2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing

Users who are viewing this thread

Omg the attorney misspoke after days and hours in the courtroom and confused two almost identically sounding loanwords! I bet he even made a typo somewhere in the paperwork! What a ****ing loser! Haha! That means everything he says is nonsense!
Literally this

Nobody claims the algorithms are politically biased, just that they don't depict reality and should therefore not be admitted as evidence, or at the minimum with clear and emphatic instructions that this is more like a painting or a witness testimony, i.e. something fallible and potentially inaccurate and not as most people would intuit - a 100% accurate, photorealistic, if you will, depiction of what happened.
But the judge was of course very impartial and fair and balanced. And the one day long jury selection process was also very thorough. I don't see what could possibly go wrong with this! I would also be curious to know how many if the jurors are white but I wasn't really able to find information on that.
Sorry mate, but this is your brain on anti-racism. If we're really re-segregaing society now, then yeah the jury SHOULD be all white, because you have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers and from what you're saying whites and nonwhites are not peers.But even under these brave new rules, why should there be any nonwhites involved in the trial at all? Everyone, the defendant and the three victims, are all white.
 
Last edited:
Omg the attorney misspoke after days and hours in the courtroom and confused two almost identically sounding loanwords! I bet he even made a typo somewhere in the paperwork! What a ****ing loser! Haha! That means everything he says is nonsense!
i mean it is very funny that you go from explicitly stating "the prosecution used ai that simply guesses what the blur is!" to "the defence misspeaking is ok and digital zoom is complicated". it's almost like those are barely related arguments. it's a bit motte and bailey of you.

this of course is further enhanced by the fact that neither the defence (master three dimensional logarithms) nor the judge (my screenshots of text messages get blurry when i compress them as email attachments) actually understands what's complicated about digital zoom and why, and instead just invent out of nothing claims of "ai enhancement" that have nothing to do with how zooming in on video played on an ipad works (because that only applies to processing done while capturing the image/video, and therefore if applicable would render the entire video inadmissible).

made even more entertaining by various people buying that bull**** whole cloth and repeating it without actually paying attention to just how stupid of a claim it is in this context.

like this doesn't even have anything to do with the trial or the outcome thereof to me, which is a topic i will studiously avoid. it's just a case of people making up bull**** about tech they don't understand and those bull**** claims getting cycled through the culture war sphere with a hilarious lack of scrutiny
 
You and everybody else know exactly what the defense meant by "logarithms". There is no gap here. Does or does the technique add pixels where there previously none? A whole lot of people assume that zooming in a picture or footage is like using a magnifying glass or a miscroscope. The bacteria were there all the time, you just couldn't see them with a naked eye, but now you can. This is not the case with digital zoom, as far as I know. It was completely valid for the defense to bring that up. What was recorded, what really is there, is the blur. The "zoom" is just a computer's interpretation of the blur. They used lay language, yeah, so what. It's a court of law, not a PhD seminar in engineering. It's the equivalent of a testimony of someone who wasn't there (A), but talked to someone who was there (B) and here's what A thinks B saw there. It's very weak evidence that pretends it's incredibly strong evidence.
Kurczak, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease. Just this one term.
Huh?
 
Racism is bad. ''Anti-racism'' is good. Think of a different term, please. I agree with you otherwise.
 
because there fundamentally is no "ai guessing" "what the blur is", like every part of that is wrong, as is saying that that's what the prosecution was trying to do. that's not what digital zoom does. zooming in on blur just creates noisier blur, it doesn't "try to guess what is actually there". the prosecution wasn't "trying to show what the blur was by enhancing it with ai".

digital zoom has its own problems, but neither the judge nor the defence nor you apparently understand the difference between these two seperate issues and it's very funny to me.

like, yes, the defence bringing up that digital zoom has complex issues (much like digital photography in general) would have been entirely legitimate.

but they didn't. what they brought up was made up bull**** about "3d logarithms creating information out of nothing to guess what a blur is", which is, again, not what digital zoom does nor what the problem with digital zoom is, and is in fact an entirely unrelated phenomenon with entirely different problems that aren't relevant to the argument you claim they are trying to make.

fundamentally the entire construction of the argument is just flat out wrong, and your bemusement at what you take to be the prosecution's intention just shows how uncritically you're swallowing that bull****.

it is of course possible that you swallowed it uncritically because you're simply not particularly tech-inclined, much like the judge and defence very obviously are not, as evidenced by how they respectively presented and accepted said bull**** argument. i am not insinuating that this is automatically intentional political bias on your or their part or anything of the sort. it's just very hilarious tech-illiterate bull****.
 
Sorry mate, but this is your brain on anti-racism. If we're really re-segregaing society now, then yeah the jury SHOULD be all white, because you have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers and from what you're saying whites and nonwhites are not peers.But even under these brave new rules, why should there be any nonwhites involved in the trial at all? Everyone, the defendant and the three victims, are all white.
Are you not anti-racism? Pro-racism then? Come on ?. I also didn't say that the jury should be all non white, nor am I saying anything that you are writing there. Can we not do this please? I am just saying that the judge has shown a very obvious bias to favor the defendant, and that I would be interested in knowing the jury composition. I did not even say what I think the jury should look like.

You and everybody else know exactly what the defense meant by "logarithms". There is no gap here. Does or does the technique add pixels where there previously none? A whole lot of people assume that zooming in a picture or footage is like using a magnifying glass or a miscroscope. The bacteria were there all the time, you just couldn't see them with a naked eye, but now you can. This is not the case with digital zoom, as far as I know. It was completely valid for the defense to bring that up. What was recorded, what really is there, is the blur. The "zoom" is just a computer's interpretation of the blur. They used lay language, yeah, so what. It's a court of law, not a PhD seminar in engineering. It's the equivalent of a testimony of someone who wasn't there (A), but talked to someone who was there (B) and here's what A thinks B saw there. It's very weak evidence that pretends it's incredibly strong evidence.

The zoom is not a computer interpretation of anything. The zoom literally just makes the image larger, and the only reason why you don't see the individual pixels is because you can't zoom in that much in a smartphone or tablet (I assume that we all know that digital images are made of pixels that form a mosaic). That attorney is either an absolute moron, or, which I find more likely, is acting in bad faith. You don't need a PhD level of knowledge to know this stuff, and it was ridiculous and unreasonable for the judge to ask for an expert testimony to be presented on the spot. Let's not pretend that this is something reasonable.
 
Last edited:
You'll have to excuse Rightwing Big Brain, she gets at least some of her news straight from right wing propaganda that has no problem perpetuating misleading claims and outright lies among the right-wing faithful.
For example, here' s a failed fact check about the prosecutor pointing a gun at the jury.

I thought you were ironic about the jury composition by race, but in case you weren't, it's known that there's one "person of color" among the 18 (12 + 6 reserves) people in the jury. However Kenosha County is 88% white, so this is close to representative for them, if that's what juries are about and why their law enforcement likes the right-winger vigilantes. Being black in rural white country is not easy.
 
Seems reasonable to me but haven't been following all the odd details of the trial.
It's as reasonable as the old forum veteran trick of baiting newbies into bans. And they know that the moderator is on their side on principle.

Edit:
This is just an extension of the culture wars, but with guns on the streets. Not a good thing.
The verdict itself encourages armed demonstrations with more killings. Whatever the legal merits of the case, the right verdict would have been to punish the killer teen at least for reckless behavior causing death, because that's what's caused the killings and send a message to vigilantes to mind their own business.
 
Last edited:
Well too bad the verdict is based on the law.
It's actually based on the interpretation of the law by twelve random local laymen, who were convinced how to interpret it by two professional lawyers who are way beyond the jurors in understanding of the law and manipulation of people (specifically jurors). And this public manipulation spectacle is presided by an elected law professional, not the best one available.
Compared to real law systems where law professionals decide the verdict, jury trials are frontier justice.
 
Last edited:

Seems reasonable to me but haven't been following all the odd details of the trial.


Some more details. I don't think that the link you shared contains a lot of information on what was actually going on.
 
Thank you. I know the headlines so to speak. By odd details I meant 'pinch to zoom' and what not.
Seems Rittenhouse acted in self defence. First running away when assaulted and was then pursued.
Then he's attacked lying on the street, and the person he wounds even had a gun (at first lying about it, even though it's on video).
What I don't get is how a minor is allowed to carry a gun, but it must be an American thing...
I know it's a big complicated case and I certainly don't have all the facts, but it's good to discuss.
 
Seems Rittenhouse acted in self defence.
Was it justified though? Reading the AP summary of lawful conditions for self-defense is damning.
Or let's play a game. How many people would have died if he hadn't carried a gun? You know the answer well and it's why reckless endangerment is a thing.
 
Was it justified though? Reading the AP summary of lawful conditions for self-defense is damning.
Or let's play a game. How many people would have died if he hadn't carried a gun? You know the answer well and it's why reckless endangerment is a thing.
The US appears to have a legacy of frontier justice that law-makers have tip-toed around. As an outsider, I find it difficult to defend an armed vigilante crossing state lines to interfere in troubles elsewhere. https://law.jrank.org/pages/11129/Vigilantism.html
 
But you're allowed to carry a gun for self defence and the circumstances very much seemed appropriate.
If this was not a case where carrying a gun for self defence was relevant, then when is it? He was pursued and physically assaulted.

As a Dane this right to bear arms is an alien concept, but this must a perfect example.
 
But you're allowed to carry a gun for self defence and the circumstances very much seemed appropriate.
If this was not a case where carrying a gun for self defence was relevant, then when is it? He was pursued and physically assaulted.

As a Dane this right to bear arms is an alien concept, but this must a perfect example.
Well, if someone unarmed chases me and wants to grab my rifle, I'm going to murder them too, because deadly force is always okay. Hell, if someone looks at me funny, I'll aim for the head. It's self-defence and I'm easily offended!
If no one tries anything, I'll strut around with a rifle close to some angry demonstrators and someone will take the bait.
 
There was no way they were going to convict him of murder. Those weren't the circumstances. The only person who deserved to get shot was that pedophile Rosenbaum, he started the whole thing and attacked Rittenhouse. The other two that were shot were under the impression that they were stopping a mass shooting or fleeing murderer. I can't call that murder or attempted murder on Rittenhouse's part either, but I can't say the two bystanders were in the wrong either. Nonetheless, Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there at all, and was there to get himself into trouble or seek the thrill of it. He said himself that he wanted to kill people in a video that I believe he recorded himself.

Him getting off completely scot free is ridiculous, it sets a precedent to allow people to get themselves in killing situations under the mask of "protecting the community". It was not murder, but it was also not humble and completely innocent self-defense. The whole situation could've been avoided if he stayed with his group, concealed a handgun and blended in rather than lug around an attention-grabbing long gun, or better yet, stay away from volatile riots.
 
Back
Top Bottom