly obvious that in a case where a cop admits to having hit the kid, his partner admits to seeing him hit the kid, and video of him hitting the kid, and they were somehow protected from being prosecuted because somehow the video is mysteriously not good enough as evidence, that something in the system has gone wrong. If that video is legitimately useless as evidence then all evidence that exists is useless because that's the most clear cut obvious poo poo that we've seen in the thread, beyond maybe Walter Scott getting shot in the back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If that video is legitimately useless as evidence then all evidence that exists is useless because that's the most clear cut obvious poo poo that we've seen in the thread, beyond maybe Walter Scott getting shot in the back. Hi. Moron. The problem was not the video being useless as evidence. The problem is that there was apparently no one who could prove the video was what it was claimed to be, which made it useless. The exact same video plus a testifying evidence technician saying "yes this is how we normally record dash cam video and the characteristics of this video are consistent with it being from that officers dash cam at that time" would have been great and admissible evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Hi. Moron. Yes, I understand how it works, since you explained it earlier. Since they were not able to get anyone to validate it, in this case, it was useless as evidence. The obviously bullshit part is that they were unable to get someone to validate it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Hi. Moron. and that wasn't possible in this case because...?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
DARPA posted:and that wasn't possible in this case because...? I have no idea! That person might not have existed. That person for that police department might be the cop and/or his partner, which is an obvious flaw. It seems unlikely the prosecutor wouldn't have attempted to find that person, since they went to the trouble of getting immunity for the partner to try to force him to testify, so the safer bet is that they don't exist. They should exist. But the takeaway from that case should not be "let's remove basic procedural protections that are mandated by the constitution for criminal defendants so we can prosecute a cop." Lemming posted:Yes, I understand how it works, since you explained it earlier. Since they were not able to get anyone to validate it, in this case, it was useless as evidence. The obviously bullshit part is that they were unable to get someone to validate it. Yeah. If you can't authenticate evidence it isn't useful. That is very different from "that's the most clear cut obvious poo poo and all evidence is useless if it can't be used", your original statement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I have no idea! That person might not have existed. That person for that police department might be the cop and/or his partner, which is an obvious flaw. It seems unlikely the prosecutor wouldn't have attempted to find that person, since they went to the trouble of getting immunity for the partner to try to force him to testify, so the safer bet is that they don't exist. They should exist. Ok good, I think most of us agree with that second part. We're mostly upset that things are apparently so hosed that we're relying on the criminal's friend to validate the video and that by committing perjury he was able to clear his friend of any wrong doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The exact same video plus a testifying evidence technician saying "yes this is how we normally record dash cam video and the characteristics of this video are consistent with it being from that officers dash cam at that time" would have been great and admissible evidence. Regardless of methodology for authentication, if you follow your thought it's some sort of oppression charge. It's routine police work, being obstructed in an organized manner to deprive a citizen of their civil liberties. But the law is only sometimes and remember kids, there's just ignorance, never malice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
jfood posted:Regardless of methodology for authentication, if you follow your thought it's some sort of oppression charge. It's routine police work, being obstructed in an organized manner to deprive a citizen of their civil liberties. And you say this because... What, you assume the STL police are competent and well organized? I mean, have you actually read this thread?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And you say this because... What, you assume the STL police are competent and well organized? So you're saying don't attribute to malice, what could be incompetence? I disagree, I think calling it malice is the only way that police or prosecutors will ever be held accountable. You can't throw your hands up in the air and say "Oh, that Barney Fife! Will he ever do something right!" every time the police conspire to collectively gently caress up our poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And you say this because... What, you assume the STL police are competent and well organized? His friend literally committed perjury to protect him, so I'm going to go with malice here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Lemming posted:His friend literally committed perjury to protect him, so I'm going to go with malice here. We know that the two policemen were malicious. We're also saying that the prosecutor was malicious/intentionally negligent in allowing the policeman to get off because gosh darn it, the rules of evidence are just so tricky. Sometimes the police use that one weird old trick to avoid any consequence to their actions. You wouldn't want to hold them to higher standards, what if some innocent person were caught up in it too? Wouldn't you hate that, if we were to intentionally target an innocent person? We will kill innocent people if you try to prosecute us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
I dunno, in this case it seems like the prosecution did what they could. I'm assuming the police department was mostly the ones with the problem here, especially considering the union is fighting to get them reinstated. I don't know of any public pressure there might have been in this case for the prosecutors to search for charges. My guess is that the police interfered with whatever process there was to try get the video validated. Cases like in Ferguson and Eric Garner in NYC, yeah, those seem pretty obviously cases where the prosecution intentionally threw the case so they could pretend they were doing something about it justice was served you guys!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Gee, it's a real shame the police department doesn't have a single expert who can authenticate the time and date of dashcam footage. It must be so dangerous to be an officer on that force, knowing that they lack the ability to ever use dashcam footage as evidence to prosecute any crime a suspect commits against a cop during a traffic stop  That sounds like something we need to fix right away to protect our boys in blue from criminal elements #bluelivesmatter
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Is internal affairs actually a thing in the US police or is it only the major forces that have it? It seems like a video of an officer kicking the poo poo out of someone is the kind of thing they would get involved with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Devor posted:We are not lawmakers. No one is going to take a paragraph written by Dead Reckoning and turn it into an actual factual law that will be used to put minorities in jail. Your contributions to point out why our well-intentioned laws are sure to fail! is loving pointless. You poo poo on the minutiae, and then disagree that there is even a problem. quote:How about we start with the fact that a problem exists, and work from there? Because your denial of the fact that the legal system abuses minorities seems to be pathological. Lemming posted:I've called you a bootlicker to your face many times. Can you see why I might fail to be outraged or even agree that there is a problem when the entire basis for your complaint is the unfounded suspicion that this must be a case of preferential treatment? Frankly, I'm still not clear whether you think this is a fault with the Missouri rules of evidence, or some kind of thin blue line magic, the mechanism of which remains unspecified.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
Jose posted:Is internal affairs actually a thing in the US police or is it only the major forces that have it? It seems like a video of an officer kicking the poo poo out of someone is the kind of thing they would get involved with. Snitches get stitches.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 12:02
|
|
