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

  • @Ensign_Crab
    link
    English
    31 year ago

    No. I believed their easily verifiable description of the events.

    It wasn’t verifiable before they posted the video. In the absence of evidence, you believed the people who shot a black person.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -31 year ago

      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.

      • @Ensign_Crab
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        You believed them immediately without evidence.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -41 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
            link
            English
            21 year ago

            The evidence I had was their readily verifiable claim.

            The evidence you had was a cop said it.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -31 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
                link
                English
                31 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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -21 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
                    link
                    English
                    01 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.