4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.