If there is a 'metric shit ton' I guess I can find something, so I'll look. — I like sushi
I found something that basically agreed with what I said — I like sushi
https://www.wuwm.com/2021-11-22/discussing-the-implications-of-rittenhouse-trial"I definitely believe the prosecutors could have made different choices that would have resulted in some convictions. I think that the way that the prosecution presented their case, forced the jury to either say 'self-defense is real or self-defense is not'. I just don't think that's the right way to approach it," says Martinez.
Many fear the verdict will embolden so-called vigilantes to come armed to protests or even kill more people at protests.
Martinez explains, "To the extent to which right wing believers are going to be emboldened by this, I think is up in the air right now. I can tell you that from what I've seen online It's definitely the case that they take this as a total victory and a total vindication of their position."
The defence rested its case Thursday, but not before arguing with prosecutors about whether an enlarged image taken from a drone video could be admitted into evidence. Schroeder, following arguments held without the jury present, said he would allow the image, while admitting he didn't understand the technology used by a state crime lab employee to enlarge it.
"With all due respect to your honour, I think the defence is trying to take advantage of your lack of knowledge about technology," Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney James Kraus said.
Kraus argued that the way the images were enlarged was the "industry standard" and for the defence to "then try to pretend this is all voodoo magic is preposterous." He said the defence attempt to get the evidence tossed out because it shows "their client is lying ... they are stooping to this level to try to keep it out."
Prosecutors wanted to use the image to rebut Rittenhouse's testimony that he didn't point his gun at protesters just before he was chased by Joseph Rosenbaum, whom Rittenhouse shot and killed. Rittenhouse argues he shot him in self-defence.
Wisconsin crime lab employee James Armstrong testified, under questioning from defence attorney Corey Chirafisi, that the software program adds pixels to the image and he cannot say with certainty what colour the added pixels are.
"If it is not the same as the original and colours were added to that, that is a distortion of what, in fact, the original photograph was," Chirafisi said in arguing to keep out the image.
Kraus called that a "canard" and a "dishonest argument."
"This is just not the age we're in," Kraus argued. "We are in an age where software is able to enlarge and do things."
Schroeder used a magnifying glass to examine the image in question and also walked right up to a large screen to get a better look. He ultimately allowed the image to be admitted, but Rittenhouse's defence attorney was also permitted to question the crime lab analyst about the software used to enlarge it with the jury present.
The judge said he was leaving it up to the jury to decide how much weight to give the image.
Keep looking. Take a few days. — James Riley
You're not gonna get off scot-free with that metric shit ton you pulled. lol. :smile:. Context is everything. That is why context was not allow[sic] in the trial. — James Riley
You're not gonna get off scot-free with that metric shit ton you pulled. lol. :smile: — Caldwell
The reason I'm not giving you more is because I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole with someone who's mind is made up; confirmation bias, like talking to anti-vaxxers about science. — James Riley
I can't believe you can't find anything. Maybe that's because you still have your head stuck in the trial. FUCK the trial. Focus on what happened before, during and after the shooting; not just the shooting. — James Riley
Now you're not even being consistent with yourself, let alone testimony. I have noticed that obfuscation via verbiage is definitely your thing. — Kenosha Kid
It’s true, high murder rates are not a good thing, but neither is a monopoly on violence, the inability to equalize force, the inability to defend one’s property, an so on. At each step, from the shooting of Jason Blake onward, the professionals failed in Wisconsin. Frankly, I would much rather take my chances. — NOS4A2
Yours seem... well, invented tbh. — Kenosha Kid
↪Kenosha Kid It is. One mistake is he had his gun out already then rushed into a dangerous situation with gun in hand looking to help Rittenhouse. — I like sushi
The law is the law though and my bias is (to repeat) that I think carrying guns around is not the norm in my life experience (even for police). The US is the US though. — I like sushi
I’ll just say that there is a fine line between efficiency on the one hand and laziness and ignorance on the other. — NOS4A2
You would rather delegate the right to bear arms and to defend yourself to other people. — NOS4A2
You don’t know where your tax money is spent—out of sight, out of mind—but are confident authority will spend it on some “public good”. — NOS4A2
Huh? Where does that come from? Can someone explain to me what NOS means? In any case, if not I just point out the non-sequitur and let it rest.Your sense of justice has been reduced to strict legalism. — NOS4A2
In short, Tobias, your ideology is servile and unjust and immoral. — NOS4A2
It isn't without irony that we find a Dutch John Oliver ridiculing Americans and their guns while benefiting from the liberation and defense of American firepower.... I fear we cannot discuss the ethics of defending oneself from a mob or a right to bear arms without limiting ourselves to state-sanctioned principles, many of which are younger than the disco era. — NOS4A2
It was only a criticism of the idea that by paying tax dollars you are somehow working with others, coordinating your defence. That’s not the case, to me. It appears more like ignorance, in the sense of “not knowing”. Since one is unable to follow his tax-dollars to their final destination, so he is unable to say he is coordinating education, a police force, or the toilet paper in a public washrooms. Far from coordination, he is ignorant of it, and has no say in all coordinating aspects of its application. — NOS4A2
Some would rather delegate the responsibilities and the means for their defence on to others, to “professionals”. So in times when defence is required, he has long absolved himself of any responsibility and can let others handle it for him. Far from efficient, it’s laziness. It isn't without irony that we find a dutch John Oliver ridiculing Americans and their guns while benefiting from the liberation and defence of American firepower. — NOS4A2
And since they confer their responsibilities to the state, they correspondingly confer it the power to govern their own lives. The monopoly on violence hints at who is serving whom. — NOS4A2
I used legalism in the pejorative sense. I mean that ethics is dismissed in favor of appeals to law and authority. Law shapes the "mindset of the people", rather the other way about. I fear we cannot discuss the ethics of defending oneself from a mob or a right to bear arms without limiting ourselves to state-sanctioned principles, many of which are younger than the disco era. — NOS4A2
The point, anyways, was that in the view of my erroneous ideology I have yet to see anything better on offer. — NOS4A2
Did R deserve to be chased down by a mob and assaulted?No, neither deserved death if justice were served in a deliberate way. That is, had they not been shot, they would have faced some charges, not none deserving terribly long sentences, and certainly not death.
Saying the self defense was justified is not equivalent to saying he got his just dessert. — Hanover
It's not a matter of what someone deserved. It's a matter of do you have the right to defend yourself from being killed? — Harry Hindu
This doesn't tell me anything useful. What are the circumstances in which it is OK to defend yourself vs not being OK to defend yourself?And the answer to that question as offered up so often in this thread is sometimes you have and sometimes you do not. — Tobias
This doesn't tell me anything useful. What are the circumstances in which it is OK to defend yourself vs not being OK to defend yourself?
It seems to me that if you have the right to life, liberty and happiness, then you have the right to defend yourself from others trying to take these things away from you. — Harry Hindu
Then your position is that all rapists deserve to be killed by their victim's (X-)husband?Well now Harry, think, think.... what could those circumstances be.... Ohh I know. Say you are in the process of brutally raping my wife, choking her (I am divorced by the way, but that's beside the point, it is nota real scenario, but a hypothetical you see) and I come to her rescue wielding a lead pipe. You out of fear for your life stab me in the eye with the long hair pin conveniently located on my wive's night stand. The pin penetrates my eyeball, enters the brain which sibsequently causes my legs to quake and I collapse to the floor.... dead! — Tobias
Strange that you interpret a factual statement as a demand. Maybe the information in this thread is inaccurate, biased, or doesn't take into consideration all facts that have been given. There is no problem in asking questions. You didn't have to answer.By the way, it is not my duty to tell you anything useful. You frame it as a demand, but normally I get paid to provide legal education. You could have found this information in the thread. — Tobias
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.