[BREAKING] Its happening. Grand jury has made a decision about Ferguson.
2,211 replies, posted
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46579654]and where exactly would ferguson get the 1.2 million for body cams? cop budgets are already strained as is, and before you make a snappy comment "well they have mraps and gear" when both of those are still hilariously cheaper to maintain and get than a huge virtual storage area and a person to maintain it.[/QUOTE]
The 1.2 Million in New Orelans is for 350 body cameras. The Ferguson PD, however, has just 54 officers. You don't know what the Ferguson PD's budget is, you're literally just making up excuses to oppose a perfectly rational and tested solution for whatever arbitrary reason you've decided to oppose it. Do you believe cameras steal peoples' souls? Is that the secret reason?
[QUOTE=Deng;46579661]I think it's just that paying for such a massive system of hardware and developing the software would be a massively expensive and completely unfeasible way of solving this problem. Using emotional arguments about the value of human life won't work here because this is a policy that would have to be carried out in, you know, the real world.[/QUOTE]
Except that [I]we already use this system in a major US city and it is affordable and works completely fine[/I].
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46579639]How much, exactly, would you say is the dollar value of a human life ended by police brutality? Because once we get that number set down we can whip out the ol calculator and determine whether or not its worth it to buy a bunch of hard drives.[/QUOTE]
Okay get people to fork the fucking money over then because it cant magically appear for 90% of departments. There was a story earlier that Chicago police department lost 12% of it's dash footage because they ran out of space. now imagine that with actual body cams that are used much more frequently. The costs are much much MUCH higher than you think since that video has to be held nearly forever.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46579704]The 1.2 Million in New Orelans is for 350 body cameras. The Ferguson PD, however, has just 40 officers. You don't know what the Ferguson PD's budget is, you're literally just making up excuses to oppose a perfectly rational and tested solution for whatever arbitrary reason you've decided to oppose it.[/QUOTE]
Well this changes things.
[URL]http://www.fox8live.com/story/24360636/nopd-officers-to-wear-body-cameras[/URL]
[quote]Serpas said the city budgeted $295,000 a year to operate and maintain 420 units.[/quote]
[quote]Except that [I]we already use this system in a major US city and it is affordable and works completely fine[/I].[/QUOTE]
I apologize.
[QUOTE=Deng;46579661]I think it's just that paying for such a massive system of hardware and developing the software would be a massively expensive and completely unfeasible way of solving this problem. Using emotional arguments about the value of human life won't work here because this is a policy that would have to be carried out in, you know, the real world.[/QUOTE]
Security cameras are the same exact thing. Audio-video recording at a low resolution. These are just mobile security cameras - everything is wiped past a certain point unless you take care to specifically save a piece of it as evidence. It really wouldn't take an enormous datacenter of storage. For most police stations, it could be handled with a few terabyte hard drives in a side room. Well-compressed 360p video would rarely go past 250MB an hour - probably even less. Assuming 24 hours per camera, which is a stupidly high estimate, you're looking at 6-7GB a day of data per camera. That's absolutely nothing. Using St. Louis' 350 cameras, assuming they're on literally 24/7, you're looking at around 15 terabytes a week. For THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY cameras, most of which will be on for less than half that time.
That's a couple high-end hard drives. It's not a datacenter. Assuming they clear out the footage on a weekly basis, and only save footage that move to trial or are likely to move to trial, they could easily survive with less than 30TB of storage. A 5TB HDD is around $150 on Amazon nowadays - they'd be spending $3k to store their footage. That's absolutely fucking nothing. MRAPs cost more than that for regular maintenance - this is fucking NOTHING.
There is zero reason to argue against body cameras. The price is negligible. They don't need massive data centers, and it's unrealistic to say that they do. They need a storage computer with some big hard drives. Prices for storage will drop and footage quality really won't need to be raised very often. This is a null argument when you're considering price.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46579712]Okay get people to fork the fucking money over then because it cant magically appear for 90% of departments. There was a story earlier that Chicago police department lost 12% of it's dash footage because they ran out of space. now imagine that with actual body cams that are used much more frequently. [/QUOTE]
I'm not "imagining" anything because you don't use the magical power of imagination to design a data storage system. You're literally just saying "it's too much data to store. imagine all those megabytes on all those computers... gosh can't you see those are too many gigabytes?"
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46579712]The costs are much much MUCH higher than you think since that video has to be held nearly forever.[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't? You're literally just making shit up. (Correct me if I'm wrong but) You're not a lawyer and you're not a logistical expert. You don't have any legislative precedent on how long body cam footage, specifically, needs to be stored and you aren't waving around the Ferguson PD's annual budget with a big red number under the bottom line. You have no grounds to argue against a system which has already been demonstrated to work. You're just telling me it's "too much data and too much money" without actually having any numbers or dollar values to illustrate that claim.
I have a question, as i missed a lot of this when the ordeal with Michael Brown actually happened.
Ive heard that michael Brown had his hands in the air, and ive heard he ran at wilson with his hand in his pocket. Does anyone know which one is true?
[QUOTE=Ripvayne;46579844]I have a question, as i missed a lot of this when the ordeal with Michael Brown actually happened.
Ive heard that michael Brown had his hands in the air, and ive heard he ran at wilson with his hand in his pocket. Does anyone know which one is true?[/QUOTE]
Officer Wilson wasn't charged so we'll never have a trial to determine the truth.
[QUOTE=Ripvayne;46579844]I have a question, as i missed a lot of this when the ordeal with Michael Brown actually happened.
Ive heard that michael Brown had his hands in the air, and ive heard he ran at wilson with his hand in his pocket. Does anyone know which one is true?[/QUOTE]
The fact that Wilson wasn't charged hints that the evidence was closer to the second bit. Everyone here is just arguing about discrimination and body cameras and racism now.
Thanks fellas
[QUOTE=.Isak.;46579861]The fact that Wilson wasn't charged hints that the evidence was closer to the second bit. Everyone here is just arguing about discrimination and body cameras and racism now.[/QUOTE]
Actually, [URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/"]since Grand Juries fail to return an indictment in less than 0.01 percent of cases[/URL], it's probably not reasonable to try to draw any "conclusion" from this specific lack of charge since, statistically speaking, we're talking about something which virtually never happens.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46579853]Officer Wilson wasn't charged so we'll never have a trial to determine the truth.[/QUOTE]
theres mountains of evidence that points out the truth with eye witness testimonies that correlate to the evidence: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html?_r=0[/url]
The truth is the jury decided there wasn't enough evidence to prove the officer of wrong doing, and the only reason this blew up was because some eye witnesses (who were later found lying by changing their accounts) said he had his hands up while the cop fucking executed him.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46579926]theres mountains of evidence that points out the truth with eye witness testimonies that correlate to the evidence: [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html?_r=0[/URL]
The truth is the jury decided there wasn't enough evidence to prove the officer of wrong doing, and the only reason this blew up was because some eye witnesses (who were later found lying by changing their accounts) said he had his hands up while the cop fucking executed him.[/QUOTE]
If only we had some sort of legal procedure to sort the fact from the fiction...
Limited or conflicting evidence is a reason to return a "not guilty" verdict, it's not a reason to forgo charges completely.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46579935]If only we had some sort of legal procedure to sort the fact from the fiction...
"Lack of evidence" is a reason to return a "not guilty" verdict, it's not a reason to forgo a charge completely.[/QUOTE]
So a grand jury with an investigation? That already happened and all the proof shows there's literally no case to be had. If they take this to court the same thing will happen, evidence will show brown wasn't a sweet angel and actually got in a fight with the officer in the car. Then he tried to run and turned around trying to charge the officer down, getting shot in the top of the head and chest in return.
[QUOTE=Ripvayne;46579844]I have a question, as i missed a lot of this when the ordeal with Michael Brown actually happened.
Ive heard that michael Brown had his hands in the air, and ive heard he ran at wilson with his hand in his pocket. Does anyone know which one is true?[/QUOTE]
One hand in the air, the other in the pocket obviously.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46579974]So a grand jury with an investigation? That already happened and all the proof shows there's literally no case to be had.[/QUOTE]
To point, again, to that helpful 538 article I posted: a grand jury refusing to return an indictment almost [URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/"]never ever happens ever[/URL]. Sub 0.01 percent. Or, to be more specific; it pretty much [I]only[/I] ever happens when an officer is the one facing possible charges - even then the numbers are too insignificant to draw any statistical trend. So appealing to the authority of the Grand Jury in this case really shouldn't work considering how the Grand Jury in question just did something [I]phenomenally abnormal[/I].
It's like telling me I should trust my doctor's medical training when he says he'd like to treat my appendicitis by installing a pacemaker.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580016]To point, again, to that helpful 538 article I posted: a grand jury refusing to return an indictment almost [URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/"]never ever happens ever[/URL]. Sub 0.01 percent. Or, to be more specific; it pretty much [I]only[/I] ever happens when an officer is the one facing possible charges - even then the numbers are too insignificant to draw any statistical trend. So appealing to the authority of the Grand Jury in this case really shouldn't work considering how the Grand Jury in question just did something [I]phenomenally abnormal[/I].
It's like telling me I should trust my doctor's medical training when he says he'd like to treat my appendicitis by installing a pacemaker.[/QUOTE]
i just fucking said there isnt a case because the same evidence will be shown and its impossible to convict Darren with the charges unless you go by what you feel, which is 90% of what the fucking riots are bitching about.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46580093]i just fucking said there isnt a case because the same evidence will be shown [/QUOTE]
yes and I [I]didn't care[/I] when you said that because that has literally no bearing on whether or not a grand jury returns an indictment because, [I]statistically speaking[/I], grand juries [I]always[/I] indict
The funny thing is if a white guy did the same thing as Michael brown he would have been shot and killed too. So it's stupid how the protestors keep protesting about race even though this case had nothing to do with race.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580126]yes and I [i]didn't care[/i] when you said that because that has literally no bearing on whether or not a grand jury returns an indictment because, [i]statistically speaking[/i], grand juries [i]always[/i] indict[/QUOTE]
So ignoring the fact that the evidence is either in Darren's favor or inconclusive, you would still want this to go to court just because of one statistical anomaly? The only evidence that is in Brown's favor is eyewitnesses that changed their stories multiple times during the investigation, some even saying they weren't actually there and just heard about it instead. It will be like the zimmerman case where they get taken to court and again found not guilty because the evidence is not conclusive and in his favor.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46580147]So ignoring the fact that the evidence is either in Darren's favor or inconclusive, you would still want this to go to court[/QUOTE]
[B]Yes because that is how our court system works.[/B] The lack of an indictment here is an indication that something is not working like it is supposed to. It's an indication that something went wrong with the process. The clear suggestion is that the prosecutor did not actually seek an indictment despite the fact that seeking an indictment was his job. The fact that during his press conference, prosecutor Bob McCulloch defended Wilson's innocence and posthumously indicted Michael Brown kind of supports this, don't you think?
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46580147]The only evidence that is in Brown's favor is eyewitnesses that changed their stories multiple times during the investigation, some even saying they weren't actually there and just heard about it instead.[/QUOTE]
For the second time, when you look at this from a statistical perspective, conflicting evidence has [I]apparently never been an impediment to a grand jury returning an indictment[/I].
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580210][b]Yes because that is how our court system is supposed to work.[/b]
For the second time, when you look at this from a statistical perspective, conflicting evidence has [i]apparently never been an impediment to a grand jury returning an indictment[/i].[/QUOTE]
You can go to court, if it does it will most likely be not guilty because the evidence points to that unless the jury goes about their feelings instead of actual proof. Eyewitness testimonies have so little bearing with the court anyway because how easily it is to change someone's story in the first place. Not to mention its extremely easy to sway thoughts, hence why it took ages to find a jury for the zimmerman trial because nearly everyone was tainted by the media's lies about it.
No one is stopping it from going to court, its just that there is no case to prove Darren is guilty unless more evidence springs up.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46580288]You can go to court, if it does it will most likely be not guilty because the evidence points to that unless the jury goes about their feelings instead of actual proof. Eyewitness testimonies have so little bearing with the court anyway because how easily it is to change someone's story in the first place. Not to mention its extremely easy to sway thoughts, hence why it took ages to find a jury for the zimmerman trial because nearly everyone was tainted by the media's lies about it.
No one is stopping it from going to court, its just that there is no case to prove Darren is guilty unless more evidence springs up. [/QUOTE]
Are you not actually reading my posts? For the third time: [B]THIS HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER NOR NOT A GRAND JURY RETURNS AN INDICTMENT[/B]. None. None whatsoever. The [B]STATISTICAL EVIDENCE[/B] that I linked indicates that, in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases, so many cases that saying "all cases" is only [I]technically[/I] incorrect, if the prosecutor seeks an indictment then he or she will get an indictment. The only way Bob McCulloch could have failed to get an indictment (assuming he had actually tried) is if something absurd happened like the defense demonstrated that Michael Brown was actually still alive and had never been shot in the first place. The clear picture that has been painted is that McCulloch did not actually seek an indictment despite the fact that it was his job to do so.
I can't keep rephrasing the same thing over and over.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580331]Are you not actually reading my posts? For the third time: [B]THIS HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER NOR NOT A GRAND JURY RETURNS AN INDICTMENT[/B]. None. None whatsoever. The [B]STATISTICAL EVIDENCE[/B] that I linked indicates that, in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases, so many cases that saying "all cases" is only [I]technically[/I] incorrect, if the prosecutor seeks an indictment then he or she will get an indictment.
I can't keep rephrasing the same thing over and over.[/QUOTE]
In Missouri, every single case needs to either go through a grand jury, or have a preliminary hearing, before it can go to trial.
The reason for using a grand jury is because a preliminary hearing is often much more expensive, because it involves judges, lawyers, etc.
The reason most grand juries indict is because most trials at least have some sort of evidence. All of those cases that go through the legal system passed this test; very few do not pass because the case was demanded blindly by the public, when there is no evidence to work with. Had the public not pressed the issue, there would not have been a grand jury decision at all.
In this case, there just wasn't any evidence. Is that too difficult to understand? Because something is improbable, does not make it impossible. In fact, because this was such a hot-button topic and a trial was demanded without the prosecutor having any reason to proceed, it makes it [i]more[/i] explainable.
The cost of a full trial on practically zero evidence - especially for a case like this - would have been astronomical.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46580351]
The cost of a full trial on practically zero evidence - especially for a case like this - would have been astronomical.[/QUOTE]
What are you crazy? Financial cost should never be a factor when deciding whether or not to prosecute a crime involving the death of a human being.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580365]What are you crazy? Financial cost should never be a factor when deciding whether or not to prosecute a crime involving the death of a human being.[/QUOTE]
I like how you quoted something that wasn't related at all to the argument I was making against you - just a side comment - and assumed it was the crux of my entire post. Way to ignore everything else I said, completely disproving your point and shaking down your reasoning of "well it's so improbable that it HAS to have been a farce, right guys?"
The reason grand juries exist in the first place is to mitigate these costs. The grand jury did not say "[i]because[/i] it would cost a lot, we choose not to indict" - they are saying "[i]because[/i] there is no evidence, you are going to be wasting money if you choose to indict".
Keep in mind that grand jury decisions are not binding. The prosecutor is still capable of proceeding. Conversely, had they chosen to indict, the prosecutor could have chosen to drop the case anyway.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580365]What are you crazy? Financial cost should never be a factor when deciding whether or not to prosecute a crime involving the death of a human being.[/QUOTE]
Jesus fucking Christ. Say that to doctors, officers, firefighters, pharma companies, and equipment companies. Money is needed period for people to live in any case for doing their job.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580365]What are you crazy? Financial cost should never be a factor when deciding whether or not to prosecute a crime involving the death of a human being.
When people start disagreeing with [i]reality itself[/i] they're beyond hope. This is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
It's almost as if you completely misinterpreted the point in his post. [i]Zero evidence to convict Darren Wilson means that an expensive trial past indictment is completely unnecessary[/i].
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46580387]I like how you quoted something that wasn't related at all to the argument I was making against you - just a side comment - and assumed it was the crux of my entire post.[/QUOTE]
Because when people disagree with reality itself then there is no arguing with them. You and codemaster have demonstrated that you fundamentally do not understand how the indictment process works and apparently I'm the dumb, irrational one for trying to explain it to you. You're beyond help.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580331]Are you not actually reading my posts? For the third time: [B]THIS HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER NOR NOT A GRAND JURY RETURNS AN INDICTMENT[/B]. None. None whatsoever. The [B]STATISTICAL EVIDENCE[/B] that I linked indicates that, in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases, so many cases that saying "all cases" is only [I]technically[/I] incorrect, if the prosecutor seeks an indictment then he or she will get an indictment. The only way Bob McCulloch could have failed to get an indictment (assuming he had actually tried) is if something absurd happened like the defense demonstrated that Michael Brown was actually still alive and had never been shot in the first place. The clear picture that has been painted is that McCulloch did not actually seek an indictment despite the fact that it was his job to do so.
I can't keep rephrasing the same thing over and over.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe the fact that the evidence was so blatantly against Brown that there was zero justification to return an indictment because there is NO FUCKING CASE AGAINST WILSON.
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;46580410]It's almost as if you completely misinterpreted the point in his post. [I]Zero evidence to convict Darren Wilson means that an expensive trial past indictment is completely unnecessary[/I].[/QUOTE]
If there was actually zero evidence then that would mean that there isn't even a body and that Michael Brown is still alive and well.
[editline]26th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=viper720666;46580426]Or maybe the fact that the evidence was so blatantly against Brown that there was zero justification to return an indictment because there is NO FUCKING CASE AGAINST WILSON.[/QUOTE]
According to precedent, that Brown was shot at all should be enough evidence to return an indictment so that the case can move to trial.
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;46580441]To be quite frank
[img]http://puu.sh/d6yKd/66654a2082.png[/img]
we're kinda expecting this from you at this point.[/QUOTE]
Just like I've come to expect people personally attacking me instead of engaging my arguments. If you want to go for a twofer you can leave a comment on my profile telling me I should get banned. One of these days someone might get through to me...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.