I wouldn’t be surprised if we get a directed verdict in all but the gun possession charge.
Also, the MSM is still getting basic facts about this case wrong.
1 Like
CNN commented on “two incidents” that made the judge admonish the prosecutor. They didn’t say what the incidents were. It’s ridiculous.
I think a lot of people in the media want to start a riot.
2 Likes
If I lived in Kenosha, I’d be thinking about relocating ASAP.
Especially if you are one of the jurors who has been photographed and/or doxxed as an intimidation play.
2 Likes
I thought he shot a white guy.
They were all “progressive allies.”
I’m hearing a hard “no.”
Three. Two fatally. He missed the flying kick guy.
Imagine if one had been black?
If they were “allies” then why were they burning down black-owned businesses?
BTW, apparently Facebook is preventing people from searching for news about the Rittenhouse trial, apparently in the name of letting the mainstream media spin it as “white supremacist is let off the hook by a Trumpist judge”.
Just an FEI, the judge was originally appointed by a Democrat governor.
Thus the quotes.
I can only imagine
1 Like
White progressive allies sure are allowed to use the N-word a lot, huh?
This has always been the dems plan. Chaos.
Scott Adams and his tweets in the last 3-4 days on the trial have pretty much been spot on.
For fucks sake.
1 - It’s algorithms, not logarithms or alogarithms. just shows, right up front, no fucking clue wtf they talking about - which was admitted to.
2 - There’s algorithms involved in all the photos and videos (unless someone was shooting film).
3 - Digital scaling - up or down - being described as altering video, unless there’s a specific tech involved in enhancing said video, is very, very misleading
4 - Regarding scaling: WITHOUT using pinch to zoom, the ipad is going to be scaling anyway, unless the screen matches the native resolution of the sensor used to capture the video (it doesn’t, as no recent (i’m not sure any) ipad matches common native video resolution).
5 - They ended up connecting to a tv, which almost surely scaled (and maybe converted) the image.
6 - The judge reference a expert witness talking about adding pixels as a basis for disallowing - the expert was talking about video editing software. Just. Absolutely. Clueless.
Yea, that’s what pinch to zoom is like. Fuck. What the fuck. I hope you mean not particularly different, other than being totally, completely, entirely different. But haha. Or something.
1 Like
Haven’t been following. I’ll have to check them out.
I hope you’re not an English teacher.
This is so disingenuous:
I think everybody in this room has a smartphone, whether it’s an Apple iPhone or some other device, and I think we’ve all taken a photograph or a video at one point or another and used the pinch-to-zoom feature. This is a common part of everyone’s everyday life. In the olden days, you had a photograph and a magnifying glass, right? That doesn’t change the photograph. When you use a magnifying glass to look at words on a paper or a photograph, the magnifying glass doesn’t change the image. It doesn’t change the pixels on a paper, it doesn’t change the words in the book. All it does is make them easier to see. The pinch-to-zoom feature on the iPad or the iPhone or Android phone—whatever device everyone in this room has—does that exact same thing.
Who cares? Just because we habitually use a feature on a smartphone doesn’t mean it has the reliability of a magnifying glass to give a visual record suitable for use in a court of law. Duh.
Now if counsel has an expert who will say that this is unreliable or distorting the image or something along those lines—even though this is something everybody in this room has done with countless videos and photos through the last 10 years of our lives here; this is a feature of everyday life in America now with smartphones—if they want to have an expert come in and say it’s unreliable and you can’t believe what’s on that screen, they can do that, and then the jury can make a decision as to whether or not pinching and zooming on an iPad or an iPhone is tampering with the video or altering the image or [is] unreliable or shouldn’t be given any weight. If they want to make a jury question out of this, they are free to do so.
LOL
Well, I don’t know. When I put the magnifying glass up, it’s enlarging the image, it is not altering the image. What [the defense attorney is] saying, I think, and I know less than anyone in the room, I’m sure, about all of this stuff, but I’m hearing him to say that they are actually artificially inserting pixels into there, which is altering the object which is being portrayed.
You know what, myself, when confronted with these changes in technology, what I usually do is to admit the evidence but make sure that the finder of fact is aware of the fact that it is not the original image and the method by which it’s been enhanced. You’re suggesting that I should make the defense bring in an expert for it. My thought would be that actually you’re the one who’s offering the exhibit, so you should be in a position to offer evidence as to the fact that it is not distorting the object which is depicted.
Yes. Not sure exactly what level of zoom was in use here, but this kind of disingenuity makes me suspect it was considerable. I hope they won’t be using some pixelated blown-up video to desperately try to pin something on me some day.
1 Like
Legal Insurection did a write up.
My view is if I were on the jury the hard to make out images don’t pass beyond reasonable doubt for anything let alone being some catalyst moment that all other moments flow from.
Seems the judge is going to allow it and allow both prosecutor and defense to argue what can (or can’t) be made of it.
3 Likes