Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://youtu.be/sdAYPQd1H1A

When you watch the video the reduced frame rate is what causes it to be slightly choppy. The video indicates to me that it's a very slow frame rate. As the image shifts aproximately once per second when viewing. I've watched thousands of hours worth of this type of video as my previous job entailed reviewing security tapes for court cases. When you watch reduced rate video it still plays at a similar speed as standard film despite being compressed, but the number of images that are actually captured are reduced which causes the motion to appear jumpy. (even a standard 24fps recording isn't perfect real time) If you watch for the minor motions you'll see very few actual footsteps, both the kids and officers legs alternate between up and down positions with very few transition frames in between, which at a higher fps would show their feet raising and lowering normally. That's a typical effect of half frame footage. It's not a perfect real time recording system, there are slightly buggy elements that can make the timing off by fractional amounts that becomes an issue when dealing with an event that's only seconds long.

This is also an issue that frequently complicates security footage in store robberies, the reduced number of pictures plus cruddy equipment often makes it difficult to capture all of the movements and action that is occurring, plus getting a clear image of the people is far more difficult due to having significantly fewer images to work with. Reduced frame rates also increase instances of pixelization and motion blur. It can cause the camera to completely miss fractionsof a second details, like the mid swing of a thrown punch, or muzzle flash from a gun shot.

I can't say for certain what frame rate the footage was taken at as I don't physically have the film to review, although I'm sure that the police and review panel that presided over the case would have been notified of such information and it would have been considered in any of their judgments. But we're all online experts so lets all pretend we're forensic scientists and know much better than the professionals that reviewed the case, they're clearly a bunch of idiots and those of us without any formal training can certainly do their jobs better and wouldn't bring any of our personal bias into things, right?

We can also trust all the news sources implicitly as they never make mistakes or under report aspects in order to promote the spin they want on things. Look at the press images of Travon Martin and Micheal Brown, cute smiling 12 year old boys that somehow reporters couldn't find a single photo taken at any point within the last 6 years? Publishing their 17-18 year old selves would ruin the narration of boyish innocence, and maintaining the narration is far more important than the truth. Truth doesn't secure ratings, narration does.

I like how your post does nothing to address your claim the video is possibly 12 seconds long when it's only 2 or so.

And before you respond with "I said 4 to 12", you argued from the point of view of an extra 9 seconds, which would admittedly be a huge difference.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I like how your post does nothing to address your claim the video is possibly 12 seconds long when it's only 2 or so.

And before you respond with "I said 4 to 12", you argued from the point of view of an extra 9 seconds, which would admittedly be a huge difference.

It *could* potentially be that long depending on the how the equipment is set (half vs quarter speed, even 8th speed, some old systems take as few as 1 frame per second) there are fractional amounts of time that are chopped out on films of all speeds, the slower the frame rate the more real time you lose. There are also time differences that occur depending on if they are using analog and digital recordings. It's surprising how old a lot of security equipment is, many of them are still using vcr tapes. How you transfer the recording between media formats can impact frame rates as well, in most situations the playback being off by a couple seconds isn't an issue, it's only when you are pouring over things in agonizing detail that it becomes a factor.

Even 2-3 second window is a lot of time for weapons fire or fast physical action. To give some perspective it takes less than half a second to swing a punch or draw a pistol. A trained shooter can empty the entire magazine of a glock in under 3 seconds. (it may not be very accurate but they can put out a lot of rounds in that time)

 stanman wrote:
There was quite a bit of time between when he was released and he passed out which means the hold was not responsible. A choke hold is only effective while it's being actively used, or if it manages to crush the windpipe, which was not the case as the throat was intact during in the autopsy.

Well, no, that's wrong. Any obstruction of the windpipe carries effective results even after the the hold is released.

You also need to consider the possibility that the 12 year old boy was bitten by a radioactive spider, which gave him reflexes far, far in excess of our frail mortal bodies. In that situation, not only would the boy have had the equivalent of 30 or maybe even 40 human minutes, as we perceive them. Had the officer not sprayed him with bullets, he might have gone on a citywide rampage, throwing buses everywhere, and so forth, and if you consider that very real possibility, shooting him repeatedly was actually the most reasonable thing to do.

 stanman wrote:

It *could* potentially be that long depending on the how the equipment is set (half vs quarter speed, even 8th speed, some old systems take as few as 1 frame per second) there are fractional amounts of time that are chopped out on films of all speeds, the slower the frame rate the more real time you lose.

But, unless intentionally manipulated, time-stamps don't lie.

 dogma wrote:

 stanman wrote:
There was quite a bit of time between when he was released and he passed out which means the hold was not responsible. A choke hold is only effective while it's being actively used, or if it manages to crush the windpipe, which was not the case as the throat was intact during in the autopsy.

Well, no, that's wrong. Any obstruction of the windpipe carries effective results even after the the hold is released.

This, 100x this. If you think that once a person is released from a choke hold they are out of danger, you need to learn a little bit more about the human body.

Also, this thread went off the rails when Stanman claimed the video wasn't in real time. People be throwing all sorts of "agendas" about in here.

 dogma wrote:

 stanman wrote:
There was quite a bit of time between when he was released and he passed out which means the hold was not responsible. A choke hold is only effective while it's being actively used, or if it manages to crush the windpipe, which was not the case as the throat was intact during in the autopsy.

Well, no, that's wrong. Any obstruction of the windpipe carries effective results even after the the hold is released.

And that's not even considering the damage constricting the major blood vessels either side of the neck, will do to someone.
The fact that he was over weight would mean his heart was working overtime already.

 dogma wrote:

 stanman wrote:
There was quite a bit of time between when he was released and he passed out which means the hold was not responsible. A choke hold is only effective while it's being actively used, or if it manages to crush the windpipe, which was not the case as the throat was intact during in the autopsy.

Well, no, that's wrong. Any obstruction of the windpipe carries effective results even after the the hold is released.

The windpipe was never obstructed. The reason he couldn't breath was because he was an obese man with asthma who was overexerting himself and under stress, not because he was being choked. The hold wasn't technically a choke hold, it was a submission hold. The difference is that the officer was constricting arterial blood flow, not the esophagus. Doesn't mean that the "choke hold" was any less instrumental in his eventual death, which the autopsy did find, merely that the officer didn't breach protocol.

EDIT: For the record, AGAIN, the time between the police officers pulling up and firing was between 1.5s and 2.0s. Why is this still an issue?

Stonebeard wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 stanman wrote:
There was quite a bit of time between when he was released and he passed out which means the hold was not responsible. A choke hold is only effective while it's being actively used, or if it manages to crush the windpipe, which was not the case as the throat was intact during in the autopsy.

Well, no, that's wrong. Any obstruction of the windpipe carries effective results even after the the hold is released.

The windpipe was never obstructed. The reason he couldn't breath was because he was an obese man with asthma who was overexerting himself and under stress, not because he was being choked. The hold wasn't technically a choke hold, it was a submission hold. The difference is that the officer was constricting arterial blood flow, not the esophagus. Doesn't mean that the "choke hold" was any less instrumental in his eventual death, which the autopsy did find, merely that the officer didn't breach protocol.

EDIT: For the record, AGAIN, the time between the police officers pulling up and firing was between 1.5s and 2.0s. Why is this still an issue?

because people are *ahem* and like not liking the police.

Stonebeard wrote:

The windpipe was never obstructed. The reason he couldn't breath was because he was an obese man with asthma who was overexerting himself and under stress, not because he was being choked. The hold wasn't technically a choke hold, it was a submission hold. The difference is that the officer was constricting arterial blood flow, not the esophagus. Doesn't mean that the "choke hold" was any less instrumental in his eventual death, which the autopsy did find, merely that the officer didn't breach protocol.

The constriction of arterial blood flow in the neck can still be referred to as a choke hold or, more properly, as a blood choke. I only referenced the windpipe specifically as Stanman did as much, and because it appears to me that the trachea was at least partially obstructed.

Stonebeard wrote:

For the record, AGAIN, the time between the police officers pulling up and firing was between 1.5s and 2.0s. Why is this still an issue?

Bad official video releases.

relevent. found this on deviant art so buckets of salt.

 dogma wrote:

Stonebeard wrote:

The windpipe was never obstructed. The reason he couldn't breath was because he was an obese man with asthma who was overexerting himself and under stress, not because he was being choked. The hold wasn't technically a choke hold, it was a submission hold. The difference is that the officer was constricting arterial blood flow, not the esophagus. Doesn't mean that the "choke hold" was any less instrumental in his eventual death, which the autopsy did find, merely that the officer didn't breach protocol.

The constriction of arterial blood flow in the neck can still be referred to as a choke hold or, more properly, as a blood choke. I only referenced the windpipe specifically as Stanman did as much, and because it appears to me that the trachea was at least partially obstructed.

Stonebeard wrote:

For the record, AGAIN, the time between the police officers pulling up and firing was between 1.5s and 2.0s. Why is this still an issue?

Bad official video releases.

I'm not really sure if that's true or not in the vernacular, I'm just going off how the NYPD defined the two.

Maybe, but the chief clearly stated during a press conference that the event took place over the aforementioned period of time.

Stonebeard wrote:

I'm not really sure if that's true or not in the vernacular, I'm just going off how the NYPD defined the two.

Fair enough, but I don't believe the NYPD has ever formally defined "submission hold", that's merely what other people have referred to this action as.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/01/13/watch-billings-police-officer-grant-morrison-sobs-after-killing-unarmed-suspect

Video of shortly after the shooting.

How sad, killing a person must have really ruined his day. :(

 Dreadwinter wrote:
How sad, killing a person must have really ruined his day. :(

You are totally clueless and I leave it at that

 djones520 wrote:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/01/13/watch-billings-police-officer-grant-morrison-sobs-after-killing-unarmed-suspect

Video of shortly after the shooting.

Yeah...

That was tough to watch.

I can't imagine what I'd be like if I took someone's life, either in defense or accidently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
How sad, killing a person must have really ruined his day. :(

You are totally clueless and I leave it at that

Said it nicer than I would've.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
How sad, killing a person must have really ruined his day. :(

You are totally clueless and I leave it at that

How so? Please inform.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Dronze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I believe the caller's exact words were, "It might be an airsoft gun". A BB or Pellet gun is actually a real firearm.

And "might be fake" is the exact same as "might be real". You always assume the gun is real, end of story.

you're missing the point, Templar. There was no attempt to peacefully defuse the situation. There is rarely an attempt to peacefully defuse such situations anymore. The present culture of law enforcement seems to be one of just getting your gun off when you can feasibly get away with it . a gun is meant to be a final resort, not a go-to response, especially in cases such as dealing with a child. Physical altercation, as well, generally meant to be resorted to when other avenues have failed, not as a primary means of gaining compliance from a suspect or bystander.

above and beyond this, the justice system needs a better means of calling these people into account when they screw up, and better training to keep them from doing so as frequently as they do now.

Yes, there was an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. it was the instruction to put your hands up. If they hadn't attempted, they would have just immediately shot him on sight, that is not what happened.

However they can't scream that at the same time they are shooting at the kid (or immediately open fire in an unreasonable amount of time) or if the kid is complying.
Kid's age is irrelevant. A 12 year completely coated up with hood is indeterminate age, and the 911 call thought he was a a teenager (IIRC).

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
How sad, killing a person must have really ruined his day. :(

You are totally clueless and I leave it at that

How so? Please inform.

I'm going to assume he thinks you're being snarky.

I want to know what I am clueless about, though.

That killing somebody can have a damaging effect mentally?

You seemed to be implying that the officer shouldn't be crying.

 Medium of Death wrote:
That killing somebody can have a damaging effect mentally?

You seemed to be implying that the officer shouldn't be crying.

or expressing a complete lack of sympathy for an unjustified killer. Hmm... sarcasm -does- work...

 Medium of Death wrote:
That killing somebody can have a damaging effect mentally?

You seemed to be implying that the officer shouldn't be crying.

That is not at all what I am implying. He should be crying. He just killed a human being.

I just have no sympathy for him.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
That killing somebody can have a damaging effect mentally?

You seemed to be implying that the officer shouldn't be crying.

That is not at all what I am implying. He should be crying. He just killed a human being.

I just have no sympathy for him.

Well maybe you should. It was a justified shooting.

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
That killing somebody can have a damaging effect mentally?

You seemed to be implying that the officer shouldn't be crying.

That is not at all what I am implying. He should be crying. He just killed a human being.

I just have no sympathy for him.

Well maybe you should. It was a justified shooting.

Ah yes, an unarmed man was killed. No punishment was given. Justice was served.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
That killing somebody can have a damaging effect mentally?

You seemed to be implying that the officer shouldn't be crying.

That is not at all what I am implying. He should be crying. He just killed a human being.

I just have no sympathy for him.

Well maybe you should. It was a justified shooting.

Ah yes, an unarmed man was killed. No punishment was given. Justice was served.

Hindsight always has 20/20 vision. It doesn't help when something is taking place, though.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
That killing somebody can have a damaging effect mentally?

You seemed to be implying that the officer shouldn't be crying.

That is not at all what I am implying. He should be crying. He just killed a human being.

I just have no sympathy for him.

Well maybe you should. It was a justified shooting.

Ah yes, an unarmed man was killed. No punishment was given. Justice was served.

Hindsight always has 20/20 vision. It doesn't help when something is taking place, though.

I am not sure how that is relevant. Just because we can look back and understand that the person made a mistake, is not a valid reason to not punish a person.

The officer made a bad judgement call and it ended in the worst way possible, with the death of a civilian. But lets not punish him for messing up royally. Lets rub his back, tell him he is not a criminal, then give him a gun and put him back out there. He is one of the good guys!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
That killing somebody can have a damaging effect mentally?

You seemed to be implying that the officer shouldn't be crying.

That is not at all what I am implying. He should be crying. He just killed a human being.

I just have no sympathy for him.

Well maybe you should. It was a justified shooting.

Ah yes, an unarmed man was killed. No punishment was given. Justice was served.

An action being justified does not necessarily mean the situation was just or that justice was done, depending on perspective.

On one hand you have an officer who did everything, seemingly anyway, by the book and in accordance with police protocol. He did not go in to this situation with malicious intent, wanting to harm someone just for the sake of harming them. He didn't go into that situation wanting to shoot that man. Indeed, from what we can see of his reaction, he was horrified by it and distraught. He took an innocent man's life, and he seemed to feel an immense amount of sadness for it. That being said, the officer also did everything as he was instructed to do, taught to do. Yes, the man who died was no threat; however, the officer did not know he wasn't reaching for a gun. The officer warned the man multiple times to step away from the car and to get his hands up, but the man refused and continued to reach into the vehicle. What if it was a rifle? Should he let it be drawn, risk no only his life but the lives of others. Its a tough call, one I would never want to make, but it would seem his training told him to fire, so his action was justified. That does not, however, mean justice was done. It wasn't: the officer was put in an impossible situation which lead to him being at least pushed to take the life of an innocent man, something that he has to live with the rest of his life. Not showing at least some degree of sympathy for the officer here seems a bit callous to me.

For the man who died? No. He was unarmed and his death was needless. Situations, some beyond his control, many entirely within, led to him being killed when he certainly didn't deserve it. He didn't need to die, but he did. Justice wasn't done by him, but throwing an innocent, and the police officer is innocent in that he did everything by the book and he had no malicious intent, in jail for his death isn't justice either.

Sometimes you just have gakky situations. It's just how it goes.