Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

aRVAthrowawayy t1_jd2xdwp wrote

The DA filed a motion to suppress this, how does WAPO just get it and publish it before our local news? I agree with the prosecution, but the DA claims that there’s a lack of fair trial is starting to show some merit.

−25

mallydobb t1_jd2zmv0 wrote

WaPo went through court documents and found relevant links. The prosecution did not release the video but apparently found a way to ensure the public could find out how in the way court documents were filed. Creative.

I watched the video and part of what stuck out was the number of people that showed up to watch. The whole boondoggle was unprofessional and a huge CF. Aside from emergency people called in to resuscitate everyone in that room, participating or observing, should be charged. The idiot papers over the body and staff doing CPR was doing nothing to help as well. This video shows a reality that staff in that location are unprepared and untrained…among other things.

29

EdnaPontellier19 t1_jd2zd0w wrote

"The prosecutor, Ann Cabell Baskervill, said she was planning to release the video to the public on Tuesday. The Washington Post obtained it ahead of the release by clicking on Dropbox links, which Baskervill listed in a public court filing as part of her obligation to turn over relevant information to defense attorneys. "

21

aRVAthrowawayy t1_jd30c77 wrote

Well isn’t that scummy and corrupt, the video speaks for itself. There was obviously zero need for it to be leaked. Looks like the prosecution is allowing activism to take priority over due process. It’s like they want a mistrial.

Wonder if WAPO is in the habit of just snooping at random Dropbox links. I bet they were tipped off. Unbelievable that this got to National news before our own local.

Edit: I’m not mad the video got leaked, I’m mad about how it happened.

−43

augie_wartooth t1_jd31euv wrote

It was in a public court document—what journalist wouldn’t click a Dropbox link in there?

29

aRVAthrowawayy t1_jd31yen wrote

Dropbox links can be set by the owner to allow anyone with the link to view or only allow specific people. I guess it depends on the document; if intended for the jury then the prosecution wouldn’t have all their email addresses to set permissions.

Local news reporting now so point is sort of moot from my civilian perspective. Still, if this is declared a mistrial despite the glaring issues the video shows, it’s gonna be a new can of worms.

−16

fusion260 OP t1_jd333az wrote

I can't see how releasing this video would risk a mistrial. That ship sailed years ago. Taxpayers pay for their public law enforcement, so they have a right to see what that public law enforcement does.

Videos like this—especially partially-redacted videos (this doesn't have sound)—are released more and more (in recent memory) by law enforcement, either voluntarily or via court order, before any trial takes place and those trials don't end in mistrials.

There is zero reason to keep this video from the public out of concern for a "fair trial."

What would meet my corruption scratch-and-sniff test is if the prosecutor also moved to have the video sealed from the public until it's played during the trial as part of their evidence. That would cause people to reasonably doubt which side the prosecutor is on.

21

aRVAthrowawayy t1_jd33lp7 wrote

Touché. I’m not in law.

But there is also no reason to release it before the trial. What is the point of that? Inciting protests or riots? I’m just seeing different priorities between media and law.

−15

fusion260 OP t1_jd34z3v wrote

>But there is also no reason to release it before the trial.

We hear certain politicians and lawmakers try this all the time: "We need to be patient! We need to let the slow wheels of justice turn slowly so we slowly get to our destination in a slow manner so when we slowly arrive, people will have forgotten how unnecessarily long the slow journey went slowly and have moved on to other things."

Defendants file appeal after appeal, push the trial out (potentially for years), in the hopes that the plaintiff or witnesses are no longer available or willing to testify or see a judgement in their favor, or that something else will happen that will cause the trial to be canceled, or that the statute of limitations will expire, or that some law would be written that might exonerate them or prevent them from being tried in court.

Look at how much time out of court a former president has gotten with all of the pending litigation against them, by filing counter lawsuits and appeals, and simultaneously getting an incredible amount of time to sow distrust in the very system they, themselves, are committed to abusing and disrupting.

You posted this from a throwaway account, so I get the feeling that you're not here for a good faith discussion. If you were, you would have used your main account.

13

grampscirclea t1_jd6t5cw wrote

I tangled with this Anon a fair bit during the summer of the Floyd protests. Believe me, your time is better spent on something less frustrating and useless.

2

fusion260 OP t1_jd7cd2q wrote

It was enough to get them to foolishly admit evading a prior ban (which Reddit likes less than we do) and now they’re gone! Until they’re dumb enough to create another anon/throwaway account, that is. 😏

1

aRVAthrowawayy t1_jd357ug wrote

My main is banned from here, won’t go into specifics. The trial is today isn’t it? The “slow” argument doesn’t hold up.

−11

fusion260 OP t1_jd35ghu wrote

>My main is banned from here, won’t go into specifics.

gif

13

aRVAthrowawayy t1_jd35vbw wrote

I’m a resident. I’m not going to NOT take part in my community because a mod didn’t like my opinion on something.

1

Strict_Wasabi8682 t1_jd77s39 wrote

Did you have the same argument for when the doj, I believe it was them, went to Trumps place to get the documents? Did you say, “wait a minute, let the doj do their job and then release it if they can”?

1

mallydobb t1_jd37dit wrote

As someone who works in mental health and has also worked with individuals in a detention center i am appalled by the circus the incident turned into. This needs to be shared far and wide to expose how the dumbasses in the middle of this allowed it to escalate to half the staff sitting by and watching this play out. There were too many observers and people “helping” not to mention how badly the situation was handled and played out, which resulted in loss of life. It was unprofessional and reflects a lack not training and respect for patients and individuals in crisis. They’re all culpable. Yes, things can move quickly and we’re all armchair quarterbacking, but it was a mess from the start.

6

thats_genocide t1_jd34yh1 wrote

The family asked for the video to be released and the Commonwealth's Attorney agreed:

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/irvo-otieno/prosecutor-to-release-video-of-death-of-man-in-custody/

I seriously doubt that the Commonwealth's Attorney in Dinwiddie County is hoping to cause riots.

5

aRVAthrowawayy t1_jd35csy wrote

Media vs law. Attorneys, no. Media, yes. Generates more stories and clicks by sacrificing safety.

−2

got_that_itis t1_jd3aqvb wrote

Being transparent has the opposite effect. The response to the Tyre Nichols video was minimal in terms of protests. It's evidence and people have a right to see it.

3

dalhectar t1_jd40jo5 wrote

Maybe I shouldn't have wait until 202X when all this wraps up after appeal in order for me to exercise my right to petition government for redress of grievances.

I'd like to know what Henrico Sherriff's Department is going to do to prevent this from happening again before it goes to trial.

3

fusion260 OP t1_jd31kyn wrote

The links were listed in a public court filing. It's not like they were sent by Baskervill (the prosecutor) via an encrypted Telegram message from a burner phone bought by someone in another country and sent to Baskervill via courier pigeon.

Journalists did their job by constantly checking the sources they had without dealing directly with the prosecutor. Looks like NYT was sleeping on this and WaPo made the break.

10

e1_duder t1_jd3hsyu wrote

> Well isn’t that scummy and corrupt,

If something is filed publicly in court, it's like posting it on a public bulletin board or reddit. There is nothing scummy or corrupt about that.

4

polloretardo t1_jd3fbtv wrote

>Looks like the prosecution is allowing activism to take priority over due process. It’s like they want a mistrial.

You know nothing about law, what makes you think it will lead to that?

2

whowasonCRACK2 t1_jd42qqg wrote

You are getting mad at a newspaper for the attorney having terrible information security lol.

2

polloretardo t1_jd3edxl wrote

>The DA filed a motion to suppress this

I assume you mean defense attorney, and not district attorney, because the defense is trying to block the footage from being used. It's a bunch of bullshit, there's nothing to indicate this will taint the trial, and they will have no problem getting a jury for it.

3

thats_genocide t1_jd2z83g wrote

Washington Post found the files through some URLs that were included in court filings.

1

CapeCharlesVA t1_jd3cusv wrote

It's Dinwiddie. It has one CA, one deputy, and two assistants. That's it. And Baskervill has missed a bunch of time recently for medical issues.

How in the world they are are going to handle 10 murder cases at once without handing this off or bringing in a whole bunch of other people is the first question I'd be asking.

1

Ditovontease t1_jd3wpgu wrote

Our local news is shit and would put this on like the back page if they choose to cover it at all

0

Curious804 t1_jd74lif wrote

its been all over the front page since it happened.

2