|
VitalSigns posted:This, bolded just for youuuuuuu That's not actually obstruction of justice. I know you want it to be, but not volunteering cooperation isn't obstruction (and making it obstruction would be a great way to get more minorities arrested.)
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So it is not actually a problem, in your estimation, when the police department refuses to cooperate with a prosecutor who is investigating an alleged crime by one of their members? He said it's not a problem, as long as the police believe what they're saying, just like when they kill innocent people on the street. As long as police believe they're right, they are, the law is clear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So it is not actually a problem, in your estimation, when the police department refuses to cooperate with a prosecutor who is investigating an alleged crime by one of their members? If that's what happened, it's a problem. Given a prosecutor who was actively attempting to prosecute and the existence of subpoenas to compel testimony if a person existed who could have been helpful but who wouldn't have been under threat of criminal prosecution, that doesn't appear to have been the case here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That's not actually obstruction of justice. I know you want it to be, but not volunteering cooperation isn't obstruction (and making it obstruction would be a great way to get more minorities arrested.) You don't think the professionals tasked with upholding the law should be held to a higher standard of cooperation with the legal system in their professional capacity than random civilians? Like yeah, maybe I don't have a duty to properly store and handle and identify random videos in my cell phone in case they become evidence, but I would think a police force should with respect to their dashcams! And if they deliberately don't to protect a friend, that sounds like obstruction to me VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't think the professionals tasked with upholding the law should be held to a higher standard of cooperation with the legal system in their professional capacity than random civilians? Of course not, they are held to a lower standard than civilians. That's why having body cams, dash cams and other evidence is only detrimental to civilians. Police control all the video and it's completely their discretion as to what they deem legal or illegal, the law explicitly allows this and if you don't agree you're stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If that's what happened, it's a problem. So you think that a prosecutor needing to force a cop to testify means the police were probably cooperating? And that, as in the example DARPA gave, if the video was of a guy murdering the two officers and running away, the video probably couldn't have been used as evidence, then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't think the professionals tasked with upholding the law should be held to a higher standard of cooperation with the legal system in their professional capacity than random civilians? Not at risk of criminal prosecution, no. I think that criminal laws should apply equally to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Lemming posted:So you think that a prosecutor needing to force a cop to testify means the police were probably cooperating? No. I think that it means that the person people seem to be assuming exists probably didn't, because if they did, the prosecutor could have just forced them to testify without having to offer anyone immunity from anything. quote:And that, as in the example DARPA gave, if the video was of a guy murdering the two officers and running away, the video probably couldn't have been used as evidence, then? Absent a sponsoring witness, that hypothetical video absolutely cannot be used as evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not at risk of criminal prosecution, no. I think that criminal laws should apply equally to everyone. Why. All kinds of things are criminal in professional capacities that aren't when done by random people, because professionals have duties to the public that ordinary people don't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No. I think that it means that the person people seem to be assuming exists probably didn't, because if they did, the prosecutor could have just forced them to testify without having to offer anyone immunity from anything. The prosecutor might have been able to do that if the police cooperated with them, which they obviously didn't, considering things like their union rep has been giving interviews about how they clearly didn't do anything wrong so they should be reinstated, when the cop clearly committed a crime on video. As for the second point, I'll answer it for you. They obviously would have been able to authenticate it and use it as evidence, and the fact that they didn't here is evidence of police corruption. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to admit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Absent a sponsoring witness, that hypothetical video absolutely cannot be used as evidence. Any example of this happening, ever? Murder on video with no "sponsoring witness"? That seems pretty absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Lemming posted:So you think that a prosecutor needing to force a cop to testify means the police were probably cooperating? And that, as in the example DARPA gave, if the video was of a guy murdering the two officers and running away, the video probably couldn't have been used as evidence, then? I would really like a direct answer to the bolded question
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The prosecutor might have been able to do that if the police cooperated with them, which they obviously didn't, considering things like their union rep has been giving interviews about how they clearly didn't do anything wrong so they should be reinstated, when the cop clearly committed a crime on video. I don't think you understand what I'm saying so I will try one more time. if that person exists, the prosecutor can force them to testify whether or not they want to testify. Thats what subpoenas are for. Departmental cooperation is irrelevant. Given the prosecutors other efforts to prosecute this cop, the idea that the person exists but that the prosecutor chose not to call them is completely irrational. quote:As for the second point, I'll answer it for you. They obviously would have been able to authenticate it and use it as evidence, and the fact that they didn't here is evidence of police corruption. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to admit. I answered it. "Absent a sponsoring witness, they would not have been able to." If they had a sponsoring witness, they would have been able to. And if a sponsoring witness existed here, then they could have admitted the video. The fact that one didn't appear here could be corruption or could be incompetence - I think the evidence is better for the latter argument, given that neither the department nor the prosecutor appear to be on the side of the officer, what with the immediate firing before criminal conviction and the attempt to criminally convict.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
I don't see why it's hard to believe that the department might be all right with firing a criminal officer to save face, but still willing to stonewall the prosecution to keep a friend out of jail. That sounds perfectly natural to me. So are you telling us that if a cop is murdered on a dashcam, it is impossible to authenticate the video since the only witness will presumably exercise his fifth amendment right not to testify?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I don't think you understand what I'm saying so I will try one more time. So there are two possible situations: the police literally have no ability to authenticate the video if a person who is being filmed doesn't do it, or the police could have authenticated it, and found a way to avoid doing so in this case. Considering the history of police protecting themselves, and the fact that the first situation is unbelievably more absurd than the second, I'm going to believe that the second situation is the most likely one in this case. You apparently think that the cops would just have had no choice but to let the bad murderer get away because gosh darn it, their hands are tied! The only people who could have authenticated the video were murdered on the video! There's nothing we can do!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Given the prosecutors other efforts to prosecute this cop, the idea that the person exists but that the prosecutor chose not to call them is completely irrational. The prosecutor did not offer immunity to the victim despite no charges being brought against the victim for his other alleged crimes. Literally zero cost to society to offer immunity. The prosecutor only granted immunity to the other officer on scene who lied in his police report and who predictably lied while on the stand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Um excuse me, how dare you say the officer lied on the stand are you a mind reader no didn't think so therefore he didn't lie and the video was the one lying its rear end off
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Any example of this happening, ever? Murder on video with no "sponsoring witness"? That seems pretty absurd. Not murder off of a quick search, but I have robbery on video not being admitted because of a lack of a sponsoring witness. People v Patterson (93 Ny 2d 80). "The people's case on the trial record we are reviewing lacks authentication to justify the user of a stationary commercial store security camera and videotape." (It's relatively hard to find cases where a tape wasn't authenticated and that is what's appealed, since it usually requires the defendant losing for there to be an appeal and they are rarely in a position where they want a videotape to come in.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:People v Patterson (93 Ny 2d 80). From the ruling, which "addresses" but does not rule on the issue of the surveillance video: https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I99_0046.htm quote:Similar to a photograph, a videotape may be authenticated by the testimony of a witness to the recorded events or of an operator or installer or maintainer of the equipment that the videotape accurately represents the subject matter depicted ( see, People v Byrnes, 33 NY2d 343, 347–349). Testimony, expert or otherwise, may also establish that a videotape "truly and accurately represents what was before the camera" ( id., at 349). Evidence establishing the chain of custody of the videotape may additionally buttress its authenticity and integrity, and even allow for acceptable inferences of reasonable accuracy and freedom from tampering ( cf., People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, at 527–528). It's laughable for you to contend that the police can't produce this level of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't see why it's hard to believe that the department might be all right with firing a criminal officer to save face, but still willing to stonewall the prosecution to keep a friend out of jail. That sounds perfectly natural to me. No. You need a witness, not a witness with personal knowledge of the recorded event. You can authenticate things in other ways if you have the right witness. For example, if there's someone who installed the system into the car and can testify as to its normal production of video, if you have the person who handles collecting video, etc. if the tape is time, date, and car number stamped, you can authenticate it with testimony as to how the camera does the stamping. If you have chain of custody evidence from the car to the court and have an evidence tech testify. There's other possible avenues. They're harder and riskier but they may exist. But they all require a witness, not just the tape. Then again, the witness you need may not exist. Maybe officers are responsible for removing video from their own cameras. Maybe the installer can't be located. Maybe the video isn't time stamped. Maybe the chain of custody was broken.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not murder off of a quick search, but I have robbery on video not being admitted because of a lack of a sponsoring witness. Why'd you stop quoting at that sentence? One sentence later: "Although the People at retrial will have an opportunity to remedy the foundational vacuum and chain of custody linkage, the present state of the record provides an inadequate basis for admissibility." The case is about a lazy prosecutor taking a shortcut, not some inability to get a witness to testify about the video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No. You need a witness, not a witness with personal knowledge of the recorded event. Maybe these things should be reformed, because it's pretty loving ridiculous that the organization tasked with enforcing the law and collecting evidence isn't able to properly handle and authenticate their own recorded evidence, isn't it. Maybe we should make organizations with a duty to do this criminally liable if they don't. No one has to be a cop. If you want to gently caress mental patients, don't be a psychiatrist at that hospital. If don't want to ensure the admissibility of evidence your colleagues record, don't be a cop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Devor posted:From the ruling, which "addresses" but does not rule on the issue of the surveillance video: I've literally had the only available sponsoring witness die on me a few weeks before trial. Sometimes you can't produce evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not at risk of criminal prosecution, no. I think that criminal laws should apply equally to everyone. I think I grasp your position now. You're only stating that an officer should be prosecuted like a civilian in terms of criminal charges, and that crimes committed as an officer should still be subject to the same systems a civilian does. Administrative punishments with different standards from criminal law however are a whole different beast that you're okay with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I've literally had the only available sponsoring witness die on me a few weeks before trial. Yeah, like maybe all of the people responsible for installing, operating, and maintaining the massive fleet of cameras and other recording devices that the police have, all got some mysterous "blue flu"! We realize that we can't prove anything, that's the whole problem with police corruption. And why apparently we have to have some method of enforcing professional standards on police so they can't use these sorts of 'outs'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I've literally had the only available sponsoring witness die on me a few weeks before trial. quote:We address but do not rule on two additional evidentiary features since further proceedings must occur in this case. They relate to the admission of the store surveillance videotape purportedly showing the unfolding robbery, and a tape recording of a 911 telephone call from the victim reporting the crime. Your case isn't even about admitting video evidence. It's about a witness dying before he could testify to his own identification during a lineup and if a cop presnent at the time was allowed to testify on the dead man's behalf (who had died in a second, unrelated robbery, poor guy).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Your case isn't even about admitting video evidence. It's about a witness dying before he could testify to his own identification during a lineup and if a cop presnent at the time was allowed to testify on the dead man's behalf (who had died in a second, unrelated robbery, poor guy). Keep reading, they talk about the video surveillance further down
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not at risk of criminal prosecution, no. I think that criminal laws should apply equally to everyone. But they don't? In NYC you cannot open carry a firearm, but the NYPD can. It is criminal for a civilian to walk around with a gun strapped to their waist, but it is not criminal for the police to do it. The police are also allowed weapons that civilians aren't. We already give police special privileges with regards to the law, so it makes perfect sense that police also have special scrutiny given to them when they break the law. That is what people are asking for in this thread. If you want police to be treated "equally" under the law, then you should be arguing for all special privileges to be stripped from them as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Devor posted:We realize that we can't prove anything, that's the whole problem with police corruption. And why apparently we have to have some method of enforcing professional standards on police so they can't use these sorts of 'outs'. This is my favorite part about discussing police corruption. Anything that couldn't be proven in court because of police corruption no matter how egregious or absurd is automatically not police corruption because if it were you'd be able to prove it in court! The system works!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Devor posted:Keep reading, they talk about the video surveillance further down Yeah they say the prosecution did it wrong and has to try it differently during retrial, but since they ruled on the dead guy's identification not being evidence they didn't rule on the video because the first trial is already moot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
I am sure that if the officer who submitted a report that contradicted the video evidence had lied in his report, we would know about it because he would have said he was lying in the report.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
You guys all realize that Kalman keeps reiterating that he agrees with you and you're too busy dogpiling to recognize it? He said that he thinks the fact that there was no one able to authenticate the tape is a problem. He also said that this problem can be interpreted as either corruption or a genuine effort by the prosecutor that fell into a pitfall in the law. While he thinks the latter is more likely, he hasn't at any point said "corruption isn't a problem", but you all keep putting words in his mouth so you can argue with a pretend version of Kalman that doesn't think there's any prosecutor or police corruption in America. Here, let me summarize the whole issue for you:
One way I think you could fix this without loving up anyone's constitutional rights, would be to have some neutral third party who is the only one allowed to handle police camera footage. The recording media within the car could be kept in a locked container such that only a duly-assigned officer of the court can remove it. This officer of the court is responsible for appropriately cataloging and storing all police camera footage. This officer of the court is now able to, in all cases, testify to the authenticity of video from police cameras because he is the only person who is able to handle media after it has been recorded to. Because everyone feels police bodycams and always-on dashcams are a necessary step to end police corruption and brutality, it seems that this type of system is a necessary extension of that step. The recorded video can be handled only by a person who is neither a police officer or under the supervision of the prosecutor. Instead they are an independent employee of the court as a whole. This removes the ability for police to deliberately gently caress up the chain of custody, and it removes the ability of the prosecutor to "oopsie" on finding an authenticator because there is a known guy whose whole job is authenticating videos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
I actually tried to find the Rory Bruce filings but apparently Missouri still doesn't have online public access to court documents like you can get federally with PACER and the like. To what extent is the prosecution allowed to add new witnesses after a trial has begun? Could the prosecution been hamstrung by expecting that Bruce's partner Jacob Fowler would validate the video, and when he didn't they couldn't introduce a police technician to validate how the video system works and is collected? I thought that the prosecution had to provide all evidence and witness lists to the defense prior to the trial as part of discovery. Admittedly most of my legal knowledge is from reading Helter Skelter and too many Grisham novels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:But they don't? In NYC you cannot open carry a firearm, but the NYPD can. It is criminal for a civilian to walk around with a gun strapped to their waist, but it is not criminal for the police to do it. The police are also allowed weapons that civilians aren't. We already give police special privileges with regards to the law, so it makes perfect sense that police also have special scrutiny given to them when they break the law. That is what people are asking for in this thread. If you want police to be treated "equally" under the law, then you should be arguing for all special privileges to be stripped from them as well. In the legal process cops are always given the benefit of doubt. Almost all traffic violations are some cops word against yours. Law enforcement officers are agents of "the state", along with DA's and judges (in some states). A private citizen is not on the same team, and therefore not afforded the privilege cops are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Dahn posted:In the legal process cops are always given the benefit of doubt. Almost all traffic violations are some cops word against yours. That's his point, he wants police to be held to a higher standard because they are given power that can and is abused all the time. For some reason people are arguing that they should be held to the same standard as normal citizens when they're accused of a crime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
fordan posted:I actually tried to find the Rory Bruce filings but apparently Missouri still doesn't have online public access to court documents like you can get federally with PACER and the like. I can tell you this though: DAs almost always assume cops will help them out and don't have them interviewed before testifying. This can burn them. Judges are often sympathic to DAs, but some judges want their trials over with. Even if the Judge wants to help the DA, he is limited by the right to a speedy trial and other considerations to continue a trial over the defense objection. Finding out who the "right" person at the police department is can be a long process even with them not trying to delay. When I was a PD, I generally obessed with how I was going to introduce evidence because my witnesses are generally not professiobal witnesses and may not be trying to help me. Many DAs don't to this because 9 times out of 10, the cop can bail them out. And in the rare case they don't 9 times out of 10, the court will bend over backwards to help the DA. This leads to lazy DAs becoming lazier and incompetent. And they still get convictions because they have crutches. So, my opinion of DAs (there are a large number of exeptions though) generally leads me to not be able to rule out incompetence. Esp. in Missouri where I am informed that government lawyers are terribly underpaid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:That's his point, he wants police to be held to a higher standard because they are given power that can and is abused all the time. For some reason people are arguing that they should be held to the same standard as normal citizens when they're accused of a crime. No, what people are arguing is that under our current constitution, police are entitled to be held to the same standard as normal citizens when they're accused of a crime. You keep shouting "this should be different, there should be a higher standard", and people keep asking you "OK, how would you change the constitution and legal system to facilitate a higher standard for police without creating the opportunity for extreme abuse?" and then you say "Are you saying police should be able to kill people????" and around we go. Under the constitution (which is very difficult to change), police have the same rights in a legal case as any other citizen. Any changes made to that must be made with great care to avoid making things worse instead of better. Instead of doing the policing equivalent of shouting "THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN", people simply want you to offer some suggestions of changes that can be made legally to remedy the situation. "Hold police to a higher standard" isn't a quantifiable idea. What, particularly, should the courts and legal system do differently when the offender is a cop vs when it's not?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
This recent debate has taught me that until dashcams/bodycams are introducible as evidence by someone other than the patrolling officer in a systematic way, there's basically no use in having them to catch criminal cops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
One guy is focusing on changing standards for blah blah blah and everyone else is saying it's bullshit they couldn't authenticate the video, and you guys are focusing on Constitution guy because fart and you don't want to address the core of the issue. He also dropped it like a page ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
Look, I don't work in the legal profession, but I've my entire professional life in industries with high levels of private and public oversight - food safety and aerospace. We can say, down to the last rivet of a 747 everything about that plane - from design (who said that rivet should be there, how many are around it, stress and fatigue testing, maintenance schedules) to testing (ensuring the previous is actually correct) to who supplies what (with documentation showing that they can make the parts out of the correct alloys and coatings, are allowed to supply a government contractor, error rates), who installed that rivet (when their certifications where last done, how long it took), with what (which tool, where was it checked out from, who else used it, is it lost, when was it last calibrated/serviced) when it happened and so on. That doesn't count all the other HR type stuff like labor hours, lost work days, export controls and so on. All for the single loving rivet! Now remember we do this for everything on the plane for the life of the plane. If someone screws up and it leads to something terrible happening, everyone who signed off on the failure could potentially face anything from fines to criminal charges in multiple countries. If we don't have that information available, the FAA takes away our ability to manufacture and sell airplanes, and takes away the ability for our customers to fly them. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing - it's appropriate given both the risk and the fact that it's made aviation incredibly safe. But what gets to me is that if a police department cannot provide someone to validate their own footage or members of a department can simply choose not to validate evidence when it doesn't make them look good then it means that their entire system of handling evidence is hosed, and the feds need to come in and take over. Stop spreging over the minutia of hypothetical laws and start focusing on the real issue at hand here - these police were unable to validate their own camera footage. If they cannot do this basic thing, they shouldn't be operating as a police force. What is so loving difficult about this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:42
|
|
