Current Events > This is what we talk about when talk about defund the police

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/Oregonian/status/1415724721811898375

---

Life in prison for everyone involved in this blatant fucking frame job. Jfc.

I mean, sounds like the dude really did it and wore items of clothing to obscure the tattoos. Not really as suggestive when context is given.

---

Wtf

---

COVxy posted...

I mean, sounds like the dude really did it and wore items of clothing to obscure the tattoos. Not really as suggestive when context is given.

He also plead guilty, turned his life around and only had to serve 5 months total. The prosecutor and defense worked together and persuaded the judge that he was a changed man. He works in the community now to make sure people don't end up like he was back then, and that career criminals can see that there is a better path forward.

---

Alright, so I read the full article (which, clearly the writer of that tweet didn't).

He actually is the robbery suspect. They thought witnesses wouldn't recognize him with the tattoos because most of them were covered when he was robbing the banks.

Still not a good precedent to set with modifying photos used in court, but it's not a frame job.

---

NoxObscuras posted...

Alright, so I read the full article (which, clearly the writer of that tweet didn't).

That's the twitter of the journal the article was written in. It's deliberately deceptive to draw in clicks. Clickbait. Unfortunately shit like this will get massively shared across social media and most people will not click, but take the misleading headline as fact.

It's unethical journalism.

---

Defunding won't solve this, they'll just use Gimp.

---

COVxy posted...

That's the twitter of the journal the article was written in. It's deliberately deceptive to draw in clicks. Clickbait. Unfortunately shit like this will get massively shared across social media and most people will not click, but take the misleading headline as fact.

It's unethical journalism.

Oh you're right, Oregon Live is The Oregonian... Well they definitely got TC to share it.

---

That's what we're presenting, no photoshop no altering anything just go with pure evidence and photographs that's messed up the cops did that that's what we're sayiing

---

I don't get how defunding them for this kind of situation would do anything. They would just use a cheaper program lol. Also it makes sense to alter the photo in this case.

Were_Wyrm posted...

Defunding won't solve this, they'll just use Gimp.

---

Crescente posted...

I don't get how defunding them for this kind of situation would do anything. They would just use a cheaper program lol. Also it makes sense to alter the photo in this case.

No, no it does not. There's no excuse for this shady ass behavior. Even if they had a good reason, altering someone's mugshot photo is incredibly illegal.

---

OldHorrorGuy posted...

No, no it does not. There's no excuse for this shady ass behavior. Even if they had a good reason, altering someone's mugshot photo is incredibly illegal.

Idk what you think happens normally, but mugshot procedures have been historically extremely variable. Eyewitness testimony generally sucks to begin with, to the point where it's borderline unethical to present it to a jury.

But there's nothing outrageous about what was done here.

---

This has literally nothing to do with funding.

---

COVxy posted...

Idk what you think happens normally, but mugshot procedures have been historically extremely variable. Eyewitness testimony generally sucks to begin with, to the point where it's borderline unethical to present it to a jury.

But there's nothing outrageous about what was done here.

Again, yes, there is. There is no acceptable excuse for altering a mugshot. End of story. This could've easily led to the guy getting off the hook.

---

This isnt a clear cut case of cops being dirty when the guy actually did the crime

Slayerblade11 posted...

This isnt a clear cut case of cops being dirty when the guy actually did the crime

Doesnt matter if he did or not honestly. The act, in and of itself, is that of a dirty cop.

OldHorrorGuy posted...

Even if they had a good reason, altering someone's mugshot photo is incredibly illegal.

OldHorrorGuy posted...

There is no acceptable excuse for altering a mugshot.

I mean, you're wrong. It is legal. The only real mistep they took here is they didn't detail in writing how they altered the photo. But it is legal to do so, and with good reason.

---

Slayerblade11 posted...

This isnt a clear cut case of cops being dirty when the guy actually did the crime

It's still clear cut. It was extremely illegal, and could've easily gotten the guy off completely because at that point, any evidence that comes from the eye witness incriminating him is inadmissible. The cops are lucky the guy turned his shit around rather than taking advantage of this to get out and victimize more people.

---

Bandit_Keith posted...

I mean, you're wrong. It is legal. The only real mistep they took here is they didn't detail in writing how they altered the photo. But it is legal to do so, and with good reason.

That's a pretty massive misstep, and no, altering it like they did is not legal.

---

Thousands of police officers around the country should be imprisoned for their crimes, harshly and after only the faintest of trials. These guys are among them.

---

OldHorrorGuy posted...

It's still clear cut. It was extremely illegal, and could've easily gotten the guy off completely because at that point, any evidence that comes from the eye witness incriminating him is inadmissible. The cops are lucky the guy turned his shit around rather than taking advantage of this to get out and victimize more people.

Fruit from the poison tree. Was he originally arrested because the eye witness pointed him out of a lineup? If so, the arrest itself could be at issue. (Theoretically for another time of this happening)

daynlokki posted...

Doesnt matter if he did or not honestly. The act, in and of itself, is that of a dirty cop.

The only impropriety at hand is not clarifying that the photos were modified. Modifying visual evidence to match the circumstances of the crime scene and crime is an entirely common practice if it's to demonstrate a valid point--I'm sure most judges would agree that modifying an image, if done transparently and equitably, to adjust for something like a nylon face-covering would yield the most reliable results.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

The only impropriety at hand is not clarifying that the photos were modified. Modifying visual evidence to match the circumstances of the crime scene and crime is an entirely common practice if it's to demonstrate a valid point--I'm sure most judges would agree that modifying an image, if done transparently and equitably, to adjust for something like a nylon face-covering would yield the most reliable results.

Yes and considering the fact they CONVENIENTLY left that out, the act is dirty. This isnt something you just forget to do. They have procedures for a reason and they usually come in list form for what the officer needs to do. By seemingly purposefully not following these procedures in order to obtain an arrest and conviction, the police acted dirty regardless of the innocence of the man in question.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

The only impropriety at hand is not clarifying that the photos were modified. Modifying visual evidence to match the circumstances of the crime scene and crime is an entirely common practice if it's to demonstrate a valid point--I'm sure most judges would agree that modifying an image, if done transparently and equitably, to adjust for something like a nylon face-covering would yield the most reliable results.

boot licking 101 right here

daynlokki posted...

Fruit from the poison tree. Was he originally arrested because the eye witness pointed him out of a lineup? If so, the arrest itself could be at issue. (Theoretically for another time of this happening)

If it went directly to arrest from that, it'd actually be possible to do a new trial, but if they used identification to get a warrant they'd be so fucked.

---

OldHorrorGuy posted...

If it went directly to arrest from that, it'd actually be possible to do a new trial, but if they used identification to get a warrant they'd be so fucked.

Yuuuuuuuup (Ive binged Bull this week)

daynlokki posted...

Yes and considering the fact they CONVENIENTLY left that out, the act is dirty. This isnt something you just forget to do. They have procedures for a reason and they usually come in list form for what the officer needs to do. By seemingly purposefully not following these procedures in order to obtain an arrest and conviction, the police acted dirty regardless of the innocence of the man in question.

Agreed.

And it has nothing to do with funding.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Agreed.

And it has nothing to do with funding.

On a technicality level they stole time by performing illegal work while on the clock. Also, if they had the added training that comes with the defund movement, they may never have tried to even do it in the first place. Could have everything to do with funding.

COVxy posted...

Eyewitness testimony generally sucks to begin with, to the point where it's borderline unethical to present it to a jury.

Id change that to extremely unethical and completely anti-science.

Not that it stops it from getting used.

---

daynlokki posted...

added training that comes with the defund movement

Lol...

---

COVxy posted...

Lol...

Laugh all you want. Added training was literally just a part of the defund movement in Portland. Sooooo