Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re: Uhhh, Judge is an idiot (Score 1) 620

Who else is going to submit evidence? The police. With proper chain of custody documentation, etc.

Awesome, so the cops are the only ones who are allowed to submit evidence? You're an idiot.

You know that whole 'beyond a reasonable doubt' thing? It is real.

Except a case like this wouldn't be held to such a high standard of evidence. This would probably be held to a preponderance of the evidence level. It's more likely that the video is real, seeing as you can see landmarks and there is no obvious signs of editing than he went out, bought a new drone just to fake a video and crash the drone himself....

Ah, so the 'testimony' of one person, who has every reason to lie, outweighs the testimony of two people who presumably had no reason to lie. Makes perfect sense.

The drone operator isn't on trial, not only that, eyewitnesses have been proven to be extremely unreliable, so: video evidence + person to testify of it's origins > two unreliable witnesses.

Comment Re:Uhhh, Judge is an idiot (Score 1) 620

Either one of two things happened: it stopped recording when it hit the ground and the 3 seconds is the time it took to hit the ground, OR this video is edited and distributed to make the other side look guilty.

Really? Those are the ONLY two possibilities? And you know this how?

I already suggested a third possibility: it stopped recording when it hit a tree on the way down. A fourth possibility: the drone was knocked upside down by the shot and accelerated more than the normal force of gravity towards the ground. None of that matters.

The shooter admitted firing three shots. The initial hit is at 1:21 as evidenced by the sudden jerking motion that would be faster than the drones servos could operate.

Comment Re: Uhhh, Judge is an idiot (Score 1) 620

This was a CRIMINAL proceeding. Do you really think a court should accept as 'evidence' something provided by one of the parties involved?

Yes, it happens all the time. Who else is going to submit evidence?

Now maybe if the cops had confiscated the drone and controller

But that would be evidence from an involved party. The state is the one who charged the man.

The problem is not with the accuracy of the data, it is that the data is 100% unreliable.

You just contradicted yourself.

You have no way to prove that the data even came from the flight in dispute, or that the data was not tampered with in some way prior to being turned over.

Sure you can, you can have Boggs testify to its origins and if it was tampered with. I mean for fucksakes, the drone is clearly seen taking off with somebody in view, landmarks can be seen to identify the area, the drone clearly has a malfunction. This isn't a simple photoshop, it would have to have been completely fabricated from the beginning, an entirely new video, which this clearly isnt.

Comment Re:Uhhh, Judge is an idiot (Score 2, Informative) 620

Oh, it WAS used in court. FTFA:

During Monday's hearing, Boggs testified that flight data showed the drone was flying higher than Meredith stated. But Judge Rebecca Ward says that since at least two witnesses could see the drone below the tree line, it was an invasion of privacy.

The judge decided to use witness testimony over factual hard evidence that the drone was over 250 feet in the air, well above the tree line. GJ idiot judge, this should be appealed.

Comment Re:Copyright in game streams (Score 1) 94

That is one lawyers opinion, there is no legal precedent of this, and I would argue that the only legal precedent that exists is the one cited in the article, Allen v. Academic Games League of America. The playing of board games and video games are fundamentally similar that I believe that precedent would stand if a court case were filed.

Comment Re:It's a union thing (Score 1) 277

I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night". Police's first priority should always making sure members of the public go home safely at the end of the day.

Except police have no legal duty to protect the general public. The only time they must provide protection is if a person is in their custody, or they create the dangerous situation.

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer