Users choose not to update to avoid rebooting. The average user barely even knows what an OS is. They just know that if they reboot, they’ll lose their 347 Emotional Support Chrome tabs. Lemmy tends to be fairly tech literate, which means conversations about tech often involve the Average Familiarity problem:
Not sure if you’ve heard, but the medical world is slowly trying to transition to calling it PMOS now. Polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome. Basically, research has concluded that the ovarian cysts are a symptom of much larger metabolic and insulin resistance issues. So they’re trying to move towards referring to it as an endocrine and metabolic issue, instead of an ovarian cyst issue.
The fact that many doctors don’t tend to take women’s issues seriously is a factor in the name change. Language shapes how we view the world, and referring to it specifically as an issue with ovarian cysts has lots of doctors automatically dismissing it as whiny women complaining about their periods. But calling it an endocrine and metabolic issue is more accurate and may encourage some doctors to actually take the symptoms more seriously.
One former official told The Post that any record of a judge questioning David Brouillette’s credibility would add to questions about his fitness to serve and could cast a negative light on whatever he tells his superiors about the encounter with Durán.
Issues like this are exactly why the Brady List exists. The SCOTUS ruled in Brady v Massachusetts (1963) that prosecutors must disclose potential exculpatory evidence if the defense requests it. This is known as the Brady Doctrine, and it has been expanded by future rulings several times.
One of these expansions was to encourage prosecutors to create a Brady List, for prosecutors and defense attorneys to be able to easily look up any officers. Basically, the courts ruled that “I didn’t know there was exculpatory evidence” isn’t enough as long as the cops knew. So the list is meant to allow prosecutors to look up upcoming officer witnesses, to see if they’ll potentially be problematic.
This Brady List is a compiled record of officers who have been caught with things like official misconduct, corruption, giving false testimony, abuse of power, etc… Basically, the Brady Doctrine says that an officer can be ruled as an unreliable witness if they’ve been corrupt in the past. Even if that corruption wasn’t related to the current criminal case. Because their previous lack of credibility impacts their ability to serve as a credible witness in current/future trials. And the defense has a right to access the officer’s officially noted issues, to cast doubt on an officer’s testimony in their current trial.
Speeding tickets likely wouldn’t qualify to get them added to the list, but repeatedly being caught lying on the stand might be. Because it signals to prosecutors that they will likely lie again, which means their testimony can’t be considered reliable. And an unreliable witness is potentially exculpatory evidence, which means they would need to disclose it via the defense’s Brady materials request.
The issue is that getting an officer put on a Brady list can be… Difficult. It usually goes along with some sort of “officer was found guilty of…” type of headline. Because without a solid ruling, the cop’s union rep can say it’s just hearsay and rumors, and work to get them removed from the list. It needs to be something they were convicted of, or a sustained pattern of behavior. And individual departments are hesitant to submit their own officers to Brady lists, which means it usually requires a lot of legwork from someone who isn’t directly tied to the police, like one of the officer’s victims.
Lastly, Brady lists are largely regional. They’re typically maintained by local prosecutors, to make exculpatory evidence (Brady material) requests easier to process. Some prosecutors coordinate their lists with other local areas, but most will keep their lists internally and only refer to them when a defense attorney files a Brady material request for an upcoming trial. Which means that an officer on a list in some podunk California town probably won’t show up on a search when they move across the country to New York. Because the California list and the New York lists aren’t automatically coordinated. So a defense attorney in New York makes a Brady request with their prosecutor. The prosecutor consults their local list, but the officer doesn’t show up because they’re only listed in California.
Even worse, some police departments started using short/unregulated data retention periods to purge “old” misconduct complaints, effectively erasing them. Because when local prosecutors maintain their lists, they usually do so by requesting complaints from the local PD, and then looking for convictions or patterns. So if the local PD purges old records, those old records won’t show up the next time the local prosecutor asks for them. So when the prosecutor looks for patterns of behavior that could land a cop on the Brady list, they’d be missing a lot of the pattern because it was purged.
As an example, imagine if the local prosecutor pulls records and adds any cop who was caught lying on the stand at least five times within five years. But the local PD purges their records after two years. That effectively means a cop can be caught two times a year and never show up on the prosecutor’s Brady list, even though they’ve been caught a total of ten times in the past five years.
This is legitimately some cartoon villain level BS. It’s the kind of thing I’d expect from a Captain Planet supervillain, like “hah I built a weather machine and am forcing everyone to work in the sweltering heat, just to create suffering” type of toony.
deleted by creator