- This topic has 91 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
How does eye witness testimony in any way “negate” video evidence?
None! He had enough in the way of witnesses to negate the speculative value of an audio/video recording.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
A number of factors can reduce the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Here are some of them:
Extreme witness stress at the crime scene or during the identification process.
Presence of weapons at the crime (because they can intensify stress and distract witnesses).
Use of a disguise by the perpetrator such as a mask or wig.
A racial disparity between the witness and the suspect.
Brief viewing times at the lineup or during other identification procedures.
A lack of distinctive characteristics of the suspect such as tattoos or extreme height.“None! He had enough in the way of witnesses to negate the speculative value of an audio/video recording.”
Since we’re on a sports forum, the comparison to video review is clear. Plenty of the times the officials – witnesses if you will – call it one way, when the video review shows a clearer angle and the call is overturned. Of course, there are the times that the video is inconclusive or supports the original call. But the point is to use any and all means possible to “get it right”.
Does anyone disagree that all cops need body cameras, and should be required to use them?
I’m torn on the idea. While it would be very helpful in these kind of circumstances, these circumstances are quite rare in the grand scheme of police interactions.
Consider the effect it would have on the applicant pool for police. Consider the privacy and data mining implications considering every officer becomes a mobile surveillance station. Would you let an officer with a camera running into your home? If you are a rape or assault victim would you talk to them knowing the camera is rolling? You can’t give the office discretion to turn it off, otherwise I think you would find it conveniently turned off.
Plus, wide angle cameras with fixed point of view are difficult to judge distance and depth and context of interactions.
Even with all that, I’m not sure it is a bad idea, but I wonder if the benefits will outweigh the negatives.
ould you let an officer with a camera running into your home?
^Good point that I didn’t consider.
Would you let an officer with a camera running into your home?
I wouldn’t let an officer into my home at all without a warrant. And if they had a warrant, I’d want them to have a camera. It’s for their protection as much as mine.
3P does make some good points, not to mention the cost. And as warden Norton said, there’s only three ways to use the taxpayers money: more walls, more bars and more guards.
Pakfan, An officer doesn’t always need a warrent to enter your home.
1. You could give him/her permission.
2. If he or she feels like a crime is being committed at that moment then one is not required.So a camera would be a plus in those circumstances for both parties since he or she is making a judgement call at that moment. Double major in accounting and CJ.
Actually, good point. I’d want them to have a camera whether they had a warrant or not.
And cops can sell their grenade launchers and MRAPS to buy cameras. Cost problem solved.
I’m involved with a group (which is aligned with a couple of larger groups) that are pushing to have our municipality council meetings broadcast via webcasting, with the resulting video archived for future reference. There have been many cases where the minutes of meetings have been whitewashed, with many pertinent comments – quite a few with legal ramifications – not appearing in the official record. Our carefully crafted arguments and comments were essentially reduced to “Resident X spoke about the issue.”
We also found out that the digital audio recording used to create the minutes is deleted once the minutes are drafted. A permanent video record would take care of that. The other aspect that video would convey is the overall tenor of the meetings and the emotions of the various speakers. When reading the minutes – whitewashed or not – it’s hard, if not impossible, to ascertain any of that.
Again, not life or death, but a comparison to illustrate the power of a video record. As with police encounters, I think that the positives would far outweigh the negatives.
Cameras will supply evidence of what exactly? Police behavior? It won’t solve murders, detectives do that. It won’t resolve domestic disputes. It won’t pull over a drunk driver. Cameras can’t protect us from ourselves.
I’d rather cops roll two deep than having a solo officer tote a nannycam on his collar. In this situation, Brown would have only taken an ass whopping instead of a double tap to the dome.
Redcanine, You can’t say that with any surety. Who knows how that situation plays out. All we know for sure is how it did play out.
Cameras will supply evidence of what exactly? Police behavior? It won’t solve murders, detectives do that. It won’t resolve domestic disputes. It won’t pull over a drunk driver. Cameras can’t protect us from ourselves.
I’d rather cops roll two deep than having a solo officer tote a nannycam on his collar. In this situation, Brown would have only taken an ass whopping instead of a double tap to the dome.
Yes, detectives use video as evidence when solving crimes. That’s why body cameras are a good idea.
If they had cameras, detectives could have immediately gone to the film to confirm what officer Wilson said happened, and none of this would have happened. Ya know, unless the film didn’t back him up.
Could it have been the reporters with their persistent inquisition who frighten and confuse the witnesses?
Could it have been the reporters with their persistent inquisition who frighten and confuse the witnesses?
Are you saying witnesses might not be reliable?
Are you saying witnesses might not be reliable?
I’m really trying to question the value of that spreadsheet you posted. You brought up “Extreme Witness Stress”, and I’m saying that the national attention is stressful. How can a witness be forthcoming when mobs are gathering across the street?
Haha, I get it, you think only the witnesses who didn’t corroborate could possibly be biased.
Sure would be nice to have to video to sort out the truth.
Interesting discussion on a very controversial subject.
I will say this, I have not followed it other that to realize the motions rioting are the lowest of the low.
Ok, if you guys are ok with the cameras, can we put them back up to hand out “red light” tickets?? I’ve got mixed feelings…I see the cams on the vehicles is a way to monitor both the behavior of the police officer and the traffic violator. I’m not sure about all of the body cams though…
"Whomp 'em, Up, Side the Head"!
Ok, if you guys are ok with the cameras, can we put them back up to hand out “red light” tickets?? I’ve got mixed feelings…I see the cams on the vehicles is a way to monitor both the behavior of the police officer and the traffic violator. I’m not sure about all of the body cams though…
If red lights might shoot me, I’d want them to have cameras too.
Pakfan wrote “If they had cameras, detectives could have immediately gone to the film to confirm what officer Wilson said happened, and none of this would have happened. Ya know, unless the film didn’t back him up.”
I don’t believe this. Depending on the angle and what exactly might have been captured on film the video could have been inconclusive like some replays. With the car struggle the body cam could easily have come off or been broken.
More importantly the meaning of Brown’s hands and turn around movement toward Wilson would still be open to Social Justice Warriors interpretation. The media and others who see this as a chance to win political points, favor and power would still have fueled the moral outrage and the 1% discussion.
Police had always been given the benefit of the doubt. Ask the guy’s family in Mobile AL shot by a cop in 2012. If the SJW want to change that and make laws holding the police more accountable then they should focus on that. Police accountability for all negates the racial aspect of it.
I ain’t holding my breath for it though.
You don’t think the video would have shown Brown lunging into the window of the police car? Or that it could have verified Wilson’s allegation that Brown was reaching toward his waistband?
There will always be fringe elements (on both sides) that will twist the situation to fit their narrative, but video would allow those of us capable of independent thought to draw reasonable conclusions.
And the fact that the camera MIGHT be inconclusive, or MIGHT come off in a struggle is completely irrelevant. If we didn’t do things that MIGHT not help, we wouldn’t do anything ever.
I think that CNN, MSNBC, Fox and race-batters would twist the story regardless of what the video showed.
Under the system of “giving the police the benefit of the doubt”the evidence provided would say you could not get a conviction. Most of the evidence was tinted as soon as the media starting broadcast the “facts” from their point of view.
Google the media account account of the Texas Gunman two days ago and watch the media report the Austin police chief “wide ass speculation” as truth.
Review the AL case and ask why it is different from Ferguson. The answer: SJW and media.
Body cams are also not the end all be all solution because it cannot measure the feelings and emotion of the situation.
Under the system of “giving the police the benefit of the doubt”the evidence provided would say you could not get a conviction.
Put me in the category of people who don’t think the police should get the benefit of the doubt.
They’re authority figures, and lethally armed, and thus should be held to a higher standard.
I would think this would be one issue liberals and conservatives could agree on.
Body cams are also not the end all be all solution because it cannot measure the feelings and emotion of the situation.
I definitely don’t think they’re the end all be all, they’re just significantly better than nothing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
