Rittenhouse trial to start soon, Judge is laying out rules.

[Luna1968]

The shit the judge banned the prosecution from using is ridiculous. Of course he is a Trumpie.

and of course, you don't like him for that. weak

 

[MrSquished]

and of course, you don't like him for that. weak

People who still support Trump are immoral and rotten in their core. He is a horrible human being that just tried to overthrow democracy, among a million other things. How that is weak is amusing, but of course it is to you, who would probably run to the polls to vote for Trump if he ran again.

 

[ivwshane]

and of course, you don't like him for that. weak

Yeah because people like that and you, put party before country. Your principals are based off of who’s on your team. You guys are anti democratic and traitors to this nation, your actions and your support of others actions has proven this time and time again.

 

[FirNaTine]

Judge is so stupid, he thinks zooming on a touchscreen is changing the image.

From a technical perspective, zooming like that usually is altering an image to some degree. Most use an interpolation algorithm of some sort to make the image look more appealing as they zoom. It is adding/filling in detail as a best guess based on nearby pixels and various rules (anti-aliasing edges for example) Now, as whether that’s a meaningful alteration or not is a much different conversation. But in a legal sense, I think the defense and judge are not necessarily as dense as suggested, as this has likely come up and been argued before.

 

[MrSquished]

Yeah because people like that and you, put party before country. Your principals are based off of who’s on your team. You guys are anti democratic and traitors to this nation, your actions and your support of others actions has proven this time and time again.

Exactly. Trump has zero principles and is indeed a traitor. To continue to support him shows that you simply have no character deep down where it counts. Luna is one of those people too so he is upset one of his team is getting called out for being the shit that they are.

 

[soundforbjt]

From a technical perspective, zooming like that usually is altering an image to some degree. Most use an interpolation algorithm of some sort to make the image look more appealing as they zoom. It is adding/filling in detail as a best guess based on nearby pixels and various rules (anti-aliasing edges for example) Now, as whether that’s a meaningful alteration or not is a much different conversation. But in a legal sense, I think the defense and judge are not necessarily as dense as suggested, as this has likely come up and been argued before.

Got a link for your claim?
Then why did the judge not ask the defense to prove their objection, instead asking the prosecution to basically prove a negative. The defense made the objection because they didn’t want the jury to see KR pointing his gun at someone other than Rosenbaum.

 

[HomerJS]

From a technical perspective, zooming like that usually is altering an image to some degree. Most use an interpolation algorithm of some sort to make the image look more appealing as they zoom. It is adding/filling in detail as a best guess based on nearby pixels and various rules (anti-aliasing edges for example) Now, as whether that’s a meaningful alteration or not is a much different conversation. But in a legal sense, I think the defense and judge are not necessarily as dense as suggested, as this has likely come up and been argued before.

Really? Zooming is no different then looking at a picture from 200 feet and then moving in to 6 inches. The picture doesn't change. Zooming just changes how the picture "looks" it doesn't change the actual picture. Have you ever shined a red light on a picture? The red colors get washed out. Does that change the picture?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

From a technical perspective, zooming like that usually is altering an image to some degree. Most use an interpolation algorithm of some sort to make the image look more appealing as they zoom. It is adding/filling in detail as a best guess based on nearby pixels and various rules (anti-aliasing edges for example) Now, as whether that’s a meaningful alteration or not is a much different conversation. But in a legal sense, I think the defense and judge are not necessarily as dense as suggested, as this has likely come up and been argued before.

What?!??
Absolutely false. If I look at one of my lunar photographs and zoom in on it to see the details within the image, it's not making up what it thinks is there. It's a finished product. I will see the image my camera and lens are capable of. If I zoom in beyond that it gets blurry.
Zoom <> altering.
Jesus fucking christ.

 

[FirNaTine]

Got a link for your claim?
Then why did the judge not ask the defense to prove their objection, instead asking the prosecution to basically prove a negative.

Here’s one that describes the various techniques employed in digital zoom. And the burden of proof would be on the prosecution to prove that the zoom is not altering the original images. They are the one entering it as evidence.

 

[FirNaTine]

What?!??
Absolutely false. If I look at one of my lunar photographs and zoom in on it to see the details within the image, it's not making up what it thinks is there. It's a finished product. I will see the image my camera and lens are capable of. If I zoom in beyond that it gets blurry.
Zoom <> altering.
Jesus fucking christ.

That is you zooming in without using any of those techniques, not using a touchscreen device to do so. You can’t definitively say that none of those interpolation techniques aren’t used, as you have no way of knowing how exactly it is doing it without technical documentation from the device manufacturer. If you don’t have that basic a grasp of digital imaging, I’d spend some time learning what you’re claiming to know about instead of making bold, but incorrect statements like they are fact.

 

[FirNaTine]

Really? Zooming is no different then looking at a picture from 200 feet and then moving in to 6 inches. The picture doesn't change. Zooming just changes how the picture "looks" it doesn't change the actual picture. Have you ever shined a red light on a picture? The red colors get washed out. Does that change the picture?

Wrong, please see the link I posted. Digital zoom as it’s implemented in consumer products absolutely does alter the image, and will introduce either aliasing, blurring, edge halos or usually some balance of those at a minimum.

 

[HomerJS]

This judge is a Trump loving dummy.

 

[IronWing]

Wrong, please see the link I posted. Digital zoom as it’s implemented in consumer products absolutely does alter the image, and will introduce either aliasing, blurring, edge halos or usually some balance of those at a minimum.

It depends on the image size and the display size. If the captured image is at a higher resolution than the monitor (most likely) and the entire image is shown, then the image is altered by reducing detail. As long as zooming in does not exceed 1:1 image pixels to display pixels then no interpolation occurs. The proper response by the prosecution is to only show 1:1 image pixels to display pixels even if they have to pan the images to do so and never zoom in past 1:1. If the prosecution wants to "enlarge" the image w/o interpolation, the correct way to do this is to decrease the monitor resolution so that each display pixel is larger.

Edit: As far as digital zoom vs optical zoom goes in the original capture, the info should be in the EXIF data. If digital zoom was employed in the original capture, there is nothing that can be done about it now and the judge will have to decide if images captured using digital zoom are admissible. In this age of computational photography, the courts are going to have to figure things out. Cell phone cameras are taking extraordinary liberties with the information captured by their sensors. This really has nothing to do with how the prosecutors display the images.

 

[HomerJS]

Wrong, please see the link I posted. Digital zoom as it’s implemented in consumer products absolutely does alter the image, and will introduce either aliasing, blurring, edge halos or usually some balance of those at a minimum.

You don't know what kind of zoom was used. Cameras can employ optical zoom, digital zoom or a combination of both. In the case of combo the initial magnification is optical.

 

[soundforbjt]

Yet the defense used zoomed images taken from a digital copy from video stills.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

That is you zooming in without using any of those techniques, not using a touchscreen device to do so. You can’t definitively say that none of those interpolation techniques aren’t used, as you have no way of knowing how exactly it is doing it without technical documentation from the device manufacturer. If you don’t have that basic a grasp of digital imaging, I’d spend some time learning what you’re claiming to know about instead of making bold, but incorrect statements like they are fact.

Irony is just dripping off of this

 

[IronWing]

One other note: Back when digital cameras first came on the scene, there was great deal of skepticism about allowing the photos to be admissible as judges didn't necessarily understand the technology and the ability to manipulate the photos. The solution was to question the photographer under oath and ask, "does this photo accurately portray what you saw?" The admissibility was then based on the photographer's response.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm sure that's exactly what the judge meant. He's an up to date modern guy, totally not a typical tech boomer

 

[FirNaTine]

You don't know what kind of zoom was used. Cameras can employ optical zoom, digital zoom or a combination of both. In the case of combo the initial magnification is optical.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I’m not discussing what was used in the camera, but zooming in on the display. That digital zoom. Unless as IronWing suggested it was set as a hard stop at 1:1 mapping, and would only show the original image as captured.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

For anyone who didn't already know this is a show trial.

Proud to be an American by Lee Greenwood?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Still no evidence, I see.

The kid showed up to a car dealership with a rifle in hopes of protecting it, and crossed state lines with a gun he was too young to own in the first place. He was looking for a fight.

It's hard reading a thread you're posting in. Kyle did not take the rifle across State lines as has been in this thread multiple times and was in the testimony.

 

[FirNaTine]

One other note: Back when digital cameras first came on the scene, there was great deal of skepticism about allowing the photos to be admissible as judges didn't necessarily understand the technology and the ability to manipulate the photos. The solution was to question the photographer under oath and ask, "does this photo accurately portray what you saw?" The admissibility was then based on the photographer's response.

What’s funny is I remember investigators I work with making the switch from film to digital around 20 years ago. For a time they were using Sony Mavicas that wrote to a 3.5” floppy and disks were kept under chain of custody for evidence purposes to address some of that (I’m strictly FD/Paramedic but we have a small cadre of arson/explosive investigators. They are experienced Firefighters that go through a full police academy as well as arson/explosives specific training. )

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The shit the judge banned the prosecution from using is ridiculous. Of course he is a Trumpie.
[/QUOTE]

Rittenhouse Trial Midday Update: Kyle Takes the Stand; Prosecutor Incurs Wrath of Judge

Defense says if ADA Binger misconduct continues, will ask for mistrial with prejudice

legalinsurrection.com

"The first was by far the most egregious: ADA Binger began to raise before the jury the fact that Rittenhouse had exercised his Constitutional right to silence prior to taking the witness stand today in court.


For those who may not know, the right to silence is inviolate, and the fact that a defendant has remained silent may not be used against him in any way—including the prohibition that it may not be mentioned AT ALL by the prosecution at any time of the trial, EVER.

If there’s a single most inviolate civil right in American criminal law, this is it—the right of a defendant to remain silent, and not have the exercise of that right be used against them.

To observe an experienced prosecutor breach this fundamental Constitutional right in open court, in the presence of a jury, was professionally shocking to me personally—and the defense and Judge Schroeder acted with the severity you might expect.

Here’s the video of Binger delving in front of the jury into Kyle’s exercise of his right to remain silent, and Judge Schroeder’s reaction:"

Try to learn something new, like facts.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Yeah because people like that and you, put party before country. Your principals are based off of who’s on your team. You guys are anti democratic and traitors to this nation, your actions and your support of others actions has proven this time and time again.

Crap, you are a stupid piece of shit, the song on the Judges phone is "Proud to be an American" by Lee Greenwood.

 

[FirNaTine]

I'm sure that's exactly what the judge meant. He's an up to date modern guy, totally not a typical tech boomer

He doesn’t need to be up on the tech, but he should be up on the rules of evidence. I’d be highly surprised that this is the first time it’s come up. It’s likely that the rules of evidence require images to be presented as they were provided to defense in discovery, and any enhancement/manipulation for lighting/contrast/magnification that was to be presented would have to be disclosed ahead of time for the defense to review (possibly by their expert) for any changes from the as taken images. As this zooming was being done on the fly, effectively the prosecution was introducing evidence the defense didn’t have time to review, and that’s a no no.

From a “common sense” view it seems like that something that simple shouldn’t be an issue, but if we used common sense in court, we’d put a lot of lawyers out of work. And we can’t have that.