News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
It's common knowledge, does somebody asked politely I might have gone to the trouble, or you could just search for Crime Lab people get caught cheating and find pages of results. Or you can search for any number of junk Sciences like hair test analysis. Or not I don't care what you think. Someone coming from a place of it is preposterous the police would do anything improper is not worth talking to, and as such good day.
Your issue is you think it's all or nothing. I never said I didn't think police would do anything improper. Obviously many of them do. But I'm also not just going to take your assertion based solely on the idea that it's "common knowledge." Common knowledge is a term for assumptions people make with no other proof of than, "Yeah, that sounds right to me."
You can take my tangential comment that police crime Labs try to give police the results they are looking for or not I don't care. My point was there should be independent testing of the barrels given the odd circumstances.
Demanding sources for something you disbelieve on points tangential to the point is something people that want to derail your argument do to put you on the defensive without cause.
As if I care that you believe the cops are trustworthy or not. The barrels should be tested independently.
The cops aren’t the ones who tested the barrels. But feel free to keep rearranging the goal posts about backing up a claim with anything of substance.
Contracting to a private company amounts to the same thing. If they do not have anything to hide they should have no problem retesting it independently.
I do not doubt they privatize more and more law enforcement operations so they can pay more for less with worse service.
Speaking of which, that gives them less credibility not more if it is contracted out. That is less to anybody that has followed events and understands them.
If anyone the police pay to test things is automatically suspect, how are the police to test anything in a way that you’d trust?
According to the article, the barrels were independently tested at the request of the defense, which is why we have this whole story in the first place. What would more independent testing accomplish at this point?