Tha problems with slow motion

[Jim Andrada]

Very interesting article from NY Times today

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/op...pgtype=article

Not sure if the link will work if you're not a subscriber but the gist of the article is that watching something in slow motion gives a very different idea of what happened than watching it at real speed. In particular, it gives the impression that the people in the video had more time to consider their actions than they really had and when used as evidence in a trial can bias the jury to think that actions were intentional. As an example, it could bias jurors to thinking a shooting was intentional ( i. e. murder) rather than a reaction to some other event and the use of slow motion in a trial that resulted in a murder conviction was appealed for that reason although the conviction was eventually upheld.

[Steven Digges]

Jim,

Great subject for debate. Very true and nothing new. Lawyers have been using slow mo video to influence trials for a long time. And with almost everything important being caught on phone video these days it is only going to get worse.

I have only had two careers in my life. Media ie: photography/videography and i am a former firefighter/medic. I have been in countless emergency situations that happened so fast I do not know how I made the decisions I made. They told us in many cases it is reactions due to good training instead of decision making. But I do not believe that is always the case. The mind never stops working. It can process information very quickly when necessary. What is really strange is how participants AND witnesses recall what they saw or did. Five people can have five different stories and they all believe their recollection is correct. It gets really weird! Cops are not going to body cameras to change bad behavior, most of them arent bad. They are doing it to protect themselves.

Steve