Well, that's something at least.
[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
That or they are going to hit her with everything they have so they have someone to prop up as an example of trying to fix things everytime this happens.
Not to belittle the issue at hand, her being a woman suggests the latter will happen.
I'm still feeling lazy, so please pretend that I made an Alt name "Trial" or something like that, and as this alt I post "I find the defendant not guilty"
Then, below that are several posts by various alts with names such as RiotforJuztize, Riotbeard, Quiet Riot, etc. All of them upset that @Dave was IB4.
The Keith Scott case just got a bit more complicated. I was on the fence about this one because the report was that Keith Scott DID have a gun so at least in theory he could have been seen as a reasonable danger.
Except with new video, it turns out that the "gun" in a police-released photo is probably a glove dropped by one of the officers on scene. The newly released video shows no gun near Keith Scott's body after the shooting. The police statement has been revised to "a gun was found at the scene" though not specifically from where.
http://latest.com/2016/09/see-it-gu...ng-photo-appears-to-be-a-glove-thrown-by-cop/
Except with new video, it turns out that the "gun" in a police-released photo is probably a glove dropped by one of the officers on scene. The newly released video shows no gun near Keith Scott's body after the shooting. The police statement has been revised to "a gun was found at the scene" though not specifically from where.
http://latest.com/2016/09/see-it-gu...ng-photo-appears-to-be-a-glove-thrown-by-cop/
http://latest.com/2016/09/breaking-...ce=Facebook&utm_medium=ta&utm_campaign=iwvo12
Body cam footage of Keith Scott being shot by the police has been released. Still no gun visible.
Body cam footage of Keith Scott being shot by the police has been released. Still no gun visible.
Maybe it's a ghost gun and can't be recorded by anything but a thermal camera.
Maybe he has a gun-arm, like Mega Man, so it retracted inside him.
Maybe the gun is Bigfoot and went to go live in the wild with its own kind.
Maybe the gun is a time traveling assassin and it went back to the future now that its mission is complete, only to find its time vastly changed in ways it can't imagine, including that time travel technology hasn't been invented, leaving the gun with no means of returning to this time to stop itself from altering the past.
As a result of the reaction to dashcam and body cam video that contradicts official police reports for shootings, North Carolina has decided that dashcam and body cam footage will no longer be considered part of the public record and as such will no longer be made available to the public upon request. Instead, police departments in NC would be allowed to decide whether or not to release footage upon request.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/25/us/charlotte-police-video/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/25/us/charlotte-police-video/index.html
I foresee this getting challenged hard in a few years; all it's gonna take is one case of the state knowingly withholding exculpatory video to force them to release it all. And that video WILL leak.
Right back to the 19th Century.
The determination will be reviewed on the basis of how many lies they've told about the footage already.
Police officer fabricates story about black man shooting her; no black man ever existed and no shooting ever happened.
Basically, she probably accidentally shot herself and blamed it on an imaginary black man to protect her job.
Basically, she probably accidentally shot herself and blamed it on an imaginary black man to protect her job.
There is a problem with body camera footage. The lenses are only good for viewing people and things within about a five to ten foot range. Beyond that and you're talking blur city. And forget it if there's any sort of light source in the direction the camera is pointing; you might as well be looking at fuzz.
But that really isn't an excuse to take the videos out of the public domain. The officers have no expectation of privacy; they are public officials dispensing their duties in public. A body camera is really no different than someone using a cellphone to record the scene. More to the point, hiding the videos means the defense doesn't have access to vital evidence that may exonerate their client while the prosecution has full access to said video and may use it to argue guilt. That's a clear conflict of interest.
Are you sure about this? Not releasing video to the Public doesn't have to equal not releasing the video.
Are we talking about not making the videos available for trials though? Because that's a lot different from making something not public domain.
Hmm... apparently you CAN use it in your own defense still...
I'm assuming the "cannot obtain copy" law doesn't mean you can't force them to submit the footage for your defense. Alright, this isn't NEARLY as bad as I thought.
That would not pass a lower court judge.
One would hope.
Obviously there is only one solution...open-source surveillance, or "sousveillance."
...because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a camera that isn't recording is a good guy with a camera that is recording.
--Patrick
Yeah, no one riots like Canuck hockey fans after losing the Stanley Cup. I mean, that thing has been raging for years, and has now spread across the continent. Crazy.
Except the first one, that's University of Tennessee fans celebrating beating some other team of basketball for the first time in 12 years by burning someone's furniture.
It would have been far funnier if you had waited until riots broke out in NYC or Boston.
Its not about whether they will make the playoffs. It's about when they did make the playoffs.
@DarkAudit could tell you all about that.
In point of fact, the Taser Axon Flex camera that I use with a head mount is pretty clear - it at least "sees" what I can see, and at about the same ranges.
But I also wear glasses for astigmatism, of dubious accuracy at reading fine details, so YMMV.
Clearly you are unaware of the Soccer world.
The difference is that when white people destroy property, burn cars, loot, and throw bottles and tear gas at the police because their sports team won or lost, they're "drunken revelers blowing off steam".
When black people riot because police kill them with little apparent cause and face few consequences for it, they're "thug criminals destroying their community".
When black people riot because police kill them with little apparent cause and face few consequences for it, they're "thug criminals destroying their community".
GasBandit
Staff member
Are you implying that the police don't arrest the former?