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

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s the only reason you believed the police before they released the video.

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

    As though you don’t have excuses for why each of them had it coming too.

    I’m more pissed off about each of them than you are. Castile in particular.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 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.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 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.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              The evidence I had was their readily verifiable claim.

              The evidence you had was a cop said it.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 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.

                  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 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.