Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday June 11 2020, @02:36AM   Printer-friendly
from the blender-was-used-for-what dept.

This is fascinating look at a crime scene recreated with Blender1 (and other tools) from publicly available information.

https://www.blendernation.com/2020/06/10/forensic-reconstruction-the-killing-of-mark-duggan/:

View the interactive feature on the Guardian here.

Click here to explore the scene in a virtual reality 360° video.

Read about our investigation in depth in our methodology report.

Read our letter to the Independent Office of Police Conduct.

[...] On 4 August 2011, Mark Duggan was shot to death by police in Tottenham, north London, after undercover officers forced the minicab in which he was travelling to pull over.

As the vehicle came to a stop, Duggan opened the rear door, and leapt out. Within seconds, an advancing officer known only by his codename, V53, had fired twice. The first shot passed through Duggan's arm, and struck a second officer, known as W42, in his underarm radio. The second, fatal shot hit Duggan in his chest.

V53 would later tell investigators that he saw a gun in Duggan's hand, and felt his life to be in danger. Duggan was being monitored by Operation Trident, a controversial unit of the Metropolitan Police focused on gun crime in London's black communities; firearms officers had followed him from a nearby meeting, at which he had reportedly collected a gun. But following the shooting, the gun in question was found around seven metres away from where Duggan had been shot, on a nearby patch of grass. But no officers reported that they saw Duggan throw the gun, or make any kind of throwing motion.

1Blender is a free and open source 3D modelling, animation and rendering solution, that runs on Windows, Mac and Linux.

There are a number of iffy/confirmation bias conclusions, but they also identified irrefutable evidence that led to the family of Mark Duggan receiving compensation for his death.

The 23 minute video is presented well and well-worth watching, as they collect images for photogrammetry, stabilise shaky footage and recreate 3D walk-throughs in VR from multiple perspectives.

They also make the .blend files available for anyone to conduct their own investigations.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by hopdevil on Thursday June 11 2020, @03:52AM (3 children)

    by hopdevil (3356) on Thursday June 11 2020, @03:52AM (#1006162)

    The made up video evidence looked pretty convincing that he actually threw it when he got out of the van. Sorry. Nice narrative though?

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by MadTinfoilHatter on Thursday June 11 2020, @06:55AM (2 children)

    by MadTinfoilHatter (4635) on Thursday June 11 2020, @06:55AM (#1006198)

    The made up video evidence looked pretty convincing that he actually threw it when he got out of the van. Sorry.

    Sorry? About what? They acknowledged that it was a possibility, but also concluded that it was an unlikely one because at least four policemen would have been in a position where they should have seen it, and one of them even explicitly stated that there was no way Duggan could have thrown it without him seeing it. Furthermore, even if that scenario was the actual one, it still means that Duggan was unarmed and posed no threat at the time he was shot.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hopdevil on Thursday June 11 2020, @07:34AM (1 child)

      by hopdevil (3356) on Thursday June 11 2020, @07:34AM (#1006207)

      It depends on how much you believe the paid-for narrative, you clearly felt it was necessary to write it down.. I guess they would conclude it is unlikely he threw it since they were literally paid to do so. They also used other tactics to discount any possibility but what they wanted it to be.
      If he was seen with a gun, then he was considered armed. If they didn't see him throw it, then he was still armed. Even if they did see it get thrown, how would they know his hand in jacket also wasn't a gun.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @04:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @04:16AM (#1006763)

        Only cops can just shoot anyone they want because they feel their lives are in danger without being put in prison the vast majority of the time. It's almost like there's a massive systemic issue here.

        Even in cases where someone does have a gun, that doesn't necessarily justify killing them.

        Even if they did see it get thrown, how would they know his hand in jacket also wasn't a gun.

        Surely, then, anyone should be able to shoot anyone else based on the mere possibility that they have a gun and might use it to shoot someone? Why are cops the only ones who can take advantage of this theoretical 'self-defense' bullshit? I demand the same right! Feels over reals!