How many times have we seen information given out early on turn out to be wrong and then take on a life of its own?

As far as I can remember, video of the activity doesn't change all by itself, and it doesn't make itself up while filming. But then, lots of people are willing to say video doesn't provide good evidence of what actually happened.

 

As far as I can remember, video of the activity doesn't change all by itself, and it doesn't make itself up while filming. But then, lots of people are willing to say video doesn't provide good evidence of what actually happened.

Uh... Zapruder film, anyone?

It is not uncommon at all for people to interpret video of an activity very differently, even if they are all honestly trying to do nothing more than understand what was caught on the video. Just consider the basic limitations you are working with -- two-dimensional video almost guaranteed to be shot under far-less-than-ideal circumstances capturing only a fraction of what was going on and missing a significant amount of the surrounding context. Plus, it takes time come to any conclusion about the details of most video footage. Was that really a gun? Where was it pointed? Was it pointed at someone that is not in the video footage? And those are objective questions that don't even touch on whether the suspect's actions rose to the level of threatening someone with immediate danger or whether the officer had reason to come to that conclusion even if it did.

 

Uh... Zapruder film, anyone?

Perfect example of the FBI reversing a certain section of footage to show the President's head moving the opposite of the truth. Again, the film didn't change itself.

It is not uncommon at all for people to interpret video of an activity very differently,

Exactly why the video should be released instead of responding with "silence and riot gear". The police can, and have, said, "the video doesn't show what you think it shows". With that much power, why fear transparency in the early stages? It can all be, "deemed" later. The Grand Jury only hears the police side of the story. DA's don't bring charges. Judges don't convict. What's to fear about disclosing the video?

The first question is, "How did you shoot a guy in the front when he was running away?"
The video from the cop's body camera should clear that up much quicker than The National Guard.

As I said in a recent post, an ordinary fact met with a disproportionate emotional response is truth in fear of discovery.
"Hi. I'm your government and it's all secret."
"Hi. I'm your population and I'm going to find out what you did if I have to burn down the city to get it."
"Hi. I'm the Chief of Police and I will hide the evidence if I have to call out The National Guard to kill you all."
That's where Milwaukee is right now.
American police kill over 1000 people a year and the citizens want to know why.
The police don't like that and their response is stonewalling and riot gear.
I'd say this is going to get ugly, but it's too late. That is already happening.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...-unrest-clarke-calls-national-guard/88716616/

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn confirmed that the police officer is African-American. So was the suspect, Sylville K. Smith.

"We are concerned for his safety," Flynn said of the officer, who was not identified. "He has been staying with relatives out of town."
...
"The individual was armed. The individual did turn toward the officer with the firearm in his hand. You can't tell when the officer discharges his firearm."

Flynn said he doesn't know how soon the body camera video would be released, but he and Mayor Tom Barrett said transparency was important and they hoped it could be released soon. That decision will be up to the state Department of Justice. Flynn said the soonest release he knew of was one week, in a Chicago case.

"It's a delicate balance between what the community needs to know ... and the criminal justice process."

 

How many times have we seen information given out early on turn out to be wrong and then take on a life of its own?

Like, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!"?

 

We're going to have to solve the issue of handling and disclosing evidence such as dash-cam videos.

The age-old precedent is that very little evidence is released to the public. The cops only announce what the charges are and what they allege. The cops don't want interference from the public as they "build a case". Some concern is legitimate, for instance when there may be evidence or witnesses still in the field that the cops haven't yet secured. Much of the concern is just human nature of not wanting someone looking over your shoulder while you do your job. Cops and the DA fear the impact any release might have later in court. Prosecutors don't want to let perps make a case for a change of venue.

Now we have video evidence. Many people feel that it speaks for itself and doesn't need to be viewed in context with all the other evidence. The longer video evidence remains unreleased, the more suspect it becomes. It's mostly digital information these days, and fairly easy to alter if you have the time. So why not release it immediately? The taxpayers have paid for it and deserve to see it as soon as reasonably possible.

Should we just give up on the notion of tainting a jury pool with the release of videos? Should we develop a civilian committee process to decide case by case on the release of sensitive video?

I'm basically in favor of immediate public access to all video including the video collected by privately owned cameras, if the owner agrees. Full release of everything all the time. (I could accept an exception for undercover stings and surveillance stuff that does not actually capture a crime in progress.) I'm not convinced that concerns about tainting a jury are real, but I'm open to hearing the downsides. I think transparency would go a long way to restoring confidence in the justice system, and to me that outweighs the downsides of releasing video evidence.

 

How many times have we seen information given out early on turn out to be wrong and then take on a life of its own?

Do you mean like the Benghazi/Clinton thing?

 

Do you mean like the Benghazi/Clinton thing?

The real story of what was happening in Benghazi is about Clinton's State Dept. dirty CIA gunrunning 'Arab Spring' war in Syria from Libya thru Turkey. Who do you think these 'rebels' morphed into? Syrian Civil War
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-syria-idUSBRE95H0WC20130618

 

police videos should be released to public right away. Currently, not releasing them only does harm. People automatically will assume that the videos have been edit while in police posession. Private videos are already released and offer other views on the events which leaves the police lagging behind in issuing their own statement in terms of video evidence. There is nothing to wait for and nothing gained by waiting. If their thought is about potential jury, that jury pool would have alredy been tainted by all other videos of the event that are posted literally as the things unfold. This is the reality of today

 

police videos should be released to public right away. Currently, not releasing them only does harm. People automatically will assume that the videos have been edit while in police posession. Private videos are already released and offer other views on the events which leaves the police lagging behind in issuing their own statement in terms of video evidence. There is nothing to wait for and nothing gained by waiting. If their thought is about potential jury, that jury pool would have alredy been tainted by all other videos of the event that are posted literally as the things unfold. This is the reality of today

I don't agree that police videos should be released to public right away blindly. People can assume any stupid thing but the rule of law for the possible criminal(s) and the police involved is a hell of lot more important than some angry mobs rants. The cops camera is official evidence that must be treated correctly so good cases don't get trashed.

 

police videos should be released to public right away. Currently, not releasing them only does harm. People automatically will assume that the videos have been edit while in police posession. Private videos are already released and offer other views on the events which leaves the police lagging behind in issuing their own statement in terms of video evidence. There is nothing to wait for and nothing gained by waiting. If their thought is about potential jury, that jury pool would have alredy been tainted by all other videos of the event that are posted literally as the things unfold. This is the reality of today

The police (and actually it is usually the D.A.'s office or equivalent) have an obligation to review all such videos in an effort to ensure that information that should not be released isn't. There have been cases when videos (or even 911 calls) have been released that contained information that allowed gangs to identify potential witnesses (such as bystanders or voices in the background) and then intimidate, buy-off, or simply eliminate those witnesses before trial.

If your daughter witnessed a crime, would you be very appreciative of the authorities marking her as a target by immediately releasing video that happened to catch her in frame without making any attempt to identify and notify her or to edit the footage to make her impossible to identify?

 

I would agree the police videos should be released early, however, people will still think what they think irrespective of video evidence.

I suspect the lawyers don't want to tamper with evidence. I've seen lawyers stop repairs on a window with the bullet holes, just to preserve evidence.

Let's not blame the cops for everything.

We shall see which side was telling the truth in the WI shooting. Do you think for one minute if the video showed the deceased turn and point a weapon at the pursuing officer that things would have been received differently by all segments of society.

Due process takes time.

 

The real story of what was happening in Benghazi is about Clinton's State Dept. dirty CIA gunrunning 'Arab Spring' war in Syria from Libya thru Turkey. Who do you think these 'rebels' morphed into? Syrian Civil War
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-syria-idUSBRE95H0WC20130618

The "rebels" were probably already ISIS. But after ~13 hearings and 7 investigations there is still nothing other than the GOP and Faux news channel tying her to the debacle. Just innuendo after each hearing.

 

How many emails related to Benghazi were on the Clinton server? Did 100% of them make it to one of those thirteen hearings?

Faux news. Nice play on words. Unlike Dan Rather's faked letter concerning GWB 's reserve time, which caused Rather's termination.

If he manufactured the news then, how many other times was ABC's news manufactured?

 

The "rebels" were probably already ISIS. But after ~13 hearings and 7 investigations there is still nothing other than the GOP and Faux news channel tying her to the debacle. Just innuendo after each hearing.

No need to tie her to it as she owned responsibility for it. I don't blame her because as they say in the field, when you deal with dangerous people 'stuff happens'.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/secreta...ton-takes-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack/

 

The violence isn't about justice, due process, fairness, or even dignity or respect.

It is about some people wanting to be more equal than others, wanting to maximize their leverage and demand more hand outs for others.

Looters ganna loot, as they would say.

 

37 cops shot dead so far in 2016
(That total might include a couple K9 units.)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/14/us/police-officers-fatal-shooting-line-duty-nationwide/

It's refreshing to see that not everyone is blind to what's going on. See especially his comments starting around 1:35.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...ban-policies-in-these-ghettos-like-milwaukee/

These two items are not directly linked - sorry if that was implied.

 

37 cops shot dead so far in 2016

666 citizens killed by police so far in 2016
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...un/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

And, in related news, police shootings increase as police learn how to use body cameras to their advantage:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/50424-2/

 

666 citizens killed by police so far in 2016

So? That's what I pay them for. I wish it was far more, at least double that.

But I think you're implying that some of those were bad shoots. Nobody wants those. Just how many is expected? One percent? Two?

 

Just how many is expected?

How about a number like the combined kills of police in England and Wales?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries