[Thorzdad]

The judge in the Rittenhouse trial has forbidden using pinch-to-zoom on iPads to magnify images.

[andi*pandi]

but you can take the same photo to kinkos and print it out 4' wide?

JFC:

"Binger then pointed out that "the defense has taken videos and photos and cropped them and zoomed in on them on many exhibits in this trial."
"We had a guy coming in yesterday with Walgreens prints. This is what is done with photographs all the time, there's enlargements done in the lab. It doesn't change the pixels," Binger said."

Same judge also insisted the court applaud for veterans on veterans day... even if the only vet in the room was defense witness.

Same judge has Trump rally theme song as ring tone

Also same judge: I hope our asian takeout isn't stuck in a container ship somewhere

Also same judge, proably: wears a "lets go brandon" tshirt underneath his judge robes

[subego]

I like playing a round of “ok, boomer” as much as the next person, and I doubly get why Ars wants to play it, but is the judge actually doing anything wrong here? He doesn’t understand it, he admits he doesn’t understand it, and he’s willing to allow the pinch as long as there’s an expert witness giving an argument for why it’s kosher.

[OreoCookie]

@subego
Pinch and zoom is a feature that is intuitively grasped by everyone who uses a smartphone, it is not as if they are arguing about a forensic procedure. The explanation by the prosecution that it is the digital analog of a magnifying glass is spot on. It just is that easy. Put into context with his behavior, he seems quite biased towards Rittenhouse.

[subego]

We can discuss his overall behavior, but in regards to this specific issue, unless the prosecution is delinquent the pinch to zoom will be allowed. What’s the material problem?

[reader50]

A camera that adds detail when you zoom in ... if anyone knows where to buy one, sign me up. We've seen them in the movies for years, where you can zoom into the shots as much as you like. Without blurring or loss of detail.

I could really use a camera like that.

@subego, it's a practical problem. As he's questioning pinch-to-zoom on an iOS device, they'd have to arrange testimony from an Apple software engineer. As a politicized trial, it could be complicated to talk Apple into helping. Or track down a former Apple software engineer. The judge didn't want to give extra time.

[shmerek]

I'm just here to see who is still here after 20 years. Hi!

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

A camera that adds detail when you zoom in ... if anyone knows where to buy one, sign me up. We've seen them in the movies for years, where you can zoom into the shots as much as you like. Without blurring or loss of detail.

I could really use a camera like that.

@subego, it's a practical problem. As he's questioning pinch-to-zoom on an iOS device, they'd have to arrange testimony from an Apple software engineer. As a politicized trial, it could be complicated to talk Apple into helping. Or track down a former Apple software engineer. The judge didn't want to give extra time.

Only an ASE is qualified to give expert testimony on how digital magnification works?

[reader50]

He didn't ask about digital magnification. He asked about pinch-to-zoom on an iOS device. So, yes.

Reminds me of the people who hate Obamacare, but the Affordable Care Act is good stuff. It's digital magnification if you go beyond original size, and scaling before that. You know it, I know it, but apparently the judge doesn't. You'd think it would have come up in cases before this.

[subego]

Pinch to zoom is digital magnification, no?

All the prosecution needs is to get a CS professor to testify to it.

Call me crazy, but I see this as an opportunity to make the defense look like morons.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by subego 

Only an ASE is qualified to give expert testimony on how digital magnification works?

Given how this trial is being managed, I’d definitely want an ASE testifying about magnification on an Apple device. Anyone non-Apple will only open the door to an enormous derail with dueling CS nerds.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by subego 

Pinch to zoom is digital magnification, no?

All the prosecution needs is to get a CS professor to testify to it.

Call me crazy, but I see this as an opportunity to make the defense look like morons.

The judge allowed defense's blowup prints from walgreens which is technically the same thing. The defense laid the ground for this paranoia by saying "APPLE MAGICALLY DOES STUFF". The judge is allowing the defense more leeway/credibility than is logical. Also the judge did not give them time to find an expert witness, which is why they ended up using 5K tv screens projected from a windows laptop. (NOT EVIL APPLE).

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by shmerek 

I'm just here to see who is still here after 20 years. Hi!

hi! welcome back!

'ENHANCE!

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Windows

OBJECTION!

[subego]

More serious answer:

1) Apologies for getting the details wrong.

2) The jury got to see the magnified footage. Isn’t that what matters?

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by subego 

2) The jury got to see the magnified footage. Isn’t that what matters?

It’s the shade thrown on it, by both the defense and the judge, that matters. They’ve planted some small bit of doubt on the accuracy/veracity of the magnified footage. Sure, that might be what the defense is supposed to do, but the judge expressing the same opinion (without any proof) is highly damaging. It’s yet another paper cut inflicted by this judge on the prosecution.

[subego]

Maybe I misread, but I thought the article said the jury was cleared while this got hashed out.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

We can discuss his overall behavior, but in regards to this specific issue, unless the prosecution is delinquent the pinch to zoom will be allowed. What’s the material problem?

The problem is that this even needs to be discussed, and that the judge‘s behavior seeds FUD and makes the prosecution seem shady when in this instance they did nothing wrong. He‘s throwing shade at the prosecution. The defense‘s argument that “logarithms” added detail, added things it “Apple thinks are there ” is a dog-ate-my-homework-class justification.

Originally Posted by subego 

Maybe I misread, but I thought the article said the jury was cleared while this got hashed out.

The other thing you need to consider is that this is a huge distraction. Even if the jury was cleared, etc., it introduces a break in the prosecution‘s presentation that makes it harder for the jury to follow.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The problem is that this even needs to be discussed

I haven’t been following the trial at all, so I need to be sure I know what specific judgements you’re taking issue with other than him sustaining this objection.

The few criticisms I’ve heard which managed to get past my active lack of attention (other than this specific example) haven’t been about actual judgements he’s made, but instead about stuff like his off-color joke.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I haven’t been following the trial at all, so I need to be sure I know what specific judgements you’re taking issue with other than him sustaining this objection.

There has been a number of unusual decisions by the presiding judge. The point is less about them individually, but in aggregate. The judge has objected to a number of lines of inquiry that seem central to the case such as why Rittenhouse was armed the night of the killing and others. Just have a look at the videos floating around. The defense often did not even need to object, the judge would just begin a diatribe. As a result, the judge is weighing whether to grant a mistrial with prejudice, where the latter is important, because it means Rittenhouse cannot be tried again. AFAI understand this is highly unusual given the circumstances. I haven‘t watched the entire trial, obviously, but the questioning of the prosecution that the judge objected to seemed completely ok.

One other factoid the media is focussing on is the judge‘s ring tone, which seems to suggest he is a staunch Trump voter and he has a reputation of being hard on defendants. While especially the former is less important to me, it seems consistent with the judge‘s behavior in that he is putting the thumb on his scale according to his political convictions. And that‘d be bad. Rittenhouse has killed a person, and it seems only fair to have a trial to decide whether it was a selfdefense or a form of murder or manslaughter. If the judge were putting his thumb on the scale in such a blatant way, that‘d be a miscarriage of justice. And to be honest, I don‘t even think the judge is doing Rittenhouse any favors, his behavior is shortsighted: in my mind the judge risks further legal proceedings, which would be bad for Rittenhouse.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

... Rittenhouse has killed a person, and it seems only fair ...

Actually, Rittenhouse killed two people. And shot a 3rd person. While a minor, using a gun sold to him illegally. That he transported across state lines, to mix it up with protesters in another state.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Actually, Rittenhouse killed two people. And shot a 3rd person. While a minor, using a gun sold to him illegally. That he transported across state lines, to mix it up with protesters in another state.

Correct, sorry about that. Out of curiosity, the court case focusses on the murder charge. And while I have my own opinions on this, it is obvious that it is not clear whether he will be convicted. But the gun charge seems to be ironclad.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But the gun charge seems to be ironclad.

I wouldn't bet on that. This is the US, afterall.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

There has been a number of unusual decisions by the presiding judge. The point is less about them individually, but in aggregate.

Since I haven’t been following the trial, making an aggregate analysis is not something I’m in a position to do, but I’ll gladly address examples.

Such as what’s noted in the Guardian article, where the prosecutor tried to incriminate the defendant for invoking their Fifth Amendment rights.

If a prosecutor violates a defendant’s Constitutional rights in open court, this entitles the judge to significantly more than a rant. Prosecutor got off easy.

[subego]

Some questions.

Should a judge favor the prosecution or the defense? One could say they should favor neither, but I posit the Blackstone ratio (it’s better that 10 guilty defendants be found innocent rather than a single innocent defendant be found guilty) firmly instructs judges to favor the defense.

If this is the case, is this judge guilty of making poor decisions now, or were the poor decisions in the past, where it’s alleged he favored the prosecution?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Such as what’s noted in the Guardian article, where the prosecutor tried to incriminate the defendant for invoking their Fifth Amendment rights.

You missed one important detail: Rittenhouse was not invoking the Fifth Amendment, he decided to testify in court. And the prosecutor wanted to ask him during testimony.

[subego]

Rittenhouse invoked his Fifth Amendment right when he was arrested, and this was what the prosecutor asked him about.

That Rittenhouse decided to testify does not allow pursuit of this line of questioning by the prosecution.


Edit: and as an aside, not that it happened in this circumstance, but there’s nothing stopping someone from invoking the Fifth Amendment while on the stand.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Should a judge favor the prosecution or the defense? One could say they should favor neither, but I posit the Blackstone ratio (it’s better that 10 guilty defendants be found innocent rather than a single innocent defendant be found guilty) firmly instructs judges to favor the defense.

The issue is that if you selectively apply this standard, especially to defendants with whom you see yourself agreeing with, then what the judge is doing is worse.

Originally Posted by subego 

If this is the case, is this judge guilty of making poor decisions now, or were the poor decisions in the past, where it’s alleged he favored the prosecution?

This is a continuation of poor decision making: statistically speaking, we know what kind of people get railroaded by the justice system in the US. Making this exception for Rittenhouse is IMHO not a positive development, it is the continuation of bad habits.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The issue is that if you selectively apply this standard, especially to defendants with whom you see yourself agreeing with, then what the judge is doing is worse.

If the conclusion (in this case that the defense be favored) is correct, why should it matter the judge arrived there by way of a flawed premise?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

This is a continuation of poor decision making: statistically speaking, we know what kind of people get railroaded by the justice system in the US. Making this exception for Rittenhouse is IMHO not a positive development, it is the continuation of bad habits.

This sounds like a defense of railroading based on the need for consistency.


Edit: to be clear, that doesn’t make any sense to me, so I’m assuming I misunderstand the point.

[andi*pandi]

It just occurred to me, that this parallels the Tsarnaev brothers. They prepared to go into a crowd, with an illegal weapon, meant to inflict damage. People died. They were hunted down as the terrorists they are.

How is this different? Why is Rittenhouse not being treated as a bad guy? Someone had a skateboard?

Shall we have the debate as to who knows which guy is the "good guy with a gun" the people reacting to Rittenhouse the gunman, or Rittenhouse himself reacting to people treating him like a threat? How did he expect people to react to him? Did he imagine himself the hero? When everyone has guns how do you know which gunmen to run fleeing from and which ones to greet as saviors?

Again I am appalled his mother drove him to this event knowing what he brought with him.

That's the difference. The Tsarnaev drove themselves to Boston.

[reader50]

I haven't followed the trial in detail. For trials in general, the judge should favor neither side. The presumption of innocence is baked into the rule: innocent until proven guilty. Rittenhouse has to be proven guilty (by a jury decision) or he remains (legally) innocent.

However, a judge should be conversant with modern evidence presentation. I don't own a smartphone, and I understood pinch-to-zoom as soon as the first iPhone started selling. That was in 2007.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

It just occurred to me, that this parallels the Tsarnaev brothers. They prepared to go into a crowd, with an illegal weapon, meant to inflict damage. People died. They were hunted down as the terrorists they are.

How is this different?

Intent.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I haven't followed the trial in detail. For trials in general, the judge should favor neither side. The presumption of innocence is baked into the rule: innocent until proven guilty.

I am far too cynical to believe the presumption of innocence is enough to wring the Blackstone ratio out of our legal system.

Prosecutors are scumbags. Just sayin’.



Edit: I’m including the other safeguards past the presumption of innocence as well. Even with all that, it’s still not enough to fulfill the Blackstone ratio.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Someone had a skateboard?

If I’m visibly armed, is it incorrect to assume someone who initiates an assault against me intends to take my weapon and kill me with it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

However, a judge should be conversant with modern evidence presentation. I don't own a smartphone, and I understood pinch-to-zoom as soon as the first iPhone started selling. That was in 2007.

I was actually surprised when I heard the prosecution was using an iPad. That’s kinda flashy. Since they operate on the taxpayers’ dime, from an optics standpoint they’d be better served by an austere solution.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I was actually surprised when I heard the prosecution was using an iPad. That’s kinda flashy. Since they operate on the taxpayers’ dime, from an optics standpoint they’d be better served by an austere solution.

In what decade are we living in?
An iPad is a normal tool, and not expensive. What should they use instead, a CRT TV with a VHS tape recorder?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What should they use instead, a CRT TV with a VHS tape recorder?

Windows and Android.

So, same thing as a CRT and VHS, really.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by subego 

If I’m visibly armed, is it incorrect to assume someone who initiates an assault against me intends to take my weapon and kill me with it?

The 3 people Rittenhouse shot thought they were defending others against a madman with a gun. Why presume they would kill him with his own gun, if he was disarmed that would be enough.

If he had walked into a diner, a movie theater, a church, with a gun, people would have been scared of him and run away. Others would have run to tackle him, and been labelled heroes who saved lives. In any other case. Why not this one? Did they have to wait for him to shoot? Is WI open carry? Even for 17yrolds who cross state borders and aren't legal to carry anyhow?

Anyway, the judge let Rittenhouse select the jury. Randomly, out of a hat, as he says he has done for years... but still it smacks of favoritism. Next he'll give Rittenhouse a sticker, a lollipop, and ask if he wants a pony.

https://www.startribune.com/no-verdi...ury/600117202/

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Intent.

I think you can infer intent here as well. To me Rittenhouse's behavior is akin to a soccer hooligan who comes prepared to fight another team's hooligans after the match. Perhaps you are not intending to kill or permanently hurt someone, but you are knowingly and intentionally putting yourself in a position where you could.

Just turn the situation around and pretend that Rittenhouse were shot dead by one of the armed victims. Wouldn't they be able to leverage the same defense here? They were scared for their lives, the other person was armed and reached for his rifle. In that alternate universe they just shot and hit him first.

Another analogy that works if you don't overextend it is a gang shooting: can they leverage self-defense claims to justify why they shot back at their rivals?

Lastly, one point that doesn't seem to get enough coverage, but is an issue with the US justice system at large, is that Rittenhouse's age is not sufficiently taken into account in my mind. He's a minor and still immature. Ideally, a parent should have prevented him from inserting himself in a situation where he could do something so stupid and momentous as killing another person. Because while some of the right-wing press may hail him as a hero, I'm convinced that the fact he killed several people will come back to haunt him (if it hasn't already). That's a pity.

PS I haven't forgotten your other message. But I'm kinda swamped right now, and will answer later.

[andi*pandi]

We only have his word for intent. To the rest of the crowd he seemed a risk.

The Tsarnaevs may have only brought pressure cookers to the Boston Marathon to make a fun bang. Who knew it could hurt anyone?

At best he panicked with a gun he was not trained enough or mature enough to use.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

At best he panicked with a gun he was not trained enough or mature enough to use.

Which he acquired illegally.
Which he transported over state lines for the specific purpose of being armed during the protests..

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Is WI open carry?

Yes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Which he acquired illegally.
Which he transported over state lines for the specific purpose of being armed during the protests..

FWIU, the legality of the weapon isn’t used as a determinant as to whether a shooting is self-defense.

This is as it should be, no?

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

At best he panicked with a gun he was not trained enough or mature enough to use.

According to the AP, during the trial, prosecution witnesses claimed Rosenbaum was throwing rocks, lighting fires, acting “hyperaggressive”, shouted “if I catch any of you guys alone tonight I’m going to fucking kill you”, within earshot of Rittenhouse, and then lunged for his gun.

These are prosecution witnesses.

That doesn’t sound like panic to me, it sounds like self-defense.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

FWIU, the legality of the weapon isn’t used as a determinant as to whether a shooting is self-defense.

This is as it should be, no?

No, that’s not necessarily how it works: when a felon returns fire in a gang shooting, this isn’t necessarily recognized as self-defense either even though someone was fighting for their life. I suspect that this is one of the reasons the judge took the gun charge off the table, because if Rittenhouse had been found guilty of illegally carrying a weapon by the jury, this might have made it more difficult for Rittenhouse to be found innocent on the other charges. (Apparently there is a loophole in the relevant laws regarding barrel length, but the judge “didn’t want to confuse the jury,” which is a very weird explanation.)

Furthermore, the situation as I understand it is more complicated here: the last two victims thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter (and in a sense, he was), and if they had survived and Rittenhouse had died, in my mind they would have been able to make the same self-defense claims as Rittenhouse. After all, they were all just open carrying.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, that’s not necessarily how it works: when a felon returns fire in a gang shooting, this isn’t necessarily recognized as self-defense either even though someone was fighting for their life.

Example?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

This sounds like a defense of railroading based on the need for consistency.

No, that’s not it. In my mind, Rittenhouse’s treatment is a continuation of the same bias against most defendants.

My point is that as I see it, it looks to me that selectively granting or withholding rights defendants have based on e. g. whether you agree with them politically is born out of the same instinct that ordinarily privileges police and prosecutors. Rittenhouse is a self-declared supporter of the police, he was friendly with the police on the day of the killing and initially wasn’t even arrested. The same instincts that usually strongly favor the prosecution and the police in trials now favor Rittenhouse, because I think the judge sees him as being on the same side as the police. You tend to see similar behavior when cops are on trial.

Originally Posted by subego 

Rittenhouse invoked his Fifth Amendment right when he was arrested, and this was what the prosecutor asked him about.

Maybe we are talking about different particulars. I was referring to this exchange where the prosecutor cross examines Rittenhouse about self-defense and a prior incidence where Rittenhouse considered taking a gun out of state for purposes other than self-defense. While the judge does make a reference to Rittenhouse’s Fifth Amendment rights, I thought the central point of contention was that in the judges mind the prosecution could not bring up a situation that was similar where Rittenhouse wanted to protect property with force. I don’t want to argue how strong or convincing that argument would have been, but it does seem valid to me. But I am neither a lawyer nor fully immersed in this case.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Maybe we are talking about different particulars. I was referring to this exchange where the prosecutor cross examines Rittenhouse about self-defense and a prior incidence where Rittenhouse considered taking a gun out of state for purposes other than self-defense. While the judge does make a reference to Rittenhouse’s Fifth Amendment rights, I thought the central point of contention was that in the judges mind the prosecution could not bring up a situation that was similar where Rittenhouse wanted to protect property with force. I don’t want to argue how strong or convincing that argument would have been, but it does seem valid to me. But I am neither a lawyer nor fully immersed in this case.

The example I’m thinking of was the prosecutor asking Rittenhouse why he remained silent after he had been arrested, which is a complete and total no-no question, and IIUC, the situation where the defense asked for a mistrial.

It’s in the link you gave me upthread.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Furthermore, the situation as I understand it is more complicated here: the last two victims thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter (and in a sense, he was), and if they had survived and Rittenhouse had died, in my mind they would have been able to make the same self-defense claims as Rittenhouse. After all, they were all just open carrying.

Their self-defense claims would be brought into question because they engaged.

This is the chief difference between Rittenhouse and the second two people he shot. Rittenhouse was retreating, the people he shot were advancing.