Shoot dogs, help me?

[Jdsk]

n general (i.e. not specifically related to this case) I think release of public recorded video has become crucial if us getting any knowledge of how the Police have been behaving. e.g. recent Cardiff riot where Police and Crime Commissioner insisted no Police involved prior to riot starting and Social Media rumours were lies. Had it not been for private CCTV released to the press, that is where the story would have stayed. It's only through the private CCTV recording that questions were asked and despite video evidence Police continued to try and cover themselves with lies until somebody in Police realised they have to admit to something ...

Police, over a fair number of incidents have lost a lot of public trust (I no long trust them and my mis-trust has gradually sunk to "rock-bottom"). Without such public video evidence I believe we'd just be getting lies and cover-ups.

Specific to the dog video it absolutely demonstrates the dogs were calm, looking to owner for guidance and not out to attack.

Video evidence is very interesting. Of course there's extensive discussion in this forum of filming other road users.

One aspect that's worth considering is how the ability to replay many times and to slow the action affects our interpretation of people's thoughts and intentions. There's an early study from the USA in a legal setting where it appears to cause witnesses to over-interpret intent. This seems plausible.

I'm particularly interested in this because of the need to reduce brain injury in rugby. Intent is currently relevant in some versions of the assessment schema used by officials.

I was reading your post and just about to make a similar point wrt slo-mo replays in rugby in particular, and the influence they seem to exert on outcomes (last statement not evidence-based, but a strong feeling)

Slo-mo great for the 'was the player in touch?' type queries, not so good for other matters, IMHO.

"Slow motion increases perceived intent":
https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xycku ... ntfull.pdf

Jonathan

[Bonefishblues]

They've gone to an awful lot of trouble and clearly done a good deal of research - I mean, I could have just told 'em and saved all that hassle

[Jdsk]

They've gone to an awful lot of trouble and clearly done a good deal of research - I mean, I could have just told 'em and saved all that hassle

Could you repeat that slowly?

; - )

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

From a review of piece by Steven Berkoff at https://observer.com/2002/02/berkoff-is ... did-he-go/ I hope it amuses.

All bets were on the third piece, entitled Dog . Against the grain, it was here that I saw, as it were, the Berkoff light. A lunatic soccer-loving skinhead appears in a Union Jack T-shirt. His beer belly sags over his sweat pants as he struggles with an imaginary dog called Roy, who’s straining dangerously on his lead. Mr. Berkoff plays the dog, too. Those of you offended by the C-word, please read no further.

Still with us, eh? Oh, good . The skinhead warns us about his mad dog, “Nah, ‘e’s alright, ‘e gets a bit excited, that’s all, ‘e’s got a bad press, ‘snot his fault that kid stuck his nut [head] between his jaws. Come ‘ere, you little <i>[rude word removed]</i>!”

Whereupon the dog answers back, “Stop pulling my lead, you <i>[rude word removed]</i>, or I’ll sink my teeth into your fuckin’ leg.”

“‘Ere, come ‘ere, you naughty boy,” his master responds affectionately. “Nah, ‘e’s lovely ‘e is, arncha, Roy? You can pat ‘im! Go on, PAT ‘IM!! ‘E won’t ‘urtcha.”

But he will. He will ‘ urtcha …. And yet we laugh at Mr. Berkoff’s lethally wonderful invention of the pride of England, the East End soccer fanatic and racist thug and his loyal companion, Roy the psychotic pit bull terrier. Both are one and the same out-of-control foaming thing . Mr. Berkoff’s real talent, thus far hidden from me, has come to the boil to create a vivid Cockney grotesque in the great tradition of Dickens.


His grotesque inventions take us on a guided tour of bloody muggings –”ROY, GET THAT JAW OPEN, YOU <i>[rude word removed]</i>. Bless ‘im, ‘e’s got a bite like a steel vice.” Our skinhead antihero sinks 35 pints of lager at the pub before throwing up horribly. “WHOOOOOOSH! Right skating rink it was. ‘Course, Roy’s not fussy …. ”

At one particularly foul point, Roy’s master puts his head affectionately in his jaws and seems to come out the other end. But I don’t want to go into that now.

[Tangled Metal]

That south Wales incident was about the police following kids on a bike and causing a crash that killed one, right? Police denied following and social media conspiracies had it that they were still following at time of crash I believe. However cctv and other footage shows the kids going one way and police tracker showing it going the other.

I think that's a case of police denying something when better coming clean but the accusers also making stuff up on social media. The whole situation isn't clear cut and is also undergoing independent investigation.

I know it's unlikely to be popular on here, but I do think there is a tendency for ppl to see videos or social reporting on social media and making judgements more based on their own prejudices and social conscience. There's no desire to give independent review the chance to get to the truth, there's the viewer's truth and that's enough for you.

Police are everything from criminal to virtuous and everything in between. No different to us then I guess.

[Psamathe]

That south Wales incident was about the police following kids on a bike and causing a crash that killed one, right? Police denied following and social media conspiracies had it that they were still following at time of crash I believe. However cctv and other footage shows the kids going one way and police tracker showing it going the other.

I think that's a case of police denying something when better coming clean but the accusers also making stuff up on social media. The whole situation isn't clear cut and is also undergoing independent investigation.

I know it's unlikely to be popular on here, but I do think there is a tendency for ppl to see videos or social reporting on social media and making judgements more based on their own prejudices and social conscience. There's no desire to give independent review the chance to get to the truth, there's the viewer's truth and that's enough for you.
...

The CCTV I saw (sand there are several) Police van was following the kids on the bike (same direction short distance behind
e.g.


or a different CCT somewhere else on the road


Maybe when you say ... cctv and other footage shows the kids going one way and police tracker showing it going the other youve been believing the Police story? (contrary to the video evidence (or maybe I'm "over analysing the ambiguous directions?)

Although the one I saw on TV was yet a different one (all showing police following bike in same direction - pretty clear cut to me (Police were lying when they made out that Police were not around before riot stated.

...
Police are everything from criminal to virtuous and everything in between. No different to us then I guess.

I agree but the trouble that the Police are in a unique position of power e.g. they carry guns and shoot people and things. A bad apple in the Police force is a major issue compared to society as a whole. Ans these days there seem an endless supply of "bad apples" in the Police Force.

Ian

[Tangled Metal]

The CCTV was earlier, they broke off some time before the crash and went in a different direction. That was shown on. A satellite map of the area on the news last night showing the locations and times of the footage showing the police and kids then the kids without police. The final location of the police was also shown at the time of the crash. There was no footage of both together from the junction the police split off from following.

All that will be verifiable by the independent review and will come out. By that time most of the conspiracy theorists on social media will have forgotten that incident by then and moved on to the next knee jerk condemnation of the police based on what they've been telling each other on social media.

Police aren't the only occupation where bad apples are serious. There's a case going through the courts now of an alleged bad apple nurse. These people are human like everyone else and yes I too think these people should be the best of us not the average or worst. However humans mess up and do all sorts of stupid things to mitigate their mistakes. Plus they do absolute wrong.

However I suppose it's likely to be the want of people on this forum to be more critical of the police considering the political leanings of the political thread participants.

[Bonefishblues]

The CCTV was earlier, they broke off some time before the crash and went in a different direction. That was shown on. A satellite map of the area on the news last night showing the locations and times of the footage showing the police and kids then the kids without police. The final location of the police was also shown at the time of the crash. There was no footage of both together from the junction the police split off from following.

All that will be verifiable by the independent review and will come out. By that time most of the conspiracy theorists on social media will have forgotten that incident by then and moved on to the next knee jerk condemnation of the police based on what they've been telling each other on social media.

Police aren't the only occupation where bad apples are serious. There's a case going through the courts now of an alleged bad apple nurse. These people are human like everyone else and yes I too think these people should be the best of us not the average or worst. However humans mess up and do all sorts of stupid things to mitigate their mistakes. Plus they do absolute wrong.

However I suppose it's likely to be the want of people on this forum to be more critical of the police considering the political leanings of the political thread participants.

The reason they broke off was that the kids turned down a road with bollards at the end and therefore the van had to take a different route, it is widely understood.

[ossie]

.

[ossie]

They shoot to kill because a wounded person is likely to be very pissed off with whoever has shot them!

Hmmm well my aquaintance from Lithuania didn't seem to encounter any problems by shooting to disable. It's more likely they shoot to kill becaus ethey know they can get away with it, so care little about doing it.

They shoot to eliminate the threat, not to kill. The ammunition used is often fatal as they don't want Mrs Miggins at her kitchen sink half a mile away getting slotted by a round that went straight through the target. If you look at a body you have a large body mass in the middle with two legs and a couple of arms hanging off it. Hitting the mass is much easier and more effective than aiming for an arm with a 5 inch diameter.

The police in Lithuania will have a very similar policy and training as here, Germany, France, Spain [removed by moderator]

[Tangled Metal]

The reason they broke off was that the kids turned down a road with bollards at the end and therefore the van had to take a different route, it is widely understood.

True but still they were not at the site of the accident so what exactly is the issue, that they were following the kids for some reason them denied it? They certainly weren't directly involved in the accident. So basically if they'd been honest and stated they had been following and their reasons would that make it any better?

[axel_knutt]

I think I'd be wanting to see a map with the location of the crash, the location of the videos, and the location of the van at the time of the crash marked on it before I made up my mind what happened.

[Bonefishblues]

The reason they broke off was that the kids turned down a road with bollards at the end and therefore the van had to take a different route, it is widely understood.

True but still they were not at the site of the accident so what exactly is the issue, that they were following the kids for some reason them denied it? They certainly weren't directly involved in the accident. So basically if they'd been honest and stated they had been following and their reasons would that make it any better?

Yes, it would have quelled the fury & speculation that the police were hiding something as the fuller facts came out, courtesy of household CCTV footage, which meant the police issued a detailed timeline.

Van closely follows 2 kids at speed, who are reported to have turned round and fled (insert other term if desired). Kids give police the slip by using a route they can't follow. What do we think they are now likely to do (the bike riders):

a. Stop and go about their normal business
b. Reduce speed and blend into the background
c. Believe they may still be a target of police attention and make good their escape

I think probably c. Whether that contributed to the accident that resulted in their deaths, who knows, but the original statement in its, at best, brevity and partial account, fuelled the furore.

[Bonefishblues]

I think I'd be wanting to see a map with the location of the crash, the location of the videos, and the location of the van at the time of the crash marked on it before I made up my mind what happened.

Web has it.

[francovendee]

That south Wales incident was about the police following kids on a bike and causing a crash that killed one, right? Police denied following and social media conspiracies had it that they were still following at time of crash I believe. However cctv and other footage shows the kids going one way and police tracker showing it going the other.

I think that's a case of police denying something when better coming clean but the accusers also making stuff up on social media. The whole situation isn't clear cut and is also undergoing independent investigation.

I know it's unlikely to be popular on here, but I do think there is a tendency for ppl to see videos or social reporting on social media and making judgements more based on their own prejudices and social conscience. There's no desire to give independent review the chance to get to the truth, there's the viewer's truth and that's enough for you.

Police are everything from criminal to virtuous and everything in between. No different to us then I guess.

It's a tragedy when someone gets killed and it's more comforting to blame someone. What doesn't seem to be mentioned is why the two were being followed, before or at the time of the crash. I assume they were arousing suspicion or breaking the law?