Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

21401 - 21420 of 21468 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
Disagree. In this case the murder was pretty obvious.
Given only the video, I couldn't tell you if it's manslaughter or murder. Not saying someone can't, but I wouldn't be able to. From what I know from Law & Order, pretty sure you need context to make the distinction. So I'd say, no, it's not pretty obvious.

It's strong evidence of something. And its existence probably helped get this to court.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,404 Posts
Given only the video, I couldn't tell you if it's manslaughter or murder. Not saying someone can't, but I wouldn't be able to. From what I know from Law & Order, pretty sure you need context to make the distinction. So I'd say, no, it's not pretty obvious.

It's strong evidence of something. And its existence probably helped get this to court.
Context is everything and things that could be going on behind the camera, there are a lot of factors that need to be taken into account. Again I make no claims of an unjust verdict, speaking to the idea of a video being enough to give a verdict on.

I would not want to be a police officer in the US right now, you really can't do anything right in the eyes of the media. Read yesterday about an officer who shot a 14 year old girl (think that was her age, it was young). The headlines talk about it being before the verdict from this trial seemingly to try and connect it with police once again killing an innocent person. The article goes on to talk about the girl who was shot having a knife, trying to stab someone else and not listening to the officer as she goes to stab someone. It is so easy to sit on the side lines and say what they should have done after the moment but when in that moment it is a whole other thing. Now if he had not shot her and tried to tase her but it did not stop her and she stabbed and killed the other girl, or simply he did not try anything physical at all to stop her and she killed the other there would be an outcry on why no action was taken.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,538 Posts
Context is everything and things that could be going on behind the camera, there are a lot of factors that need to be taken into account. Again I make no claims of an unjust verdict, speaking to the idea of a video being enough to give a verdict on.

I would not want to be a police officer in the US right now, you really can't do anything right in the eyes of the media. Read yesterday about an officer who shot a 14 year old girl (think that was her age, it was young). The headlines talk about it being before the verdict from this trial seemingly to try and connect it with police once again killing an innocent person. The article goes on to talk about the girl who was shot having a knife, trying to stab someone else and not listening to the officer as she goes to stab someone. It is so easy to sit on the side lines and say what they should have done after the moment but when in that moment it is a whole other thing. Now if he had not shot her and tried to tase her but it did not stop her and she stabbed and killed the other girl, or simply he did not try anything physical at all to stop her and she killed the other there would be an outcry on why no action was taken.
I saw some of the body cam footage from that one as well. She was definitely coming with a knife at the other person. This was definitely a more complicated situation and there were many people involved.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,471 Posts
And yet, some news outlets changed the framing of the bodycam footage so that the viewer could not see this properly.

I saw some of the body cam footage from that one as well. She was definitely coming with a knife at the other person. This was definitely a more complicated situation and there were many people involved.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,538 Posts
And yet, some news outlets changed the framing of the bodycam footage so that the viewer could not see this properly.
That’s on them then. Every news agency has its own perspective and bias. That’s why I like to look at a number of sources before I make up my mind. This one was definitely not cut and dried.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,404 Posts
That’s on them then. Every news agency has its own perspective and bias. That’s why I like to look at a number of sources before I make up my mind. This one was definitely not cut and dried.
People generally drink up whatever they listen to if it is from the source they deem the right one because it matches their ideological viewpoint. That is what is scary about thew news, it is all really just biased opinion pieces for the most part.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,538 Posts
People generally drink up whatever they listen to if it is from the source they deem the right one because it matches their ideological viewpoint. That is what is scary about thew news, it is all really just biased opinion pieces for the most part.
Yes and no. There are facts and there are opinions. There’s nothing wrong with having editorials, like Rex Murphy or Don Lemon or Rachel Maddow. But there also needs to be factual section, that which we call “news.” Trump coined the “fake news” term just to muddy the waters, but I would call a lot of what Fox News reports fake news, especially the editorials. Back in my day, fake news would have been the National Enquirer and the Weekly World News with it’s coverage of bat-boy. Those ones were obviously a spoof. Today, it’s cherry picking the sources you like, like you say.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,471 Posts
People generally drink up whatever they listen to if it is from the source they deem the right one because it matches their ideological viewpoint. That is what is scary about thew news, it is all really just biased opinion pieces for the most part.
I think it's the brazen nature of the lying that is the most shocking to me. In many cases, a lie is told deliberately to forward a particular agenda. then later retracted in such a way that the damage has already been done. There's no shame because the role of the news appears to be to shape public opinion--not inform it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,538 Posts
Can video evidence be incontrovertible? The jury certainly seemed to think so.

Mr. Mitchell said he had never watched the entire bystander video of the May 25 arrest of Mr. Floyd. In it, Mr. Chauvin can be seen kneeling on Mr. Floyd’s neck as Mr. Floyd said he couldn’t breathe, called for his mother, and eventually lost consciousness. He said video—especially the body camera footage from the four officers involved in the arrest—was the most powerful evidence in the trial. He eventually had to stop watching as videos were played again and again. Video clips were played 166 times, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.
Interesting.

Derek Chauvin Juror: ‘We All Agreed at Some Point That It Was Too Much’ — The Wall Street Journal
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
I know that this could not have been easy for the 17 year old girl who video’d it, but thank God she did. The recording was incontrovertible proof, something one doesn’t easily get these days.
He said video—especially the body camera footage from the four officers involved in the arrest—was the most powerful evidence in the trial.
The jury doesn't seem to agree with you :)

I feel that if it weren't for her video, this may not have gone to trial. But it took lots of evidence to get them to arrive at the verdict.
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,511 Posts
Only on ehmac, could there be an argument about whether the video was “incontrovertible proof”, or “the most powerful evidence in the trial”.

seriously.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,471 Posts
The jury doesn't seem to agree with you :)

I feel that if it weren't for her video, this may not have gone to trial. But it took lots of evidence to get them to arrive at the verdict.
I like this analysis of visual evidence:

Images alone are never enough. Social narratives dictate what we permit ourselves to see. “Even the most ‘obvious’ and condemning video evidence is subject to reinterpretation and reforming by skilled legal professionals,” wrote Forrest Stuart, now an associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, in the journal Law & Social Inquiry, in 2011 after analyzing the use of video evidence in King’s trial. The notion of “objective, unambiguous, or unbiased” video, he argues, is a myth.
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,511 Posts
so, wow. So far we have how sad it is that a 17 year old girl only took a video and didn't "do something" even though well there were a bunch of cops one actively engaged in killing someone, although if one read the story they'd know there was intervention attempted but no, and then another pair actively trolling another over what, something about the video being proof or not really but maybe.... we don't know. Does anyone understand just how silly this looks? Really? This, is "reasonable discussion"? This sort of trolling? Come on... The response is always my pointing out the obvious is the trolling. And that, is why this place became a ghost town. People pointing it out, and just leaving.

To a casual observer wondering if there's anything intelligent to participate in, it's like, nope. big NOPE. Nice work macfury!!! Carry on, I guess.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,538 Posts
so, wow. So far we have how sad it is that a 17 year old girl only took a video and didn't "do something" even though well there were a bunch of cops one actively engaged in killing someone, although if one read the story they'd know there was intervention attempted but no, and then another pair actively trolling another over what, something about the video being proof or not really but maybe.... we don't know. Does anyone understand just how silly this looks? Really? This, is "reasonable discussion"? This sort of trolling? Come on... The response is always my pointing out the obvious is the trolling. And that, is why this place became a ghost town. People pointing it out, and just leaving.

To a casual observer wondering if there's anything intelligent to participate in, it's like, nope. big NOPE. Nice work macfury!!! Carry on, I guess.
Deniers gonna deny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,511 Posts
It’s obvious trolling, and then the whispering with another member, it’s sooooo childish.

there’s a lot going on in US politics, but this is what he chooses to do. I asked a number of past members of they wanted to join in and it’s one look at this stupidity and NOPE.

insanity is, well you know.
 
21401 - 21420 of 21468 Posts
Top