Authorities in Ohio say they will release body camera footage of a fatal police shooting of a pregnant Black woman.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not exactly true.

      The evidence I had was the specific nature of their claim. They claimed they would be showing me a video of a woman driving a car at an officer. That is a verifiable claim: if the video eventually shows something else, everyone observing it will immediately know that the initial claim was a bald-faced lie.

      Contrast with a non-verifiable claim, such as “the officer felt endangered”. That isn’t something that can be definitively proven. The officer may have felt endangered. The officer may have felt perfectly safe and is simply lying to portray themselves in a better light.

      Where the only “proof” of their claim is the claim itself, and they have a motivation to lie about it, we cannot trust them to speak the truth. But, where the “proof” of their claim is an objectively verifiable fact that will soon come to light, there is little reason not to trust it: they would immediately destroy their credibility to lie about a verifiable fact.

      The evidence I had was their readily verifiable claim. A specific, objective fact, easily demonstrated if true, and easily refuted if false. I trusted that they weren’t so fucking stupid as to lie about an objective fact. Turns out that they were, indeed, telling the truth in that specific case. That doesn’t mean they are telling the complete, unvarnished truth about everything. They could be lying about everything I can’t verify. But I don’t need their non-verifiable claims; the verifiable ones exonerate the officers.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The evidence I had was their readily verifiable claim.

        The evidence you had was a cop said it.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Huh. And it turns out they weren’t lying.

          Just out of cutiousity, who is telling you that the cops are always lying? Are you going to believe that person in the future, now that you have clear, compelling evidence that cops don’t always lie?

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just out of cutiousity, who is telling you that the cops are always lying?

            I don’t believe cops until I have proof. You believe them immediately.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nah, that is not a fair conclusion.

              I believe police only where their claims are readily verifiable. When they tell me it’s 9:30AM, I’ll believe them. I’m still going to check my watch to verify their claim, and I’ll get plenty suspicious if and when their claim conflicts with the facts, but that didnt happen here.

              When they tell me something that can’t be verified, I don’t trust it.

              You have insinuated that my trust of police is unconditional; that is a lie. You have insinuated that my trust in police is racially motivated. That, too, is a lie. Both of those insinuations arise from your own assumptions, not from my statements, arguments, or reality.

              • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I believe police only where their claims are readily verifiable.

                I wait for proof because police are untrustworthy. It’s irresponsible to just take police at their word and use their justifications on the off chance that they haven’t covered their bodycam or “lost” the footage.

                You have insinuated that my trust of police is unconditional; that is a lie. You have insinuated that my trust in police is racially motivated. That, too, is a lie.

                I think you’re willing to believe the police when proof is not available, and that you’re willing to take at face value what a racist institution puts out there.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It’s irresponsible to just take police at their word and use their justifications on the off chance that they haven’t covered their bodycam or “lost” the footage.

                  There was no claim of lost footage. A claim of lost footage is not easily verifiable. Is the footage really lost? Or is it “conveniently” lost? There is room for them to tell a plausible lie: you and I can’t prove that the footage actually existed. It is possible that it never did, and it is possible that if it did, it was inadvertantly destroyed. It’s also possible that someone is lying their ass off to protect themselves, knowing we cannot positively verify the truth of their claim.

                  I would not trust a claim that is not verifiable, but they didn’t make a non-verifiable claim here. The claims they made were readily verifiable, even though they had not yet been verified.

                  If they had no intention of releasing it, the lie they would have told would have been that it didn’t exist, or was lost. I can’t conceive of a reason why they would say “we will release it at <time>” with the intention of being deceitful. That’s an easily verifiable claim: they either release it, or they don’t. There is no room for them to receive with that claim: they will be caught on such a deception in short order, and being caught in a blatant, overt lie is far more damaging to their credibility than a strong but unproven suspicion that they are lying.

                  Likewise with the content of the video. If they are going to release it, it doesn’t make any sense that they would tell a bald face lie about what we are going to see in it. Again, there is no room for them to deceive: they will be caught on such a deception in short order.

                  Neither of these claims had been verified, but the nature of both claims was easily verifiable. They aren’t going to deliberately destroy their credibility, so it is reasonably safe to trust their easily verifiable claim, even before it is actually verified.

                  I think you’re willing to believe the police when proof is not available, and that you’re willing to take at face value what a racist institution puts out there.

                  Depends on the nature of the claim, not the entity making it.

                  “I’m going to show you a video of a woman driving her car at an officer” - yes, I’m going to trust that claim without proof, until such time as the claim is disproven.

                  “None of the 11 officers present had their body cameras turned on, and the dash cameras from the 8 cruisers present were all faulty or pointing away from the scene” - no fucking way am I going to trust that claim.

                  I wait for proof because police are untrustworthy.

                  I think that in the absence of proof, you broadly assume the police are guilty until proven otherwise. I don’t think you actually wait for proof; I think you jump immediately to a conclusion based not on the circumstances of the case, but on the races and/or jobs of the individuals present.

                  I think that you had reached your conclusion by the end of the headline, and didn’t need to actually read the article.</time>

                  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I think that you had reached your conclusion by the end of the headline, and didn’t need to actually read the article.

                    I’ve been following this story since before the pigs announced they were going to release footage.

                    I think that in the absence of proof, you broadly assume the police are guilty until proven otherwise.

                    Yes. In every last case. Pigs have been behaving so poorly for so long that there is no reason to do anything but mistrust them until the instant they provide incontrovertible proof. Their word is less than worthless. Anything they say without actual evidence to back it up is a fucking lie as far as I’m concerned, and anyone who defends them without available proof does so out of naivete or bad faith because they love it when pigs murder unarmed black people for them.