Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

  1. #1
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865

    Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

    for those advocating body cams...

    quote: Researchers found that slowing down footage of violent acts caused viewers to see greater intent to harm than when viewed at normal speed. Viewing a killing only in slow motion made a jury three times more likely to convict of first degree murder. unquote
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36940475

    original article's abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/07/27/1603865113

    interesting concept in human nature and perception...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    <chuckle> And, how many times have we heard from police "the officer had to make a split-second decision"?

    And, yet when it is a citizen defendant, suddenly the prosecutor is going to use slow-motion against the defendant?

    -----------------------------

    I agree. Interesting aspect of human perception. Two thoughts.

    1. Now that this study is out, defense attorneys can have the opportunity to reduce or nullify the effects on the jury.

    2. Jurors should give more thought to what happens in those milliseconds.

    Just for a fun demonstation, there are a couple fellas on YouTube who call themselves the SloMo Guys. Been doing it a few years. Tons of subscribers. A recent hyper-slow-mo video showed the propogation of fractures through glass, and compared it to how fast an eye blinks. Its worth looking at the video. The interesting (and relevant) point is to watch how much water hits Dan's eye before he even starts to blink.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbuvcQrAOSk
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-02-2016 at 07:14 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Those who control the investigation (video) control the narrative.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Those who control the investigation (video) control the narrative.
    The narrative fallacy. The narrative is the explainer witch doctor's tool, preventing each premise from being critically and skeptically examined. "Wait, wait, I'll get to that part, and then you'll understand."
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I would handle such matters through a long winded objection on how the prosecution is not being fair and distorting evidence.

    Win the objection or not, jurists will hear (if you take a jury trial--which if favorable or not is subject to debate and case dependent I think).

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Seems to me this goes both ways...or three ways. An LAC wearing a body cam of his own would be able to provide slow motion video to demonstrate that he was in fear of his life from a violent criminal. He would also be able to show that officers' conduct toward the LAC was deliberate and calculated.

    The study shows that individuals viewing video at slow motion speed are several times more likely to import ill intent. Fair enough. Where is the study to show how much less likely someone sitting in a jury box, in a full court room, at noon day is to consider that an assailant actually posed a "reasonable man" threat to the cop's or LAC's life and limb than if they were alone on a dark sidewalk at 10:00 at night? IOW, does the slow motion speed actually create a bias toward seeing intent where there is none? Or does it simply help to overcome the bias that most decent folks have against believing that there are some human beings who can behave as viciously as a cop or LAC who shoots in self defense may have experienced?

    To be clear, the study dealt with violent acts caught on video. It was assessing the extent to which a viewer would attribute deliberate forethought to the violent act. This bodes poorly for someone charged with injuring or killing another person when the violent act was caught on tape because intent is the key element in whether someone committed manslaughter vs whether he committed murder.

    But, to a certain extent the bias exposed doesn't much matter in the cases of an LAC or cop shooting in claimed self defense.

    If I'm shooting in self defense it is against the observable acts of the violent criminal. I don't much care about his intent. Whether he has carefully premeditated his violence, or is simply reacting from the passions of the moment don't matter to me much at all. I don't care whether he is dunk, or high, bipolar or otherwise mentally ill. I don't particularly care if he is entirely in his right mind and attacking me because of my race, my religion, my political bumper sticker, or because he thinks I cut him off at the last exit. I don't care if I'm a completely random target picked to complete some gang initiation. His motive just doesn't much matter to me.

    These things may well factor into what strategy will most likely de-escalate. They may factor into whether displaying the gun is likely to be enough to cause him to turn tail and run. They may help in deciding whether attempting to flee is more dangerous than standing my ground.

    But if my efforts to avoid, withdraw, and de-escalate fail, then in the moment I have to pull the trigger, I don't care about motive. I care about the threat to my life and limb: immediacy, ability, and intent to inflict harm. The reason behind the intent, is largely moot.

    If my body camera captures the bad guy and if slow motion helps the jury see what they would otherwise miss, great.

    If a security camera captures both of us, it will show the violence of the bad guy.

    If a security camera videos just me, not only will it show absolute intent to use my gun if I use it (NDs are not a good self defense strategy), but I am now armed with additional data to counter any bias the video may create against me.

    Remember, we have long had solid studies showing that eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable evidence available. Yet juries continue to give it tremendous weight.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  7. #7
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    body cams are not the panacea the nice LEs believe they expect to show how right they are when they uphold the law with deadly force.

    especially when they raise more questions, ethical and policy, then they answer, especially to the community.

    quote:
    It's the latest shooting to highlight the already tenuous relationship between some communities and police, and it touches on broader issues that have time and again racked the Windy City: body cameras, police accountability and seemingly unstemmable violence.

    O'Neal, 18, was shot Thursday and died from his injuries after leading a police chase through the South Side of Chicago. He had been suspected of stealing a car. The body camera of the Chicago police officer who fatally shot O'Neal did not record when he opened fire, department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said Monday.

    Investigators are also looking into whether the officer had turned it on. Officers had received their body cams within the previous eight to 10 days, Guglielmi said. "We are currently in a pilot program," quote



    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/us/chi...lice-shooting/

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 08-03-2016 at 10:12 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Video is only as reliable (truthful) as the finder of fact determines it to be. The eyewitness account of the camera wearer may be more reliable than the data his camera recorded.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Video is only as reliable (truthful) as the finder of fact determines it to be. The eyewitness account of the camera wearer may be more reliable than the data his camera recorded.
    Well said. In the court of public opinion, we are the finders of fact, the jurors. In the court of public opinion there is no presumption of innocence.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Video is only as reliable (truthful) as the finder of fact determines it to be. The eyewitness account of the camera wearer may be more reliable than the data his camera recorded.
    The finder of fact (judge or jury as the case may be) will determine the importance and relevance of the video and witness testimony, if any. Video doesn't lie. But neither does it tell the whole truth because it can't possibly record everything that is happening. Eye-witnesses might lie. They are very likely to be mistaken about some things even when they very sincerely believe they are being honest and accurate. Eye-witnesses with both see/hear and miss some things that a single camera doesn't.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    The finder of fact (judge or jury as the case may be) will determine the importance and relevance of the video and witness testimony, if any. Video doesn't lie. But neither does it tell the whole truth because it can't possibly record everything that is happening. Eye-witnesses might lie. They are very likely to be mistaken about some things even when they very sincerely believe they are being honest and accurate. Eye-witnesses with both see/hear and miss some things that a single camera doesn't.

    Charles
    +1

    Also witnesses are subjected to some serious browbeating from council along with credibility questions..
    The video camera is free of such examination.

    Regards
    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •