5 ms·

if there was supposed to be video and there isn't... I don't know what you think your argument is exactly

by evan_ 4y ago

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> if there was supposed to be video and there isn't... You're assuming that malice is the reason why there isn't video footage if there was supposed to be. I think that's a fair assumption, and I think that this is most likely the case. But it's not necessarily the case. It is possible that negligence or incompetence is the reason the cameras weren't recording. The whole thing sounds like a murder to me, and I assume the video footage was deliberately disabled/destroyed/lost/etc. But at this stage I don't think anybody can be certain of that. There is only circumstantial evidence for somebody preventing/destroying the video footage.
- inetknght 4y ago
  > You're assuming that malice is the reason why there isn't video footage if there was supposed to be There doesn't have to be malice. There has to be accountability.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    I share your desire for accountability, but I don't think that's what this remark was about: > "When something happens, conveniently the video footage that should exist, magically doesn't." Magic doesn't exist. When something is said to "magically" not exist, that is a sarcastic way of saying that somebody deliberately made it not exist. I believe that is the most likely explanation, but it's not necessarily true.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      > Magic doesn't exist. I see sarcasm is one of your strong suits.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        You can plainly see that I recognize the magic remark as sarcastic, so what is the point of your response?
        yellowapple 4y ago
        > You can plainly see that I recognize the magic remark as sarcastic Indeed, and I stated such :) > so what is the point of your response? What is the point of yours? The "magical" nonexistence of footage whenever 1. there would ordinarily be footage and 2. that footage happens to record something for which someone doesn't want evidence demonstrates a pattern; that pattern is in and of itself a problem, regardless of whether it's explained by incompetence or malice. Assuming that someone else assumed malice and quibbling on that particular point is a pointless distraction from the actual problem in this case.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Based on other comments here, there seems to be a plausible reason that this type of exercise might not normally be recorded. But if there's supposed to be a recording, and there isn't, then in the very least that's a plausible angle for investigation. Meanwhile if it really is the case that the exercise wouldn't normally be recorded, then there's also an open question as to why this guy was assigned to an unrecorded training with somebody he was investigating for rape. Police investigations and juries aren't logical proofs, that's why there are juries, character witnesses, etc.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    I agree that circumstantial evidence is evidence and that this angle of the case should be investigated. My point is that circumstantial evidence doesn't rule out other possibilities, and if you forget that then you risk deceiving yourself.
_-david-_ 4y ago
The article says "these sorts of trainings are often recorded." Often being the keyword. It doesn't say that there is supposed to be a video.
- modriano 4y ago
  Yeah. The article says this training was a "bicycle training exercise". I'm not sure exactly what that entails, but unless it's confined to a small area, it seems pretty plausible that it wouldn't be feasible to have camera coverage of the entire training space (say, if it occurred out in the world). Still, I don't know the facts, and if this "bicycle training exercise" was in a small yard of the police academy, and if "often" means "nearly always", then yeah, this would be pretty damning circumstantial evidence of malice.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    It looks like they changed from bicycle training to grappling. It is possible they would have had footage if it remained bicycle training. Not sure. My point is that we can't draw any conclusions yet. There could be malice or not. I think we need to understand why the training changed to get a better understanding of what happened.
hitpointdrew 4y ago
There is a difference between "I deleted the footage" (which would be "fixed" if it automatically upload to the cloud controlled by a 3rd party) and "I conveniently forgot to wear my body cam" (which having it upload to cloud does nothing to address).
Hnrobert42 4y ago
Was there supposed to be video?

if there was supposed to be video and there isn't... I don't know what you think your argument is exactly

by evan_ 4y ago

if there was supposed to be video and there isn't... I don't know what you think your argument is exactly

> if there was supposed to be video and there isn't... You're assuming that malice is the reason why there isn't video footage if there was supposed to be. I think that's a fair assumption, and I think that this is most likely the case. But it's not necessarily the case. It is possible that negligence or incompetence is the reason the cameras weren't recording. The whole thing sounds like a murder to me, and I assume the video footage was deliberately disabled/destroyed/lost/etc. But at this stage I don't think anybody can be certain of that. There is only circumstantial evidence for somebody preventing/destroying the video footage.

inetknght 4y ago
> You're assuming that malice is the reason why there isn't video footage if there was supposed to be There doesn't have to be malice. There has to be accountability.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I share your desire for accountability, but I don't think that's what this remark was about: > "When something happens, conveniently the video footage that should exist, magically doesn't." Magic doesn't exist. When something is said to "magically" not exist, that is a sarcastic way of saying that somebody deliberately made it not exist. I believe that is the most likely explanation, but it's not necessarily true.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > Magic doesn't exist. I see sarcasm is one of your strong suits.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      You can plainly see that I recognize the magic remark as sarcastic, so what is the point of your response?
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        > You can plainly see that I recognize the magic remark as sarcastic Indeed, and I stated such :) > so what is the point of your response? What is the point of yours? The "magical" nonexistence of footage whenever 1. there would ordinarily be footage and 2. that footage happens to record something for which someone doesn't want evidence demonstrates a pattern; that pattern is in and of itself a problem, regardless of whether it's explained by incompetence or malice. Assuming that someone else assumed malice and quibbling on that particular point is a pointless distraction from the actual problem in this case.
bee_rider 4y ago
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Based on other comments here, there seems to be a plausible reason that this type of exercise might not normally be recorded. But if there's supposed to be a recording, and there isn't, then in the very least that's a plausible angle for investigation. Meanwhile if it really is the case that the exercise wouldn't normally be recorded, then there's also an open question as to why this guy was assigned to an unrecorded training with somebody he was investigating for rape. Police investigations and juries aren't logical proofs, that's why there are juries, character witnesses, etc.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I agree that circumstantial evidence is evidence and that this angle of the case should be investigated. My point is that circumstantial evidence doesn't rule out other possibilities, and if you forget that then you risk deceiving yourself.

_-david-_ 4y ago

The article says "these sorts of trainings are often recorded." Often being the keyword. It doesn't say that there is supposed to be a video.

modriano 4y ago
Yeah. The article says this training was a "bicycle training exercise". I'm not sure exactly what that entails, but unless it's confined to a small area, it seems pretty plausible that it wouldn't be feasible to have camera coverage of the entire training space (say, if it occurred out in the world). Still, I don't know the facts, and if this "bicycle training exercise" was in a small yard of the police academy, and if "often" means "nearly always", then yeah, this would be pretty damning circumstantial evidence of malice.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  It looks like they changed from bicycle training to grappling. It is possible they would have had footage if it remained bicycle training. Not sure. My point is that we can't draw any conclusions yet. There could be malice or not. I think we need to understand why the training changed to get a better understanding of what happened.

hitpointdrew 4y ago

There is a difference between "I deleted the footage" (which would be "fixed" if it automatically upload to the cloud controlled by a 3rd party) and "I conveniently forgot to wear my body cam" (which having it upload to cloud does nothing to address).

Hnrobert42 4y ago

Was there supposed to be video?