Recent comments in /f/news

0b0011 t1_je4y7o7 wrote

It's complete whataboutism.

X happens more often with this company than these other companies.

What about when X happens to them? Here's links.

Not only was it whataboitism but you didn't even address what he was saying. He wasn't saying other manufacturers never have issues he was saying tesla has them more often.

14

QuintoBlanco t1_je4wqu3 wrote

>There was never much doubt that the perpetrator was black. It just wasn't Broadwater.

Well, there is the problem.

Broadwater only became a suspect because Alice Sebold falsely accused him.

The only reason the police was convinced Broadwater was the rapist, was that Sebold initially was sure he was the man who raped her.

She was raped by a black man, and accused another black man.

I just want to make it clear that she did not accuse Broadwater after the police had arrested him, or pointed him out to Sebold.

She accused a black man she had met on the street.

3

QuintoBlanco t1_je4w2r6 wrote

>the victim blaming overtones

She was not the victim in relationship to Anthony Broadwater.

She was not raped by Anthony Broadwater and she is the one who identified him as her rapist after she met him on the street.

When she met Anthony Broadwater, the police wasn't there to deceive her.

She was sure Anthony Broadwater raped her (without being prompted by the police), then, weeks later, could not identify him.

It was only then that the police convinced her that Anthony Broadwater was the rapist.

I'm not saying this to condemn Alice Sebold, she made a terrible mistake when she was a traumatized 18-year-old.

But it is important to get the facts right: Anthony Broadwater became a suspect because Alice Sebold falsely accused him.

2

QuintoBlanco t1_je4unl4 wrote

The real problem is that there is no objective way to determine whether or not a dog has smelled a particular thing, has missed a smell, or has recognized a smell, outside of a controlled experiment.

This means that the problem cannot be fixed because there is no way to verify if the handler has done a good job outside of controlled experiments, which means that the handlers can just make stuff up.

In the Netherlands hundreds of dog tests have been falsified because the police wanted a result, not because the handlers made mistakes.

The investigating officers would tell the officers who handled the dogs which result they wanted.

Of course outside of law enforcement, this is far less of an issue.

0

Maria-Stryker t1_je4uh17 wrote

Yes but in this case it all hinged on one guy’s testimony and cell phone location data corroborating everything. The one guy in question had all the motivation to lie for leniency on his crimes and other experts have stated that the cell phone location data is not that accurate. Do I think he’s actually guilty? I don’t know, but I will say I don’t think the evidence reaches the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold especially since the police didn’t clear the alternative suspects

4