testfactor

Look, I get ACAB, but these guys don't seem to have been accused of doing anything in particular.

It's wild to make a movie clearly identifying real life people who haven't been tied to any wrongdoing, and then present them as committing a ton of felonies to include arson and multiple homicides (of fellow cops no less).

Like, these are real people trying to quietly live their lives, and now they have people thinking they're extremely crooked based on a self-admittedly fictional narrative. It's irresponsible at best.

Aflack and Damon self admit that the entire narrative is fiction past the opening setup. The events in the film don't purport to be true.

However, before having them burn down a building and murder a supervisor and a fed, the film sets up an establishing sequence based on real life events that clearly tie the two fictional characters to two real people.

I get ACAB, but like, it's kinda wild to make a film where you're clearly representing real-life normal people, and then have them do a bunch of heinous stuff that they're not even remotely accused of doing.

I see no paywall, and I've loaded it a few time (though you do have to scroll past a huge ad to keep reading, which is annoying.) It's way more than 5 paragraphs though.

From the article:

Although Smith and Santana aren’t named in the film and weren’t involved in its production, the lawsuit claims that Santana was serving as the lead detective assigned to the real case, and Smith was the sergeant who supervised the investigative team. The film’s inclusion of real details about the case gives the impression that the characters are based on the plaintiffs, the suit said.

This, the lawsuit claims, has given friends, family members and colleagues the impression that the plaintiffs committed the criminal acts that appear in the film, which include (SPOILER ALERT) conspiring to steal seized drug money, murdering a supervising officer, communicating with cartel members, committing arson in a residential neighborhood, endangering the lives of civilians, repeatedly violating core law-enforcement protocols and executing a federal agent rather than making an arrest.

And it's clear you stopped reading right there.

The movie is based off a real event in which those two officers are identifiable. That event was a drug bust and a large amount of drugs were confiscated.

The film then diverges from reality (by its own admission) and has those two identified officers murder a supervisor under direction from the drug cartels.

The real officers are saying that they were clearly doxxed in the beginning of the film (using too many real life details), and then the film represents them doing horrible things they didn't do.

So no, the "real life details" did not in fact make them look bad.

That's not what the article is saying. Did you read it?

It's in the article. Aflack and Damon are not just the actors. They co-own and run the studio producing the film. They hired a person from the police department in question to consult on the film.

And, to be clear, this isn't the police department being mad because this paints them in a bad light. The film starts with events based off a real case, but moves into a fictionalized narrative where two cops murder a supervisor while working for the cartels. The cops the characters are based on are suing because people know that the characters are based on them and don't realize the rest of the narrative is fictionalized.

Welcome to Lemmy.

Setting aside the fact that polygraphs are pseudoscience mumbo jumbo that don't work in any meaningful capacity, and the results of which are really just the vibes of the person running it (with all of their bigotry/biases on full display.)

The bigger issue is that there are over thirteen thousand school districts in the US. If each school board is four people on average, that's over fifty thousand people you'd have to do polygraphs for. And that's if all you wanted to do was school boards.

Trying to get all of those people polygraphs would be an absolute logistical nightmare. There aren't that many polygraphers out there.

And we shouldn't be legitimizing polygraphs anyway. They have time and time again been shown to be absolute bunk, and to discriminate against people with issues like anxiety (or really, anyone who gets agitated when you accuse them of something). The only people who can reliably pass polygraphs are sociopaths, which feels like the opposite of what you want to be selecting for here.

Absolutely! It's just a complete coincidence that the people who the school system is failing are barred from fixing it because in order to pass the test you have to have done well in school. It makes perfect sense.

It's not like the US has a history of refusing to educate people, and then refusing to let them participate in civic matters by gating that access behind tests. The US certainly has never, say, made passing a test a requirement to vote to disenfranchise people.

And we all know that, of course, that any test would be super effective at preventing the abuse the above article is about. You just put the question "are you sexually attracted to children," on the test. That way you'd keep out creeps. And no one would ever lie on a test. That'd be ridiculous.

I don't know why people are disagreeing. It's a perfect system!

Ah, fair. I only watched the non-short one. Didn't even notice the shorts.

Has he released another video? I only see one on his YouTube page.

I wish the video actually had him using it to hit a drone or something. As is, it only shows one actual launch, and it didn't look all that impressive. His motors didn't seem to have enough umph to let the missile stabilize properly.