5 ms·

fb probably shut it down. It had footage of a shooting. Very sad and grim stuff.

by wckronholm 10y ago

sml156 10y ago
My guess would be she sold the rights to the highest bidder. FB probably had no choice but to remove it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- llamataboot 10y ago
  This just happened an hour ago and she is reportedly still in custody.
  - ryanmarsh 10y ago
    Why'd they need to arrest her?
    - Blackthorn 10y ago
      Probably for the dastardly crime of filming the police. She'll be thankful that she had the foresight to upload the video as it was being recorded.
      - DanBC 10y ago
        Minnesota is a single-party consent state. http://wiretapping.uslegal.com/state-laws/minnesota/ http://wiretapping.uslegal.com/state-laws/minnesota/ > In Minnesota, it is legal for a person to record a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording so long as no criminal or tortious intent accompanies the recording. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02.
        Blackthorn 10y ago
        It's legal to record the police almost anywhere. Doesn't mean they won't harass and arrest you for it.
        DanBC 10y ago
        When they arrest people it tends to be because that state has dual-party consent laws for recording of private conversations. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/filming-police-officers_n_5676940.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/filming-police-offi... > A number of states do bar people from recording private conversations without consent. But as long as the recording is made “openly and not surreptitiously,” said Osterreicher, it’s fair game. According to Osterreicher, “assuming the position of holding up a camera or phone at arm’s length while looking at the viewing screen should be enough to put someone on notice that they are being photographed or recorded.”
        Blackthorn 10y ago
        The thing you just quoted supports my position, not yours.
    - rdtsc 10y ago
      Police do this to build a story retroactively -- we shot a person, so ... to make it excusable we arrest their "accomplices" because officer so and so will make up some report about how they threatened his life with a gun. If they don't arrest her, then it looks like murder. Also if she was arrested, her side of the story immediately is less believable -- "clearly officer had a good reason to arrest her, we can't trust her words". This happened in another case, where a person was shot in a store (Wal-Mart perhaps). Police then proceeded to heavily interrogate the partner and try to get them to admit the victim was "unstable", "drunk", "violent" and so on. Because it builds an excusable story so the officer is cleared of charges quicker (they don't have to actually resign and move one town over to another dept., but just get a 10 days paid vacation).
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UhXivPyw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UhXivPyw4 "Earlier today I spoke to their deputy leader Rory O'Connor, who under broadcasting regulations must inhale helium to subtract credibility from his statements." (The actual broadcasting regulation was that Sinn Fein politicians couldn't have their voices heard on TV at all -- interviews, statements etc. had to be dubbed over.)
        spraak 10y ago
        Why couldn't they have their voices heard on TV?
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
        Britain wanted to delegitimize Sinn Fein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadcasting_voice_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadc...
    - tomschlick 10y ago
      They didn't. She was detained until the scene could be cleared. All those backup officers know when responding is that an officer called in a shooting and that there is a gun in the car. They detain her until they can get all of the information and then she is released so long as they are not pressing any type of charges against her.
      - llamataboot 10y ago
        She still hasn't been released. She's not under arrest. She's being interviewed as a witness to an officer involved shooting.
        tomschlick 10y ago
        That seems within the law. If she is a direct witness to a fatal shooting there would be a critical need to get her side of the story as soon as possible, and usually that would be done by detectives at a police station, not the responding officers at a crime scene.
        ryanmarsh 10y ago
        Source? They can't take a statement on the street?
  - mirimir 10y ago
    It's a good thing that was live upload, because otherwise the public might never know. What amazes me, actually, is how long the upload continued after she was in custody. Maybe they didn't realize that the phone was uploading, and assumed that they could erase the video later.
- IOT_Apprentice 10y ago
  Your guess?she was handcuffed and is still in jail after watching her husband's murder. I'm sure that as she watched the life bleed out of him and she prayed for him not to die she thought of selling this, and not of her daughter who was in the back of the car at the time. What is wrong with you?
cooper12 10y ago
While the video is now back up, this is a prime example of why net neutrality and avoiding digital silos is so important. Facebook gets to be the arbitrator of what we see, effectively creating a filter bubble, and since its motives don't align with the public's, it's a system rife for censorship and exploitation. The police could likely get the stream taken down for being "part of an ongoing investigation" or they could take the videos down later via DMCA requests or reporting it. We need to make a conscious effort to move away from these sole repositories of humanity's video content. Youtube is still a dominating player even though we have HTML5 video support in all browsers. As mentioned before social media sites are not ideal for this job because of onerous terms of service and arbitrary removals. "What police brutality? I don't see it." Control the content and you control the narrative. Ideally in the future we'll look back and laugh at the fact that we all entrusted our videos to a private company's servers but considering how storage space keeps going down and the "cloud" keeps getting shoved down our throats, I'm not optimistic.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > Youtube is still a dominating player even though we have HTML5 video support in all browsers. It's not like widespread HTML5 video support marks some significant change in the landscape. We had flash support in all browsers forever; that's how youtube came about in the first place. It wasn't difficult at all to make another website that also served flash videos. It still isn't. What youtube does that's difficult is agree to host the content. HTML5 does nothing for that.
- spdustin 10y ago
  Facebook added a disclaimer to the video. It was likely reported and automatically taken down, and they correctly added a disclaimer and brought it back online.

fb probably shut it down. It had footage of a shooting. Very sad and grim stuff.

sml156 10y ago

My guess would be she sold the rights to the highest bidder. FB probably had no choice but to remove it.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
llamataboot 10y ago
This just happened an hour ago and she is reportedly still in custody.
- ryanmarsh 10y ago
  Why'd they need to arrest her?
  - Blackthorn 10y ago
    Probably for the dastardly crime of filming the police. She'll be thankful that she had the foresight to upload the video as it was being recorded.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      Minnesota is a single-party consent state. http://wiretapping.uslegal.com/state-laws/minnesota/ http://wiretapping.uslegal.com/state-laws/minnesota/ > In Minnesota, it is legal for a person to record a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording so long as no criminal or tortious intent accompanies the recording. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02.
      - Blackthorn 10y ago
        It's legal to record the police almost anywhere. Doesn't mean they won't harass and arrest you for it.
        DanBC 10y ago
        When they arrest people it tends to be because that state has dual-party consent laws for recording of private conversations. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/filming-police-officers_n_5676940.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/filming-police-offi... > A number of states do bar people from recording private conversations without consent. But as long as the recording is made “openly and not surreptitiously,” said Osterreicher, it’s fair game. According to Osterreicher, “assuming the position of holding up a camera or phone at arm’s length while looking at the viewing screen should be enough to put someone on notice that they are being photographed or recorded.”
        Blackthorn 10y ago
        The thing you just quoted supports my position, not yours.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    Police do this to build a story retroactively -- we shot a person, so ... to make it excusable we arrest their "accomplices" because officer so and so will make up some report about how they threatened his life with a gun. If they don't arrest her, then it looks like murder. Also if she was arrested, her side of the story immediately is less believable -- "clearly officer had a good reason to arrest her, we can't trust her words". This happened in another case, where a person was shot in a store (Wal-Mart perhaps). Police then proceeded to heavily interrogate the partner and try to get them to admit the victim was "unstable", "drunk", "violent" and so on. Because it builds an excusable story so the officer is cleared of charges quicker (they don't have to actually resign and move one town over to another dept., but just get a 10 days paid vacation).
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UhXivPyw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UhXivPyw4 "Earlier today I spoke to their deputy leader Rory O'Connor, who under broadcasting regulations must inhale helium to subtract credibility from his statements." (The actual broadcasting regulation was that Sinn Fein politicians couldn't have their voices heard on TV at all -- interviews, statements etc. had to be dubbed over.)
      - spraak 10y ago
        Why couldn't they have their voices heard on TV?
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
        Britain wanted to delegitimize Sinn Fein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadcasting_voice_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadc...
  - tomschlick 10y ago
    They didn't. She was detained until the scene could be cleared. All those backup officers know when responding is that an officer called in a shooting and that there is a gun in the car. They detain her until they can get all of the information and then she is released so long as they are not pressing any type of charges against her.
    - llamataboot 10y ago
      She still hasn't been released. She's not under arrest. She's being interviewed as a witness to an officer involved shooting.
      - tomschlick 10y ago
        That seems within the law. If she is a direct witness to a fatal shooting there would be a critical need to get her side of the story as soon as possible, and usually that would be done by detectives at a police station, not the responding officers at a crime scene.
      - ryanmarsh 10y ago
        Source? They can't take a statement on the street?
- mirimir 10y ago
  It's a good thing that was live upload, because otherwise the public might never know. What amazes me, actually, is how long the upload continued after she was in custody. Maybe they didn't realize that the phone was uploading, and assumed that they could erase the video later.
IOT_Apprentice 10y ago
Your guess?she was handcuffed and is still in jail after watching her husband's murder. I'm sure that as she watched the life bleed out of him and she prayed for him not to die she thought of selling this, and not of her daughter who was in the back of the car at the time. What is wrong with you?

cooper12 10y ago

While the video is now back up, this is a prime example of why net neutrality and avoiding digital silos is so important. Facebook gets to be the arbitrator of what we see, effectively creating a filter bubble, and since its motives don't align with the public's, it's a system rife for censorship and exploitation. The police could likely get the stream taken down for being "part of an ongoing investigation" or they could take the videos down later via DMCA requests or reporting it. We need to make a conscious effort to move away from these sole repositories of humanity's video content. Youtube is still a dominating player even though we have HTML5 video support in all browsers. As mentioned before social media sites are not ideal for this job because of onerous terms of service and arbitrary removals. "What police brutality? I don't see it." Control the content and you control the narrative. Ideally in the future we'll look back and laugh at the fact that we all entrusted our videos to a private company's servers but considering how storage space keeps going down and the "cloud" keeps getting shoved down our throats, I'm not optimistic.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
> Youtube is still a dominating player even though we have HTML5 video support in all browsers. It's not like widespread HTML5 video support marks some significant change in the landscape. We had flash support in all browsers forever; that's how youtube came about in the first place. It wasn't difficult at all to make another website that also served flash videos. It still isn't. What youtube does that's difficult is agree to host the content. HTML5 does nothing for that.
spdustin 10y ago
Facebook added a disclaimer to the video. It was likely reported and automatically taken down, and they correctly added a disclaimer and brought it back online.