6 ms·

It's interesting that this article seems to be written under the assumption that the AI was entirely correct and Qeyeon Tolbert is the murderer, but the pesky f

It's interesting that this article seems to be written under the assumption that the AI was entirely correct and Qeyeon Tolbert is the murderer, but the pesky fact that the police used a magic guessing box to identify him is a mere formality that's getting in the way of justice. Innocent until proven guilty eh?

mingus88 2y ago
The court of public opinion has never held that standard
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
  The court of public opinion isn't supposed to. The state can put you in jail, so the state requires a higher standard. A random person only needs to use their best judgement. Which is how it has to be. A random person can't spend their time substantively investigating everyone who comes across their path, and doesn't have the same powers as law enforcement to do so if they wanted.
renewedrebecca 2y ago
This kind of nonsense is very much on brand for the Cleveland PD.
robertlagrant 2y ago
True, although if you read the article, they found the murder weapon in the suspect's home. The (correct) problem is the warrant issued to allow them to search the home was not issued legally.
- pjc50 2y ago
  If you read really carefully, they mention a gun found in the suspect's home. The article does not provide other evidence that would link the gun or the suspect with the victim. There might be such evidence, but it's not mentioned.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    Running ballistics, DNA, etc. all that shit is SOP because it produces fairly good evidince for court. "we found a gun of matching caliber" = "we ran ballistics and it didn't match" You gotta look for what they're not telling you. Edit: I'm assuming the bullet stayed in the guy and they recovered it here.
    - sumeno 2y ago
      Even when it is run some of these things like ballistics are a lot fuzzier science than they would have you believe and the "experts" can make a report say whatever they (or the police) want
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        Oh absolutely. It's all borderline pseudo science depending on who you ask. But the fact that you're not even hearing about it speaks volumes. Evidince is just like charges. They throw everything, even the most flimsy and dishonest garbage, at the wall if there's even the slightest chance of it sticking because every bit of it that the defense has to get removed costs them resources. If they're not throwing it (like when they announce manslaughter charges for something the news portrayed as murder) it's because that particular piece has less than zero chance of sticking.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    I got it from here: > The search turned up what police say is the murder weapon in the suspect’s home
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  There's a reason that chain-of-evidence/provenance/fruit of the poison tree stuff is a big deal. The defense attorney should be commended, and the cops need to be more careful. It totally sucks that a murderer goes free, but the reason that we need to be careful about this stuff, is because the authorities would use the exact same methodology to grab shoplifters or dine-and-dashers, and it's highly likely that there would be false positives, there. The thing about the police, that people don't seem to realize, is that they have the power to completely destroy your life on a whim. If a cop has a bad day, you could end up homeless and alone, in a few months; regardless of whether or not you actually get convicted. That's not even counting, if they draw their gun. That's not hyperbole. I have actually seen it happen.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    I agree - as I say, I think the problem is correct.
  - bende511 2y ago
    what sucks here is we don't even know if a murderer went free, because the cops didn't do their jobs and prove this guy was the murderer. it's not letting a guy free on a technicality, it's making sure the cops do their jobs correctly. it's protecting our rights. sorry, we do know a murderer went free. we just don't know if this guy was the murderer who went free, or an innocent man who's name was dragged through the mud cause a cop was lazy
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  I think they say “a” handgun without hinting that the ballistics match.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
    Ballistics. The bore of a gun is changed by every projectile that goes through it.
mapt 2y ago
The search turned up what police say is the murder weapon in the suspect’s home. ... Police believed the shooter looked like Tolbert because he had the same “build, hair style, clothing and walking characteristics,” So what I'm getting is... He was a young black man. He also did not indicate that the facial recognition report returned several photos of people other than Tolbert. The affidavit simply says the fusion center matched Tolbert to “the unidentified male suspect, based on recovered surveillance video.” Maybe it returned every single black male in the neighborhood and police just picked who they wanted; This is crucially relevant information. Similar problem to K-9 units, the walking search warrant who will alarm on anybody the police want them to. I have to wonder whether the legal points would have been satisfied if they'd just taken the 'Parallel Construction' route and followed the man around until they noticed a turn signal was out, and then "recognized" him spontaneously from the video. Given that they're often permitted to do this, were they just too lazy to do it? Seriously wounded, Story walked the last mile to his home on School Street. His father found him dead in the bathtub the next day. The is the biggest indictment of Cleveland PD and the justice system in the entire story - you could choose to call emergency services or you could choose to risk bleeding out because of their reputation. He chose to die. The search turned up what police say is the murder weapon in the suspect’s home. Oh. They said that. No details provided. Oh. Well, that's all right then.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Story says Clearview returned 8 photos, 2 were Tolbert. Evidence connects Tolbert’s home and driveway to the killer. Why was Clearview part of the warrant at all?
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    Clearview wasn't mentioned in the affidavit used to get the search warrant, according to the article: > Legg’s affidavit did not disclose that police used facial recognition as part of their identification. > The affidavit simply says the fusion center matched Tolbert to “the unidentified male suspect, based on recovered surveillance video.” (I had to look up what a "fusion center" is, it's a cooperation between different agencies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_center)
rm445 2y ago
They had a bunch of CCTV and no name. The AI gave them a few names, they looked at its report which had photos from the guy's social media and were like 'yes that's him', and then got a warrant to go to his house and found the gun. Perhaps there's some important principle of rights that's eluding me. But it seems like the actual murderer was seen on CCTV and found with the murder weapon, and claiming AI (used as a search tool) as an illegitimate cause for the warrant is a ploy by the defence. Doing their job, sure, but it doesn't seem like natural justice or any broader rights would be served by letting this guy off. It would be different, the Prosecutor's Fallacy, if the AI->name link was used to justify guilt, but instead the standard of human facial recognition used for getting other warrants from CCTV can be used.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mrkeen 2y ago
  > Perhaps there's some important principle of rights that's eluding me. Convicting the guy is one alternative, but there's another (non-mutually exclusive) option: punish whoever conducted an illegal search. If a warrant legitimised the search, punish the judge instead. If the judge didn't know any better because he was deceived, punish whoever lied to the judge, and so on. "Might not get a conviction" is a negligible deterrent against police overreach.
  - ninalanyon 2y ago
    This is how it works, or is supposed to work, in Norway. Illegally gathered evidence is still evidence.
    - justin66 2y ago
      I wonder how well that can possibly work in practice. It can't go over great in front of a jury when someone who is going to be punished for violating the rules talks about the evidence they've obtained, advocating for its legitimacy.
anjel 2y ago
Parallel construction[0] which is the case-making step detectives leap-frogged over in this case. It would have saved the dirty day here. Instead this is as dumb as the Attorneys who used ChatGPT to halucinate case citations in their briefs a few years back. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

mingus88 2y ago

The court of public opinion has never held that standard

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
The court of public opinion isn't supposed to. The state can put you in jail, so the state requires a higher standard. A random person only needs to use their best judgement. Which is how it has to be. A random person can't spend their time substantively investigating everyone who comes across their path, and doesn't have the same powers as law enforcement to do so if they wanted.

renewedrebecca 2y ago

This kind of nonsense is very much on brand for the Cleveland PD.

robertlagrant 2y ago

True, although if you read the article, they found the murder weapon in the suspect's home. The (correct) problem is the warrant issued to allow them to search the home was not issued legally.

pjc50 2y ago
If you read really carefully, they mention a gun found in the suspect's home. The article does not provide other evidence that would link the gun or the suspect with the victim. There might be such evidence, but it's not mentioned.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  Running ballistics, DNA, etc. all that shit is SOP because it produces fairly good evidince for court. "we found a gun of matching caliber" = "we ran ballistics and it didn't match" You gotta look for what they're not telling you. Edit: I'm assuming the bullet stayed in the guy and they recovered it here.
  - sumeno 2y ago
    Even when it is run some of these things like ballistics are a lot fuzzier science than they would have you believe and the "experts" can make a report say whatever they (or the police) want
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      Oh absolutely. It's all borderline pseudo science depending on who you ask. But the fact that you're not even hearing about it speaks volumes. Evidince is just like charges. They throw everything, even the most flimsy and dishonest garbage, at the wall if there's even the slightest chance of it sticking because every bit of it that the defense has to get removed costs them resources. If they're not throwing it (like when they announce manslaughter charges for something the news portrayed as murder) it's because that particular piece has less than zero chance of sticking.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  I got it from here: > The search turned up what police say is the murder weapon in the suspect’s home
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
There's a reason that chain-of-evidence/provenance/fruit of the poison tree stuff is a big deal. The defense attorney should be commended, and the cops need to be more careful. It totally sucks that a murderer goes free, but the reason that we need to be careful about this stuff, is because the authorities would use the exact same methodology to grab shoplifters or dine-and-dashers, and it's highly likely that there would be false positives, there. The thing about the police, that people don't seem to realize, is that they have the power to completely destroy your life on a whim. If a cop has a bad day, you could end up homeless and alone, in a few months; regardless of whether or not you actually get convicted. That's not even counting, if they draw their gun. That's not hyperbole. I have actually seen it happen.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  I agree - as I say, I think the problem is correct.
- bende511 2y ago
  what sucks here is we don't even know if a murderer went free, because the cops didn't do their jobs and prove this guy was the murderer. it's not letting a guy free on a technicality, it's making sure the cops do their jobs correctly. it's protecting our rights. sorry, we do know a murderer went free. we just don't know if this guy was the murderer who went free, or an innocent man who's name was dragged through the mud cause a cop was lazy
ttyprintk 2y ago
I think they say “a” handgun without hinting that the ballistics match.
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
  Ballistics. The bore of a gun is changed by every projectile that goes through it.

mapt 2y ago

The search turned up what police say is the murder weapon in the suspect’s home. ... Police believed the shooter looked like Tolbert because he had the same “build, hair style, clothing and walking characteristics,” So what I'm getting is... He was a young black man. He also did not indicate that the facial recognition report returned several photos of people other than Tolbert. The affidavit simply says the fusion center matched Tolbert to “the unidentified male suspect, based on recovered surveillance video.” Maybe it returned every single black male in the neighborhood and police just picked who they wanted; This is crucially relevant information. Similar problem to K-9 units, the walking search warrant who will alarm on anybody the police want them to. I have to wonder whether the legal points would have been satisfied if they'd just taken the 'Parallel Construction' route and followed the man around until they noticed a turn signal was out, and then "recognized" him spontaneously from the video. Given that they're often permitted to do this, were they just too lazy to do it? Seriously wounded, Story walked the last mile to his home on School Street. His father found him dead in the bathtub the next day. The is the biggest indictment of Cleveland PD and the justice system in the entire story - you could choose to call emergency services or you could choose to risk bleeding out because of their reputation. He chose to die. The search turned up what police say is the murder weapon in the suspect’s home. Oh. They said that. No details provided. Oh. Well, that's all right then.

ttyprintk 2y ago
Story says Clearview returned 8 photos, 2 were Tolbert. Evidence connects Tolbert’s home and driveway to the killer. Why was Clearview part of the warrant at all?
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Clearview wasn't mentioned in the affidavit used to get the search warrant, according to the article: > Legg’s affidavit did not disclose that police used facial recognition as part of their identification. > The affidavit simply says the fusion center matched Tolbert to “the unidentified male suspect, based on recovered surveillance video.” (I had to look up what a "fusion center" is, it's a cooperation between different agencies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_center)

rm445 2y ago

They had a bunch of CCTV and no name. The AI gave them a few names, they looked at its report which had photos from the guy's social media and were like 'yes that's him', and then got a warrant to go to his house and found the gun. Perhaps there's some important principle of rights that's eluding me. But it seems like the actual murderer was seen on CCTV and found with the murder weapon, and claiming AI (used as a search tool) as an illegitimate cause for the warrant is a ploy by the defence. Doing their job, sure, but it doesn't seem like natural justice or any broader rights would be served by letting this guy off. It would be different, the Prosecutor's Fallacy, if the AI->name link was used to justify guilt, but instead the standard of human facial recognition used for getting other warrants from CCTV can be used.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mrkeen 2y ago
> Perhaps there's some important principle of rights that's eluding me. Convicting the guy is one alternative, but there's another (non-mutually exclusive) option: punish whoever conducted an illegal search. If a warrant legitimised the search, punish the judge instead. If the judge didn't know any better because he was deceived, punish whoever lied to the judge, and so on. "Might not get a conviction" is a negligible deterrent against police overreach.
- ninalanyon 2y ago
  This is how it works, or is supposed to work, in Norway. Illegally gathered evidence is still evidence.
  - justin66 2y ago
    I wonder how well that can possibly work in practice. It can't go over great in front of a jury when someone who is going to be punished for violating the rules talks about the evidence they've obtained, advocating for its legitimacy.

anjel 2y ago

Parallel construction[0] which is the case-making step detectives leap-frogged over in this case. It would have saved the dirty day here. Instead this is as dumb as the Attorneys who used ChatGPT to halucinate case citations in their briefs a few years back. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction