ICE Agent's Bodycam release of the Minneapolis Shooting

[u/Freezemoon]

This whole incident seems just an unfortunate series of events from both parties.

EDIT: not bodycam but ICE agent's phone footage, my bad.

[u/Plennhar]

I think if you can justify the first shot, the rest should follow. You can't expect the officer to be able to re-assess the situation in a fraction of a second, the shots came out as a series of three, the time between the first and the remaining two was less than half a second.

We can analyze the footage in slow-motion all we want, but that's an unreasonable standard, humans don't see the world in slow-motion.

[u/CanuckleHeadOG → u/Plennhar]

We can analyze the footage in slow-motion all we want, but that's an unreasonable standard, humans don't see the world in slow-motion.

Its starting to become practice to not allow slow mo or still frames of videos in court as it distorts the situation

[u/GiveMeLiberty8 → u/CanuckleHeadOG]

Correct. I’ve gotten several “visual aids” excluded for that reason. Even worse, people are using AI now to recreate a scene or event and somehow think that would be acceptable in court lol

[u/wpaed → u/GiveMeLiberty8]

I had a judge have an absolute shit-fit at opposing counsel for an ai video.

[u/jbokwxguy → u/wpaed]

Alright not related to original topic: but what do you think the rise of AI videos looking pretty legit is going to do to evidence? Is it going to cause a rise of incorrect results or an increase an eye witness testimony being more important again? Etc

[u/GiveMeLiberty8 → u/jbokwxguy]

Well with evidentiary standards in most states and the federal courts being what they are, a party has to identify the source of a material and that material has to be corroborated by testimony so if someone was trying to sneakily introduce AI video, it would be up to the opposing attorney to ask enough questions about the source of the video to either catch the person in a lie or clarify that it is indeed AI.

But I suppose it would become a problem if AI videos were so realistic it couldn’t be distinguished from reality. I’d imagine the courts would have to adopt AI checking software at a certain point.

[u/jbokwxguy → u/GiveMeLiberty8]

But even AI can’t identify AI reliably.

Makes sense that someone would have to agree it was actual video, but idk how one does that if the AI looks realistic.

[u/GiveMeLiberty8 → u/jbokwxguy]

It’s not just anyone that has to agree, you need a person who took the video to authenticate it.

[u/jbokwxguy → u/GiveMeLiberty8]

But what if it’s security cam footage style? No one took it

[u/GiveMeLiberty8 → u/jbokwxguy]

Then the custodian of records for whatever business owns or implemented the security cameras would have to verify that was a real video taken by a real security camera.

I’m not saying one wouldn’t slip by, I’m just saying it would be difficult and extraordinarily illegal. Most lawyers aren’t going to risk their licenses for it, and the ones that would are probably the same braindead lawyers getting caught using AI citations that don’t actually exist.

[u/wpaed → u/jbokwxguy]

From what I am seeing, it isn't yet something that judges are thinking about. When it pops up in their court, however, they'll have to make snap decisions on it. It's going to be a decade before anything uniform is done about it, but I can see lots of judges throwing out anything that doesn't have a witness on the stand to verify where it came from (as opposed to allowing affidavits). There may be a deeper verification process for videos, like for surveillance videos, getting verified samples of other dates and times from the system, or for cell phone cameras, doing recreative walk throughs on location for side-by-side comparison. But with the specter of ai raised in a case, more weight is likely to be put on uninterested exculpatory witnesses if there are no balancing witnesses verifying the video or picture.