"That's the sort of thing that should be a capital offense if anything should."

Sorry, I disagree.

Capital offences are an easy way out for this kind of criminal behaviour under colour of authority. Life in a maximum security prison without possibility of parole (preventative detention) is a greater punishment and deterrent for the corrupt.

"Gun laws do keep guns out of the hands of criminals, all over the place."

That's pretty much a fantasy story.

I'm in no way a defender of the USA's utterly bonkers gun culture, but criminals who want firearms in the UK can obtain them fairly easily despite some of the strictest gun control laws around. The same applies in Australia and New Zealand (which are well isolated so importation is able to be tightly controlled)

Gun laws for the most part keep accidental shootings, family massacres and suicide rates down and would be more effective if mental health assessments and compulsary safety training were part of the requirements.

"another industry with less responsibility to the public."

A lot of bad cops end up as armed security guards. Statistically in the USA that group poses one of the largest dangers to individual members of the public than any other cause.

Published figures in the 1990s were a factor of around 500 times more likely to rape or murder the people they are supposed to be protecting than unarmed guards, who in turn were signiificantly more likely to the culprits of violence than the people they were supposedly guarding clients against.

"We need positive evidence to convict a police officer of anything, and a turned-off camera is not positive evidence"

It's enough evidence for a civil case and more than enough to generate levels of civil liability for the employer to make it a "immediate firing offence"

"This isn't police corruption, it's police brutality, which is a separate issue. "

No it's not. Brutality is merely one aspect of corrupt behaviour - and it tends to only occur once significant corruption is already entrenched.

"Ooh! Can I use potentially lethal force to torture you because you wont obey my every command too?"

Well you can, but if your cruiser's dashboard cam records you doing it there's every chance that your department will find itself making an extremely large payment to the man you arrested and you find yourself in jail.

Most such cases have been white cop white victim.

UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

US https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

"To summarize, in liberal left wing California, it is (was in the 90s) perfectly legal to shoot a fleeing violent felon"

Yes it was, also in NY. The laws were changed because of public outcry over police shooting various unarmed fleeing people and because some of the families of shooting victims won 7-8 figure awards in civil lawsuits.

What this and other videos show is that cops never really stopped doing it. They just made up stories to cover it up and discredit anyone who claimed differently.

Now that dashcams and personal cameras are ubiquitous, it's showing that there are enough criminal thugs wearing blue uniforms that universal suspicion is justified. If USA police want to be regarded without suspicion then corruption in their midst (and make no mistake, this IS corrupt behaviour, as is covering for it) needs to be rooted out and exterminated.

"Despite at least one being a witness to evidence-tampering, as can be seen on video"

Had the other cop not been a cop, he'd be charged as an accessory after the fact for making a false statement.

One of the questions that should be asked is WHY he isn't being charged as an accessory.

> But it does kinda call into doubt all of this officer's prior cases, right? And how long has he been on the force?

Yup. It's going to force a review of his _entire_ career.

This is one of the reasons police departments cover such things up - hundreds of millions of dollars of ensuing liability.

> And how many of this type of officer exist?

Bad cops exist because "good cops" cover for them.

10.42.0.1 should be fine :)

Unless you're Neo.

It's been clear for a while that many of the studios were simply suing based on the the file name.

In order to establish that a file actually contains what you think it does you need cryptographic checksums, etc and the only way to guarantee this is to seed the files yourself.

Lookup "Prenda Law" to see how well that tactic worked out.

I'm sure the long-term endpoint will be

1: Not many using trackers (this is pretty much already the case thanks to DHT)

2: Obfuscation switched on, along with blocking other parties from seeing exactly what parts you are seeding.

3: Crossborder VPNs (As a non-australian I'd be more than happy to buy VPN endpoint access there, etc)

4: Tor-style protocols with data passing across a few intermediaries.

This is already happening but this kind of litigation simply speeds up the inevitable ubiquitousness of the solutions.

"but then discovered that multiple people occupied the dwelling, and were unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt [see above] which of those individuals committed the alleged crime."

If it's a criminal matter this is the case.

Evidential burden is _much_ lower in civil cases.

The odds are pretty good that criminal law threats will be used to obtain data which will then be used in civil cases.

Signing to a label is a gamble. Artists know that.

It's a gamble with particularly long odds and many/most artists just simply block that part out.

All but the megastars end their careers in debt to the labels, often despite selling well over their careers.

Or, alternatively the SWATing distracts resources from something going on elsewhere.