Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Some follow-up on this, the ipad device that the ADA was attempting to use to "zoom" into the video does actually do interpolation. Which is this:

One cannot "add" information to a picture that doesn't already include it. In order to make a "larger" picture, digital zoom uses interpolation to estimate what it "thinks" the pixels should be; it doesn't simply make pixels "bigger."

So it seems like the judge is inadvertently correct.

That’s a MacRumors message board post, and the follow-ups are not generally favorable to it.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ky ... d.2322805/

The lawyers literally spent an hour+ on it today bro. You can listen to them repeatedly explain it to the judge.

That’s the red flag though. This case doesn’t exist in a vacuum. How many criminal defense trials do you think have used digital video before today? How many do you think used an iPad, or windows base video software, to present that video footage? How many zoomed in? Do you believe that the answer is zero?

Is the perception that they are making history in this trial, utilizing functionality hitherto unobtainable and without applicable precedence? Because there are multiple popular iPad apps for courtroom use that almost exclusively serve as organization and annotation tools…in other words, they rely on the iPad’s native video processing for actual video presentation.

This case isn’t a tech revolution. No one on either side is attempting to use technology that hasn’t existed in a courtroom for a decade or more. And this discussion we are having about the judge’s decision-making, and real (or feigned) misunderstandings about basic things is itself a sidebar….our responses to his actions exist independent of whether or not any of us believe Kyle should be found guilty. I have previously stated I think he should not. We can agree (or disagree) about that point without having to defend mediocre authority figures sucking at their job.

A judge has tremendous influence over proceedings that have profound ramifications for peoples lives. I find the idea that a sitting judge in the year 2021 could reasonably not understand basic digital video presentation disturbing.

Peeps wrote:

This is essentially the argument I was making on the previous page, though it appears that the relevant law doesn't see things this way in these situations.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Some follow-up on this, the ipad device that the ADA was attempting to use to "zoom" into the video does actually do interpolation. Which is this:

One cannot "add" information to a picture that doesn't already include it. In order to make a "larger" picture, digital zoom uses interpolation to estimate what it "thinks" the pixels should be; it doesn't simply make pixels "bigger."

So it seems like the judge is inadvertently correct.

That’s a MacRumors message board post, and the follow-ups are not generally favorable to it.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ky ... d.2322805/

The lawyers literally spent an hour+ on it today bro. You can listen to them repeatedly explain it to the judge.

That’s the red flag though. This case doesn’t exist in a vacuum. How many criminal defense trials do you think have used digital video before today? How many do you think used an iPad, or windows base video software, to present that video footage? How many zoomed in? Do you believe that the answer is zero?

Is the perception that they are making history in this trial, utilizing functionality hitherto unobtainable and without applicable precedence? Because there are multiple popular iPad apps for courtroom use that almost exclusively serve as organization and annotation tools…in other words, they rely on the iPad’s native video processing for actual video presentation.

This case isn’t a tech revolution. No one on either side is attempting to use technology that hasn’t existed in a courtroom for a decade or more. And this discussion we are having about the judge’s decision-making, and real (or feigned) misunderstandings about basic things is itself a sidebar….our responses to his actions exist independent of whether or not any of us believe Kyle should be found guilty. I have previously stated I think he should not. We can agree (or disagree) about that point without having to defend mediocre authority figures sucking at their job.

A judge has tremendous influence over proceedings that have profound ramifications for peoples lives. I find the idea that a sitting judge in the year 2021 could reasonably not understand basic digital video presentation disturbing.

I agree it's fucked up, but you may want to check out the video. The state's expert could barely explain what was happening. I think the internet was triggered when the defense attorney said "AI" in place of "algorithm", which is definitely wrong in the case... though I seem to recall the newest ipads do use AI for video playback. It's one of the biggest selling points of my streaming player (nvidia shield) and TV screen the judge saw it on would be doing image "processing" as well.

In the end it doesn't matter, the image made it in. See how it shows Rittenhouse raising his weapons at people who are out of the picture?:





Perhaps a better version will emerge later.

The continued use of the name Rittenhouse is a real missed marketing opportunity.

Welcome to CNN’s live coverage of Kyle Trial: Day Nine

Bammer wrote:The continued use of the name Rittenhouse is a real missed marketing opportunity.

Welcome to CNN’s live coverage of Kyle Trial: Day Nine

Funny, this came up in the trial today when defense witness Drew Hernandez kept referring to Kyle by his first name, but not other parties. The prosecution found him to be a biased witness (they’re not necessarily wrong), objected, and the judge commenced to pee pee slappin’.

Bi_3 wrote:

Peeps wrote:

This is essentially the argument I was making on the previous page, though it appears that the relevant law doesn't see things this way in these situations.

It also gives a huge advantage to whoever initiates violence. You can't interfere with our rioting and looting, as we have already nullified your self defense claim.

Sorry to spam this thread, but I think I owe McP an apology. We may have been talking about different times in the trial and if that is correct, then I am more inclined to agree with his original post. The confusion was on my end

Bi_3 wrote:

Peeps wrote:

This is essentially the argument I was making on the previous page, though it appears that the relevant law doesn't see things this way in these situations.

Yeah it's a terrible argument.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Peeps wrote:

This is essentially the argument I was making on the previous page, though it appears that the relevant law doesn't see things this way in these situations.

Yeah it's a terrible argument.

The state absolves itself of maintaining civic order and whoever fills that vacuum first is in charge. Good plan.

He’s gonna walk and it’s open season for the gun nuts to take out whoever they don’t like, whenever they like. That’s the outcome of this.
And he’s effectively laughing at the court and has a judge on his side. It’s all so batshit crazy

We have something here called the special criminal court. It’s a court with no jury. Set up originally for treasonous cases after the civil war but was later used against IRA Members and crime Gangs etc for beyond serious stuff/threats to the state. Amnesty international and all that and civil rights groups constantly protest it because really there’s not much need for It here in real everyday terms.
But it sounds ideal for cases like this.

dimejinky99 wrote:He’s gonna walk and it’s open season for the gun nuts to take out whoever they don’t like, whenever they like. That’s the outcome of this.
And he’s effectively laughing at the court and has a judge on his side. It’s all so batshit crazy

We have something here called the special criminal court. It’s a court with no jury. Set up originally for treasonous cases after the civil war but was later used against IRA Members and crime Gangs etc for beyond serious stuff/threats to the state. Amnesty international and all that and civil rights groups constantly protest it because really there’s not much need for It here in real everyday terms.
But it sounds ideal for cases like this.

We successfully won a war against the British to establish jury trials (amongst other things). Sorry that your civil war did not get you the same outcome.

Set up directly after we successfully won a war and got rid of the British, funnily enough.

dimejinky99 wrote:Set up directly after we successfully won a war and got rid of the British, funnily enough.

Yeah, you re-created the British wartime system. Admiralty courts? No thanks.

dimejinky99 wrote:He’s gonna walk and it’s open season for the gun nuts to take out whoever they don’t like, whenever they like.

100%. He heard there was a BLM protest, and was so offended by the idea that he went to Kenosha and started randomly shooting BLM protesters. This is a thing that happened.

dimejinky99 wrote:He’s gonna walk and it’s open season for the gun nuts to take out whoever they don’t like, whenever they like.

Exciting!

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Peeps wrote:

This is essentially the argument I was making on the previous page, though it appears that the relevant law doesn't see things this way in these situations.

Yeah it's a terrible argument.

Can you explain it, without saying "oh so you cannot protect property", because that is not what the above says or what I did. I think Rittenhouse will and should walk according to the existing law, but it feels like the existing law is inadequate to deal with situations where the government has defacto surrendered authority.

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Peeps wrote:

This is essentially the argument I was making on the previous page, though it appears that the relevant law doesn't see things this way in these situations.

Yeah it's a terrible argument.

Can you explain it, without saying "oh so you cannot protect property", because that is not what the above says or what I did. I think Rittenhouse will and should walk according to the existing law, but it feels like the existing law is inadequate to deal with situations where the government has defacto surrendered authority.

*You think Kyle Trial will and should acquit, you mean.

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Peeps wrote:

This is essentially the argument I was making on the previous page, though it appears that the relevant law doesn't see things this way in these situations.

Yeah it's a terrible argument.

Can you explain it, without saying "oh so you cannot protect property", because that is not what the above says or what I did. I think Rittenhouse will and should walk according to the existing law, but it feels like the existing law is inadequate to deal with situations where the government has defacto surrendered authority.

You're only argument seems to be "well, he may not have done anything illegal or immoral, but it still feels wrong to me somehow, and thus there should be a law against it." In fact that seems to be the only argument anyone here can muster.

Ignoring that if the government has surrendered authority then it's a moot point what their law is anyway, I don't think there should be special laws that kick in that allows the government to prosecute people who go to a lawless place to defend property or other people with guns or without. In fact I couldn't be more against a law like that.

Defense of someone's property isn't relevant really. He had a right to be there, and he has a right to defend himself while there. That's it. That's case closed. The fact that some violent commie thugs made it a dangerous place changes none of that. I don't know how much clearer I can be. He's not a terrorist because he knowingly went to a dangerous place and defended himself. He's not an insurgent because he knowingly went to a dangerous place and defended himself. He isn't responsible for the violence. His attackers are.

"But because he was there, people died."

No, people died because some belligerent idiots thought they could take a kid who was armed to defend himself. They bear 100% of the responsibility.

Assuming he walks, what laws do you think should be changed?

Bammer wrote: *You think Kyle Trial will and should acquit, you mean.

Stop tying to make fetch happen Bammer.



So it appears the case now rests on this frame of K-Rit allegedly pointing his interpolated pixels at someone not in the frame (and the ADA won't call the dude who filmed it to the stand). This could be the most incompetent prosecution ever in this public a trial. Shockingly different than what we saw with the Floyd murder.