What are they hiding?

[kallend 2,175]

North Carolina puts police video off-limits.

www.washingtonpost.com/national/north-carolina-holds-police-camera-videos-from-public-record/2016/07/11/594256d6-47d5-11e6-8dac-0c6e4accc5b1_story.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,590]

This is only a temporary measure until they learn how to do video editing with CGI animation to get the story they want.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[muff528 3]

ryoder

This is on;y a temporary measure until they learn how to do video editing with CGI animation to get the story they want.

....and how to prevent Couric or Rather or Williams types from doing the same.

[kallend 2,175]

muff528

***This is on;y a temporary measure until they learn how to do video editing with CGI animation to get the story they want.

....and how to prevent Couric or Rather or Williams types from doing the same.

That's a stupid comment, since the police will still have the originals.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[muff528 3]

kallend

******This is on;y a temporary measure until they learn how to do video editing with CGI animation to get the story they want.

....and how to prevent Couric or Rather or Williams types from doing the same.

That's a stupid comment, since the police will still have the originals.

Well, my point to your comment is whom does one trust more, the cops as a whole or the media? Turns out to be not so easy to answer. We've already seen intentionally biased or out-of-context reporting by the above-mentioned, award-winning, nationally "trusted" "journalists". I have yet to see a video that has been manipulated by the police for purposes of a cover-up. Not saying it hasn't happened.

also - most folks who would see a given video, even in it's entirety, would probably not understand what was really going on or what was happening outside the field of view and would likely prejudicially formulate their own opinions, regardless of any "truth". ...with guidance from the press, of course.

[Stumpy 284]

muff528

also - most folks who would see a given video, even in it's entirety, would probably not understand what was really going on or what was happening outside the field of view and would likely prejudicially formulate their own opinions, regardless of any "truth". ...with guidance from the press, of course.

That's generally just an excuse for not releasing damning footage. Seems you bought it.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[muff528 3]

Stumpy

***also - most folks who would see a given video, even in it's entirety, would probably not understand what was really going on or what was happening outside the field of view and would likely prejudicially formulate their own opinions, regardless of any "truth". ...with guidance from the press, of course.

That's generally just an excuse for not releasing damning footage. Seems you bought it.

Yeah, if someone believes they are hiding something, nothing will convince them otherwise, even releasing the video. So WRT releasing the videos, damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't disagree with releasing the videos. But do it after any potential criminal investigation or trial. That might even expose any "damning footage" or bad cop shenanigans that might have been suppressed by the police! Over here the cops involved still have civil rights to a fair and unbiased trial. We should at least go through the motions. No need for trial by public opinion or by pontificating politicians or clergy members. Plenty of time for a hanging afterwards.

Oh wait! I've forgotten that it's not about justice. It's about "No justice, No peace". Read that any way you like.

[turtlespeed 226]

muff528

******also - most folks who would see a given video, even in it's entirety, would probably not understand what was really going on or what was happening outside the field of view and would likely prejudicially formulate their own opinions, regardless of any "truth". ...with guidance from the press, of course.

That's generally just an excuse for not releasing damning footage. Seems you bought it.

Yeah, if someone believes they are hiding something, nothing will convince them otherwise, even releasing the video. So WRT releasing the videos, damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't disagree with releasing the videos. But do it after any potential criminal investigation or trial. That might even expose any "damning footage" or bad cop shenanigans that might have been suppressed by the police! Over here the cops involved still have civil rights to a fair and unbiased trial. We should at least go through the motions. No need for trial by public opinion or by pontificating politicians or clergy members. Plenty of time for a hanging afterwards.

Oh wait! I've forgotten that it's not about justice. It's about "No justice, No peace". Read that any way you like.

Definitely a catch 22 -

But that is what the gun banners want.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,600]

I heard an interesting interview on NPR this afternoon about this issue; the speaker was rather in favor of the new ruling. The videos are still accessible via the court, and via discovery during a trial. However, they cannot just be willy-nilly asked for with a FOIA request.

When you consider that the videos are full of innocent and uninvolved people, and that most of them have not, in fact, signed any sort of release, it makes sense to require a higher bar than "I'm trolling for tabloid news, or a lawsuit, or just to find dirt on someone."

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,175]

wmw999

I heard an interesting interview on NPR this afternoon about this issue; the speaker was rather in favor of the new ruling. The videos are still accessible via the court, and via discovery during a trial. However, they cannot just be willy-nilly asked for with a FOIA request.

When you consider that the videos are full of innocent and uninvolved people, and that most of them have not, in fact, signed any sort of release, it makes sense to require a higher bar than "I'm trolling for tabloid news, or a lawsuit, or just to find dirt on someone."

Wendy P.

And you certainly wouldn't want their bathroom gender-check videos to be made public, would you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,609]

wmw999

I heard an interesting interview on NPR this afternoon about this issue; the speaker was rather in favor of the new ruling. The videos are still accessible via the court, and via discovery during a trial. However, they cannot just be willy-nilly asked for with a FOIA request.

When you consider that the videos are full of innocent and uninvolved people, and that most of them have not, in fact, signed any sort of release, it makes sense to require a higher bar than "I'm trolling for tabloid news, or a lawsuit, or just to find dirt on someone."

But it's not a two way street. The police can release their own videos of suspects (filled with innocent or potentially innocent people) without having to ask anyone else. They have no bar to clear.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Yes but the police would never do anything nefarious.

[Niki1 2]

wmw999

I heard an interesting interview on NPR this afternoon about this issue; the speaker was rather in favor of the new ruling. The videos are still accessible via the court, and via discovery during a trial. However, they cannot just be willy-nilly asked for with a FOIA request.

When you consider that the videos are full of innocent and uninvolved people, and that most of them have not, in fact, signed any sort of release, it makes sense to require a higher bar than "I'm trolling for tabloid news, or a lawsuit, or just to find dirt on someone."

Wendy P.

There are far more videos not involving a person getting shot by police. Assault victims, robbery victims, domestic abuse victims. These victims do not deserve to be "paraded" through the media like side show exhibits. BUT there needs to be some repercussion when the video does come out and contradicts the official report. A teenager was shot in Chicago. The official report said that he was advancing on the officers in a threatening manner when he was shot. SEVENTY THREE officers signed that report. When the video was finally released, a full year after the fact, it showed the teenager to be backing away and not threatening any one when he was shot. Of the 73 signers of that false report, only the ones who fired their weapons were reprimanded. The "blue wall" of silence is what hides the bad cops. The "you lie and I'll swear to it" mentality is one of reasons it's difficult to weed out the bad ones.

Not unlike trying to get one doctor to testify against another in a malpractice suit. But that's a different subject only with similarities.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?