Someone took the lord’s name in vain?
1 Like
OT but speaking of redactions, where is the unredacted Mueller Report?
15 Likes
Y’know, just in case it doesn’t support the original police narrative of events.
Just like Hollywood does in the movies, changing up endings and refilming scenes that just didn’t work.
7 Likes
They were reaching for their tasers ya knows.
3 Likes
Not so long as the original is maintained and unaltered. If they’re tampering with the original – which they are not – it would be criminal obstruction of justice.
7 Likes
6 Likes
Yep. It reminds me of the alternative Scooby-Doo
endings.
“…and I would have got away with it if it hadn’t been for those pesky body cams”
4 Likes
Congress should pass a law that requires body cams on any law enforcement person who carries a weapon. They’ll have to get creative to preempt state law (commerce clause etc.). Turning it off should be grounds for discipline, including termination.
5 Likes
Do we trust them? I don’t. Not if their method is to fire a fusillade from multiple officers at a fleeing man hitting him in the back and then claiming they were under threat. How do we know the original is unaltered? What proof is there? In other cases the video is released unredacted. Why this time??
3 Likes
We know what they reveal…the Police have said as much. " he was shot when trying to drive AWAY"…which is not a criteria for the use of deadly force. SCOTUS ruled long ago that deadly force may not be used to stop a fleeing subject unless that subject is also posing an imminent danger to someone else. Common sense has ruled as well. If that video exonerated the Police or could be seen as exonerating them it would have been out 5 minutes after the shooting.
15 Likes
I trust the sheriff’s department officials in charge of this boondoggle to not be so goddamned stupid as to alter electronic evidence that can very easily be confirmed as having been tampered with.
10 Likes
Don’t make the mistake of confusing their intentions with their competence. Digital forensics are complex and difficult to evade.
2 Likes
This is what I don’t understand. I know it can be stressful to be in law enforcement and if you’re trying to apprehend someone who has something in his hand, it might look like a gun to you in the heat of the moment. BUT, a person going away from you and getting into a vehicle is NOT putting you at risk. I have not seen the video, but from the reported account, this sounds like an unlawful shooting.
2 Likes
Redacting the video means editing it. It means chopping the encoded stream which is what forensics guys look for when they examine a vid. If one redacts a video in addition to their redactions they make other alterations more difficult to detect.
4 Likes
Forgive me for not trusting those folks. Clearly everything points to this video as being really ugly. Really ugly else they’d not need redactions. This whole incident smells of a rotten dead albatross.
10 Likes
I saw a television broadcast of Brazil in the late 90’s and they cut the last few minutes to give it a happy ending.
3 Likes
Doesn’t sound like they’re tampering, sounds like they’re just chopping out the really bad stuff they did so it doesn’t get public now.
I’m betting he wasn’t even running, may have just been in his car when they pulled up and they shot with no warning.
7 Likes
Right, I think the redactions will probably be something very obvious like blurring the faces of bystanders, which could be justified. Or blurring the faces of the cops involved, which would be more of an issue, but maybe justified before all the facts are known.
1 Like
Right, which is fine as long as the original remains unaltered. And they would be crazy to try to alter the originals here.
7 Likes
Well, that certainly was stepping in the poo pile on a hot day. It would have be helpful to describe said “redactions”. For example, “such as blurring faces of bystanders”, which is appropriate. But without further explanation, everybody assumes coverup.
1 Like