News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
It's the only reason you believed the police before they released the video.
As though you don't have excuses for why each of them had it coming too.
No. I believed their easily verifiable description of the events.
I'm more pissed off about each of them than you are. Castile in particular.
It wasn't verifiable before they posted the video. In the absence of evidence, you believed the people who shot a black person.
I don't think you understood my point. You seem to have missed an important difference in meaning between "verified" and "verifiable".
"Three angels can dance on the head of a pin" is not a verifiable statement. It can't be proven true or false. "There are three cats in this bag" is readily verifiable, even if that fact has not yet been verified.
Their claims were readily verifiable at the moment they made them; they were verified when the video was released.
Knowing that the police would want to paint themselves in as positive light as possible, and knowing how bad they would look in getting caught making so blatant a lie, trusting their statement was not unreasonable.
You believed them immediately without evidence.
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.
The evidence you had was a cop said it.
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?
I don't believe cops until I have proof. You believe them immediately.
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.
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.
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.
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 " 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.
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 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.
I've been following this story since before the pigs announced they were going to release footage.
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.
"Guilty until proven innocent" is the legal standard of a dictatorship, lynch mob, organized crime syndicate, or kindergartner. There is nothing of value to take away from your position.
First of all, we're talking about my personal standard for believing someone. I do not trust people who voluntarily join an institution with a long unrepentant history of racist oppression. Their word is garbage and I require actual evidence.
They chose to become cops. I don't trust them for the same reason I don't trust white supremacists. It's like trusting a babysitter wearing a NAMBLA shirt.
Understood.
Still not seeing anything of value to take away from your position, but I do understand it.
Well, look. I'm not going to become a cop just so you can value my opinion on things.
Oh, you absolutely should not be a cop.
You should go read a few history books, and maybe take a few civics classes, but you should absolutely not be a cop.
Why do you think I don't trust cops?
Because you have never had any formal training on the laws governing use of force, and your worldview is shaped by the opinions of people who have never had any formal training on the laws governing use of force. Unfortunately, with a few rare exceptions (Chris Dorner, Philando Castile spring to mind) the deceased also had no formal training on the laws governing use of force.
Dorner knew them, and committed suicide by cop. Castile knew them, followed them, and was murdered.
It is a travesty that our government only provides this training to police. It should be taught in high-school civics/social studies/government classes, so the general public is aware of when it can use force, and when force may be used on it.
Cops' "formal training" includes courses on "kill-ology". They get rewarded with paid vacation and the adoration of people like you. I've run into people like you on reddit. As long as I keep responding, you're planning to fire off one of these pro-murderpig comments every 24 hours or so to see how long you can keep me going.
As with reddit, I can choose to not participate. I'm making that choice. Inflict yourself on someone else. I'm free to leave.