« Fr. Theodore M. Hesburgh, R.I.P. | Main | Rotations »
Friday, February 27, 2015
It's white, no blue . . . aaaah
Doesn't this illustrate everything that Dan Kahan, current GuestPrawf Dave Hoffman, and others (including me) have been saying about video evidence? If no one can agree on the color of the dress,* how can anyone agree on whether the force used was excessive or whether the protesters were peacefully gathered and marching?
* It's light blue and gold.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on February 27, 2015 at 04:23 PM in Howard Wasserman | Permalink
Comments
That's Plumhoff. Stupid auto-correct.
Posted by: Howard Wasser134man | Feb 27, 2015 7:40:35 PM
Scott v. Harris. Plumbing v. Rickard. Lots of cases from lower courts.
Posted by: Howard Wasser134man | Feb 27, 2015 7:31:59 PM
Justice Stevens would say it's green.
Posted by: Orin Kerr | Feb 27, 2015 7:03:59 PM
Could you identify a case that was decided on the basis that a video offered "unambiguous certainty" whether the force used was excessive or whether the protesters were peacefully gathered and marching?
Posted by: New Yorker | Feb 27, 2015 6:58:00 PM
Consensus, sure; unambiguous certainty, no. And that is what courts and others are saying video offers and they are deciding cases accordingly.
Posted by: Howard Wasser134man | Feb 27, 2015 6:04:07 PM
Because one visual datum is ambiguous, it follows that there can never be consensus about the interpretation of any visual data?
Posted by: Comment2 | Feb 27, 2015 5:51:29 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.