StrangeCharmVote t1_j9vn2ts wrote

> I see no issue with admitting your own video as evidence.

Neither do I. However i recommend you look up a bunch of 'sovereign citizen' video's on youtube.

Basically these chuckle-fucks all record themselves breaking the law and then post the videos, because they have a poor understanding of the law, and think they can get either be let go entire;y, or a massive payout, if they speak some magic words.

Note however, many of the repeat offenders with channels almost certainly know by now they are harassing officers, and are doing it for the donations and ad revenue.

> The truth is what's important to the legal system.

As an entirely separate statement... I am not convinced.

If this was true, explain Fox getting away with their antics till now, which they achieved via that court case claiming nobody anywhere would take their content seriously.


StrangeCharmVote t1_j9t8r3h wrote

Sure, they can stream it if they want...

Here's the thing however, delaying an investigation, and lack of cooperation with a law enforcement officer are offenses.

Also that footage can be used against you in a court of law.

So you'd better be sure to do everything you're meant to be, in a timely manner.

Edit: Pretty sure a bunch of people who aren't familiar with watching sovereign citizens making fools of themselves harassing police officers and escalating encounters unnecessarily are the people downvoting this comment.


StrangeCharmVote t1_j4d3743 wrote

Fair enough just thought i'd ask, as i can see at some level what the commenter may be getting at.

Also if it's a meta analysis of so many studies, wouldn't that mean each of the others on average had less than 100 participants? And that the studies must have been testing for, selecting, and accounting for different and more narrow kinds of results?

Anyways, doesn't matter. At some stage opening and reading the link would be required on my part i guess :P


StrangeCharmVote t1_j4czeii wrote

Personally having not read the link, could you tl;dr how the split in sample size was determined...

By which i mean, if joining the study is voluntary, how do we know the people doing so will 'randomly' be in one group or the other, and is the value self reported?


StrangeCharmVote t1_iybaw2u wrote

> No. You really want to measure. The difference between science and screwing around is measuring this appropriately and having a log.

You seem to misunderstand something.

I'm in favor of the study.

The dingus i was replying to, thought having robots which were observed, would invalidate the study on robots... which pretty universally are already under some kind of observation.

I thought that opinion, was dumb.

> For it to be valid knowledge ot needs to be tested

And how are you going to validate anything when you're literally excluding the possibility of tangible results if an event occurs?


StrangeCharmVote t1_iya7wr5 wrote

And the answer is already exactly the same amount everything else does unsupervised.

People already know there are consequences if caught.

Why would you possibly think a study would be dismissed, when the devices themselves are already covered in cameras?

Seriously, think about what you're saying.