Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Watch in slow motion to get all the details? Or just to rationalize a basis to try to believe its a good shoot?

Nemo

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/07/27/1603865113

Slow motion increases perceived intent
  1. Eugene M. Carusoa,1,2,
  2. Zachary C. Burnsb,1, and
  3. Benjamin A. Conversec

  1. aBooth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637;
  2. bSchool of Management, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117;
  3. cFrank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904

  1. Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved May 17, 2016 (received for review March 9, 2016)

Significance

When determining responsibility for harmful actions, people often consider whether the actor behaved intentionally. The spread of surveillance cameras, "on-officer" recording devices, and smart-phone video makes it increasingly likely that such judgments are aided by video replay. Yet, little is known about how different qualities of the video, such as replay speed, affect human judgment. We demonstrate that slow motion replay can systematically increase judgments of intent because it gives viewers the false impression that the actor had more time to premeditate before acting. In legal proceedings, these judgments of intent can mean the difference between life and death. Thus, any benefits of video replay should be weighed against its potentially biasing effects.

Abstract

To determine the appropriate punishment for a harmful action, people must often make inferences about the transgressor's intent. In courtrooms and popular media, such inferences increasingly rely on video evidence, which is often played in "slow motion." Four experiments (n = 1,610) involving real surveillance footage from a murder or broadcast replays of violent contact in professional football demonstrate that viewing an action in slow motion, compared with regular speed, can cause viewers to perceive an action as more intentional. This slow motion intentionality bias occurred, in part, because slow motion video caused participants to feel like the actor had more time to act, even when they knew how much clock time had actually elapsed. Four additional experiments (n = 2,737) reveal that allowing viewers to see both regular speed and slow motion replay mitigates the bias, but does not eliminate it. We conclude that an empirical understanding of the effect of slow motion on mental state attribution should inform the life-or-death decisions that are currently based on tacit assumptions about the objectivity of human perception.
 

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
I've had to deal with video issues relating to mental health behavior for over a decade.

There is, as your article citation noted, little data on the impact of video and how it is presented on decisions made by viewers.

I can tell you, as someone that has done expert testimony and advised agencies, that video can really, REALLY, come back to bite you. Often the person in the situation had a split second to made a decision - right or wrong. But an expert can sit in their office for months, watch the video hundreds of times, review literature, ask for opinions from others, do what ifs, and all sorts of prep before they go into a Court and testify about what "should" have been done. They will, after all that prep time, sound convincing and the videos are either shown in slow motion or paused (often A LOT) at critical moments.

The other problem with video is that all too often no one points out two very, in hindsight, obvious issues: 1) you have no idea what transpired prior to the record button being pushed, and 2) too many people are used to TV having a 3rd person perfect perspective with the camera - reality and single camera in live situations only show you what is IN frame, not what is out of frame. I had a case once where the person videoing actually flipped the person in frame off while the record button was pressed and used their reaction to show how "inherently violent" that person was. Video is neither perfect nor all seeing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
with the emergence of cell phone video cameras, i believe people have become more aware of what happens in police interactions, just on the chance a stand-by feels like recording it. requiring body and vehicle cameras for cops basically makes these videos always available (except where the cops remove/alter the evidence). without these cameras, people just have to go off of the cops' words, which could not be a bigger conflict of interests.

part of the reason folks want cameras is that they wouldn't even be aware of something happening without them. if there's an interested party left after a police interaction, they can try to get ahold of the video and make it public to raise awareness. regardless of if a video swings a judge/jury one way or another in a courtroom, they provide awareness that a crime could have been committed all in the first place...before even coming to trial. that largely makes the point moot of which way they swing things (if any) in a trial.
 

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Evidence and its nature are never "moot" in a trial. WOW. Yes, public opinion is important and public awareness is a good thing. However, video is not always clean, "honest" or actually representative of the whole story. As for it being "moot" of which way it may swing things in a trial.........sort of calls into question the whole concept of evidence, trial, jury, etc. Just wow. If the evidence is moot, as you seem to say, then why have a trial in the first place? Why not just get together and lynch folks? How about we each just decide to form vigilante posse's and hang a few offenders?

As might be surmised from my signature (see below) I have questions about who ensures the integrity of our law enforcement personnel (not merely Peace Officers but the DAs and Judges as well) but to simply dismiss issues around quality of evidence as moot........no, integrity is important from the quality and nature of the evidence to the behavior of those entrusted with the exercise of government enforcement authority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
Evidence and its nature are never "moot" in a trial
the question of which way the evidence sways a judge/jury is moot if there will be no trial without the evidence in the first place.
 

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
UtiPossidetis said:
Why not just get together and lynch folks? How about we each just decide to form vigilante posse's and hang a few offenders?
Sounds like a 'mockcracy.

UtiPossidetis said:
...the behavior of those entrusted with the exercise of government enforcement authority.
"...executing the public trust..."
 

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
The original post was about HOW the video is presented, not as you have turned the conversation to whether it is presented. How video is presented and how that impacts the viewer is a legitimate concern, as are the factors I enumerated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,956 Posts
Watch in slow motion to get all the details? Or just to rationalize a basis to try to believe its a good shoot?
The incident occurred in real time. The suspect, victim, cop acted and reacted in real time. And as mentioned, what happened out of frame and before the recording. All kinds of things can be "discovered" and rationalized when seeing something in slow motion. I think the more important issue is the "reasonable man" concept, not what someone thinks may have happened at 1:43 to 1:48 of a slowed down video.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top