Fake-cry more, fashy boy."Ipads ... have artificial intelligence in them that allow things to be viewed through three-dimensions and logarithms," the defense team argued. "This isn't actually enhanced video. This is Apple's iPad programming creating what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there."
Schroeder responded that the prosecution shouldered the burden of proof that Apple does not use artificial intelligence to manipulate footage.
Ok, everybody's going to be dunking on that logarithms thing for a long time, because let's face it, it's hilarious, but let's not lose sight of the fact that this is a fascist judge searching for loopholes to let a fascist, white supremacist terrorist murderer go free.
Before the trial, Schroeder ruled that the men shot by Rittenhouse cannot be referred to as 'victims" by prosecutors. Defense attorneys may, however, call them "arsonists" or "looters" if they could justify those labels. [...]
Judge Schroeder's phone suddenly rang to the ringtone of God Bless the USA. Released in 1984 by Lee Greenwood, the song is popular in conservative circles and often played as Trump's entrance theme during his rallies.
Here's a good explainer on the victims/arsonists thing: https://reason.com/2021/10/27/giving-kyle-rittenhouse-basic-due-process-is-not-a-scandal/
That article kind of boils down to "yeah, he always does that" along with "we can't really stop him". Not much consolation for a cat that keeps crapping on the carpet either.
The article also says it's not just the one judge, though:
Anecdotally, other defense attorneys have weighed in that in their respective jurisdictions, it is perfectly common to disallow the term "victim." The Chicago Tribune explained that such rulings were "not uncommon in self-defense cases where there is a dispute over who bears responsibility."
Is "murderee" a word?
It is now.
Since 1988 at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Fields_(novel)
That argument would set the stage to invalidate every piece of digital video evidence, including that of George Floyd’s murder. The whole purpose of a CODEC is to manipulate the video to reduce its size, including tiny modifications intended to be imperceptible though could be construed as “not what is necessarily there”. Hopefully this trial won’t go down the rathole of compression vs. human perception. You can hardly get a group of experts to agree let alone a courtroom full of random people.
The little Nazi crying when he has the judge plus two defense teams on his side is rich.
The little Nazi crying when he has the judge plus two defense teams on his side is rich.
Indeed. I bet I could make him cry for real if I could have five minutes in a room with him.
That much aside, I'm glad to hear that other people are calling out this fascist "judge". But, I must confess I don't know enough about the legal system to understand why this clearly biased judge is allowed to continue on this case. What can be done (if anything) to get rid of him?
Schroeder has a long track record of essentially defending the little nazi punk (https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/in-photos-kyle-rittenhouse-appears-at-mount-pleasant-bar/collection_ecca0c33-b9c6-5869-a211-660d07444de6.html).
Tough guy!
Yes, KR went looking for trouble and found it. But there has been no evidence or testimony shown in court that he's guilty of the crime he's on trial for, which is murder. You can't blame the judge here.
You want him to burn for being a nazi or a white supremacist or a fascist. None of that shit is what he's on trial for, or even illegal.
Yes, KR went looking for trouble and found it. But there has been no evidence or testimony shown in court that he's guilty of the crime he's on trial for, which is murder. You can't blame the judge here.
You want him to burn for being a nazi or a white supremacist or a fascist. None of that shit is what he's on trial for, or even illegal.
I'd agree with you on the last bit. But the part about not blaming the judge, no. I can blame the judge when the judge repeatedly takes actions which demonstrate bias in favor of the defendant. And as for what evidence has been presented at this point, I cannot speak to that as I do not have time to follow it. Though I find it extremely difficult to swallow the suggestion that no evidence or testimony has been presented to show that he is guilty. We're 8 days (I think) into it, so I'm not buying it at face value.
Admittedly, the prosecution does have a difficult time of it given the video evidence of one of the VICTIMS (the one who survived) holding a gun. And an especially difficult time when a biased judge is trying his best to sway the jury in favor of the defendant by referring to the VICTIMS as hoodlums and rioters, among his other antics.
The prosecution does not especially want to convict Rittenhouse.
That much is abundantly clear. Which in itself highlights the problem with have with systemic racism and infiltration of right wing extremism at all levels. The footage of the incident (that was no probably NOT shown in court) shows "the little lad" walking back towards a bunch of cops in an assault vehicle, machine gun slung around his shoulder, saying, "I'm here for y'all." To which said cops replied, "we really appreciate what you're doing here," and handed bottles of water to the little brownshirt bastard.
I may be paraphrasing, but didn't Churchill say something to the effect of "People think that if they keep feeding the alligator, it might eat them last"? And then there's Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
I think it's safe to say that the death warrant for democracy in this country has been signed, sealed, and delivered.
> that was no probably NOT shown in court
What footage was not shown in court? What do you mean by "probably"?
He's not on trial for his political views, or his motive for being at the protest. He's on trial for murder, but all the evidence and testimony points to the shots he fired being in self defence. Sad but true.
There you are, Sen. Keene! Feel free to step into the compartment at any time.
I’m surprised you’re taking this line. The prosecution wanted to present a video to the jury, and zoom in on a tiny portion of the image to try to show something happening far from the camera. The image tech knew the word “bicubic”, but couldn’t testify to how image interpolation actually works, or what “bicubic” even means. The defense rightly protested that at this zoom level, the majority of what the jury would see is interpolated, rather than being present in the original image.
In the end the judge allowed the prosecution to show both the original video and the zoomed in and edited version to the jury, along with testimony and cross–examination about how the image was created.
He may not know much about technology, but he is not biased. It’s up to the jury to decide if there is anything to see in the video or not.
Having no idea what this case is about (me being from a different country), my take is that digital video as admisible evidence needs to be defined somehow. Grainy video, low exposure, artifacts, etc.
Just my $0.00 cents.
The judge has screeched at preosecutors like a wild banshee and insisted that the jury applaud defence witnesses - and that's not even covering his shitty record before this trial.
But, naw... he's, like, so totally not biased.
Here's the latter link sans paywall.
When I was in high school band in West Texas in the 1980's we had to play that song either before every football game or at halftime. I fucking hated it.
certain songs played at just about any public event as fascist battle anthems are a key memory of my time in tx and ok. 35 years later and it still makes my skin crawl.