Liberals... Are you flipping serious? Camera Bias ROFL

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...n_limit.2.html

"Could camera-perspective bias have played a role in the outcome of Victor Harris’ case?"

WOW camera bias? REALLY? It really feels like liberals want to find a reason, ANY reason to excuse crime. Why are they always on the side of the criminals?

"We should be particularly careful when footage doesn’t show all parties in the frame or when it captures only some of the key events. Alternatively, we might allow it to be entered into evidence only with the consent of the defendant."

Another fun bombshell. "Well you see yes this footage shows the defendant shooting and killing the child but there might be *camera perspective bias* so we won't be able to show the tape in court." Seriously? Who in the hell thinks this is a good idea?

I searched for the word liberal in that article and got no hits, how is this a liberal thing?

since you guys can't seem to stop feeding this moron, I'll throw up a picture

https://ivymosquito.files.wordpress....nipulation.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I searched for the word liberal in that article and got no hits, how is this a liberal thing?

---

RB please don't be obtuse. Do you think the writer of this article leans toward the right or the left? And yes I am using the US-centric definition of liberal.

I don't know, I didn't see any obviously partisan policial mantras or political support.

Unless you've started as a voodoo psychic I fail to see how this is an issue of US-liberalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I don't know, I didn't see any obviously partisan policial mantras or political support.

Unless you've started as a voodoo psychic I fail to see how this is an issue of US-liberalism.

---

Odds are when an article writer is proposing something beneficial in favor of criminals (such as a defendant being able to veto video evidence due to 'camera perspective bias') those are good odds that the person writing is a liberal.

And lo and behold - he is!

https://twitter.com/benforado

OPINION: this forum should automatically replace the words 'liberal' in Lewkowski's posts with the words "Billy Goat Gruff"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

OPINION: this forum should automatically replace the words 'liberal' in Lewkowski's posts with the words "Billy Goat Gruff"

---

Amusing but do you actually support this nonsense position of not allowing video footage in trials without the defendants consent?

Do you think he's not a liberal?

Other than your bellyaching about the use of the term to you have anything substantive to add to the discussion? Or are you just trolling?

I couldn't give two hoots if he's a liberal, his opinion is a personal one and not representative of all liberals you absolute blithering idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I couldn't give two hoots if he's a liberal, his opinion is a personal one and not representative of all liberals you absolute blithering idiot.

---

If you didn't give two hoots if he was a liberal why bother with posting this:

"I don't know, I didn't see any obviously partisan policial mantras or political support."

Clearly your point was that there wasn't any proof he was a liberal. I provide evidence of his liberals leanings and you then say you don't give two hoots about it? Uh huh. Have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell me too? ;)

Because nothing in the link had anything whatsoever to do with liberals. It wouldn't matter a single jot if an individual is a liberal, unless you are a complete idiot you don't judge an entire group by one person. Are you a complete idiot?

Should I start posting idiotic articles by someone who is a Christian and labelling all Christians as idiots as a result. If I find out that the so-called liberal who wrote this article was a Christian should I repost this with the title Christians... Are you flipping serious?

Grow up and stop being a moron.

If it wasn't important why did you question it?

Furthermore liberal is a term to describe a semi-cohesive group of people with similar opinions on political issues. This is a political issue. This is absolutely relevant to liberals as a whole and their mode of thinking. If this was a religious discussion than absolutely discussing Christians as a group could be appropriate (depending on the discussion).

Yeah but liberals as you call then really don't have as similar opinions as you think they do. By a long shot. By the way, I recall some police departments being reluctant to release footage as evidence against their own, I guess they are liberals as well?

By the way, while I don't think it should be allows only when the defendant allows it (would be nice if the defendant could block all evidence against him) the line you quoted before that is true (for all evidence), you should always keep in mind a camera only shows what is in its picture, you don't know what happened off camera before or during the recording.

For the record, though the phenomenon is probably not all that relevant to this poorly chosen example, "camera-perspective bias" is a relatively well-studied and not entirely insignificant problem in trials eg. when it comes to video-taped false confessions. See eg. the wikipedia article for an introduction and some sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_...rspective_bias), as well as

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0314093304.htm

and refs 118 - 122 : http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/...-body-cameras/

And, of course, from the article in the OP:

Quote:

---

In a powerful demonstration of this phenomenon, a group of law professors decided to test the Supreme Court’s conclusion that “no reasonable juror” could watch the footage of the chase that left Victor Harris paralyzed and see Victor’s evasion of the police as anything but extremely dangerous and the cause of the eventual crash. The researchers asked a diverse group of 1,350 Americans to watch the video and then offer their impressions.

What they found were clear rifts in perception along ideological, cultural, and other lines concerning the key issues in the case. A less affluent, liberal, highly educated black woman with egalitarian and communitarian views was far more likely than a wealthy, conservative white man supportive of existing social hierarchies and individualism to see Officer Scott and the police as the primary culprits.

---

Rather than to allow defendants to block evidence perhaps it would be advisable for defendants' attorneys to discuss the research on camera perspective bias before presenting such evidence to the jury :o

Rednecks and perverts don't need to bother reading any of the above of course.

Camera perspective bias is a modern problem in the sport of cricket. In the modern game players are allowed to review the on-field umpires decisions in which case the "third umpire" reviews the TV camera footage to check if the right decision was made on the field.

One way to take a wicket in cricket is to catch the ball before it bounces on the ground. It is a known problem that the "camera lies" in a low close to the ground catch as from the perspective of the camera the ball will appear to strike the ground when it fact it was caught cleanly. This leads to the problem of the cameras footage being less accurate than the original decision without the aid of technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Rather than to allow defendants to block evidence perhaps it would be advisable for defendants' attorneys to discuss the research on camera perspective bias before presenting such evidence to the jury :o

Rednecks and perverts don't need to bother reading any of the above of course.

---

It would be a waste of the defendant's time at best. At worst it would actively alienate the jury. Explaining about perspective bias is fine if you're talking about a witness, the actions of the defendant or those acting against him/her, etc. but what you're talking about telling the jury is "be cautious about your conclusions because you're going to have bias/be biased." And people in general have a really hard time acknowledging they might be biased at all, much less what shape those biases take. The best you can expect is that a couple of jurors do keep an open mind and are aware that what they think they see might not have been the reality. . . which leaves them open to being persuaded to the firmer opinions of the other jurors who did not keep an open mind. At worst, you just get them pissed at you for calling them biased and make it that much easier to find against you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Camera perspective bias is a modern problem in the sport of cricket. In the modern game players are allowed to review the on-field umpires decisions in which case the "third umpire" reviews the TV camera footage to check if the right decision was made on the field.

One way to take a wicket in cricket is to catch the ball before it bounces on the ground. It is a known problem that the "camera lies" in a low close to the ground catch as from the perspective of the camera the ball will appear to strike the ground when it fact it was caught cleanly. This leads to the problem of the cameras footage being less accurate than the original decision without the aid of technology.

---

On the flip side camera technology has changed how umpiring is done, from their stance to how the strike zone is framed. The strike zone now sits lower than it ever has before and the pitchers are loving it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

On the flip side camera technology has changed how umpiring is done, from their stance to how the strike zone is framed. The strike zone now sits lower than it ever has before and the pitchers are loving it.

---

Do you follow cricket? I'm a huge fan of the sport and I enjoy the DRS camera system, I think its definitely made the game better and got a role to play. My point was on how camera perspective problems are real and cameras aren't infallible.

Do they only use one camera or what? If it's a known perspective problem, what exactly hinders them from adding another camera which catches the offending angle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Do you follow cricket? I'm a huge fan of the sport and I enjoy the DRS camera system, I think its definitely made the game better and got a role to play. My point was on how camera perspective problems are real and cameras aren't infallible.

---

Nope, I was referring to baseball. Showing how the addition of cameras has helped tilt the game in the pitcher's favor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Do they only use one camera or what? If it's a known perspective problem, what exactly hinders them from adding another camera which catches the offending angle?

---

They have dozens of cameras. The problem is that when you're deal with a catch it is in the field (the stumps are stationery so are more covered) and they'll normally cycle through three different cameras but it is still an issue. It doesn't matter how HD a camera is when you zoom in from above to a catch only just above the ground it looks like it is touching the ground.

Couldn't you just interrogate the catcher* and make him confess?









* Or the ball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

For the record, though the phenomenon is probably not all that relevant to this poorly chosen example, "camera-perspective bias" is a relatively well-studied and not entirely insignificant problem in trials eg. when it comes to video-taped false confessions. See eg. the wikipedia article for an introduction and some sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_...rspective_bias), as well as

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0314093304.htm

and refs 118 - 122 : http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/...-body-cameras/

And, of course, from the article in the OP:



Rather than to allow defendants to block evidence perhaps it would be advisable for defendants' attorneys to discuss the research on camera perspective bias before presenting such evidence to the jury :o

Rednecks and perverts don't need to bother reading any of the above of course.

---

That's because a certain sub group of folks actually support the criminal class. (Liberals). In general there is a huge cultural bias against the police in the black community as well. There really shouldn't have been any doubt of O.J. Simpson's crimes but most black people in polls during the trial thought he was innocent.

ITT: Lewk proposes banning black people from serving on juries :o

And he insists that there is no cultural bias against black people in the police community too, despite all the actual data demonstrating it.

Hey Lewk, maybe any "bias" among the black community is because so many have personally experienced, time and time again, that the police are the most likely to act against them in a biased manner. That's the excuse you use for how all the police statistics are so weighted against the black community, why don't you think it swings both ways?

I don't think there is a general cultural bias against black people in the police community - however individual departments may vary. In many places where this police bias has been claimed often also have black police officers. Care to explain why that would be a thing if the police were so completely biased?

In any event certain parts of the neighborhood are riskier than others. That's not bias - that's fact. I'd argue that a white guy dressed like a hood and a black guy dressed like a hood are going to be treated with equal amounts of caution. Just like a black man in a suit and a white man in a suit on the nice part of town aren't ever going to have to worry about police interference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

ITT: Lewk proposes banning black people from serving on juries :o

---

Polls and actually serving on a jury are two separate things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Polls and actually serving on a jury are two separate things.

---

How right you are, see previously mentioned studies on how people on juries can be affected by camera perspective bias

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I don't think there is a general cultural bias against black people in the police community - however individual departments may vary. In many places where this police bias has been claimed often also have black police officers. Care to explain why that would be a thing if the police were so completely biased?

---

Because the problem is a cultural bias and it's possible to belong to more than one cultural subset? Lots of the people you condemn are white, doesn't stop your bigotry.

Quote:

---

In any event certain parts of the neighborhood are riskier than others.

---

And people in certain jobs are riskier even to law-abiding black people. One of those groups are police officers.

I condemn criminals. If that makes me a bigot - sure call me a bigot. I condemn people for their actions - not their born characteristics. Choices define people and I absolutely think those choices make some lives more or less valuable.