How many of you remember Bernhard Goetz? He was a household name in 1984. Here:

Goetz made headlines in the 1980s for shooting four Black teenagers on a New York City subway. He was riding the No. 2 subway train on Dec. 22, 1984 when he used an illegal handgun to shoot the four teens after some from the group "approached him and asked for $5," court papers state. Goetz said they "effectively surrounded" him.

The teens allegedly had sharpened screwdrivers with them at the time, according to reports from the time, though Goetz said they "didn't show them."

Goetz argued it was self-defense because the teens had intended to rob him.

He was acquitted of attempted murder during his criminal trial in 1987 but was convicted of a weapons charge and spent eight and a half months behind bars.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Shameful.

Between this and Facebook and the one crowd funding site that banned Rittenhouse because he was a "mass shooter/murderer", you can't tell me there's not a lawsuit in here somewhere assuming he is found not guilty.

Oh, and when the exceptional prosecutor was arguing the use and definition of JHP's , the question occurred to me....Who hunts deer with JHP's?

Grosskreutz is on Anderson Cooper with his lawyer. He lives in a very interesting world.I’d suggest heavy medication.
According to Grosskreutz, the photo of him pointing a gun at Rittenhouse, was, during, or after being shot. Worse, he’s now claiming his wound could only have been received if his arms were up. After being shot he claims to have had no control of his arm.
Picture this: Gaige is confronted and has his hands up. He’s shot, loses control of his arm and it just happens that the pistol points at Rittenhouse when the photo is taken.
Gaige also goes on about how Rittenhouse was carrying an “illegal weapon” while he “was carrying concealed.” Cooper then asked about how a medic goes to help people but brings a gun? Gaige spouts how he supports the Second Amendment, always carries, and it’s the same ad taking his gun is the same as picking up his keys.
Gosh, Cooper didn’t ask about Gaige’s expired CCW.
This will play well at his lawsuit.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Icabod,

He may have always carried, but his license was expired, so he was illegally carrying his Glock.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Here is a screen capture of what they showed to the jury

Let’s look at one area of the photo to see if the image is distorted or provides clarification.

Is the white cloud parallel with the ground or pointing down toward the ground?
This image manipulation is not the same as a magnifying glass.



Original



Enhanced



I am not confused at all.
The Defense is absolutely correct.
The Expert Zoom and Enhancement, clearly distorted the image.
That should not have been allowed in Court at all.

The algorithms used to “enhance” the image, clearly altered the image.
One blob is not like the other blob.

Not the same.
Look at the angle of what would appear to be the left shoulder or arm.
First image I could infer that I am looking at a shouldered rifle.
Second image I could infer that I am looking at a sling across someone’s back.
Distortion of the photo clearly alters my interpretation of what I am looking at.

That being said can anyone really say they even see a rifle in either image?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is a perfect picture of a Sasquatch.

to put that picture in front of the jury and have the prosecutors say it shows anything is a profound fraud.

The judge was tricked by the prosecutors.

While the judge has at times called the prosecutors out, he doesn't have the courage or smarts to shut down the prosecutors in obvious attempts to railroad Rittenhouse.

Even the Washington Post is piling on . . .

Legal experts see prosecutorial missteps in Rittenhouse trial
By Justin Jouvenal and Kim Bellware

https://www.washingtonpost.com...4632af69b_story.html

• Judge Bruce Schroeder accused [Kenosha Assistant District Attorney Thomas] Binger of violating orders about discussing a video in which the defendant had allegedly talked about wanting to shoot looters.

• Binger insisted it was his “good-faith feeling” that he could introduce the evidence, but Schroeder shot back with fury, “I don’t believe you.”

• Rocky prosecution for Binger

• Binger undercut by his own witnesses

• Binger's strategic missteps

• Binger struggled with inconvenient facts

• Binger's high legal bar to prove Rittenhouse’s guilt

WP has a paywall.

quote:

The algorithms used to “enhance” the image, clearly altered the image.

Indeed. It's the only possible outcome, technically, literally. A digitally edited photograph has zero business being admitted as evidence or used in court in any way whatsoever. Not today, not ever.

It cannot, categorically, inarguably, be the same anymore. Computers aren't magic, and "Enhance" isn't a real thing they can do to a photo. 100% Hollywood.

The only thing the computer can even do here is guess and make shit up. That's it.

Only thing that photo clarified for me is that we now know some dude had a white guitar case.

The same algorithm that made that guitar case made what ever the prosecutor thinks he sees.

Or maybe the guitar case got crunched up, not 100% sure which is the original image.

Oh, yeah, man, those pics really clear things up. That guy was on the grassy knoll. Yeah, Guitar Case Man. Yeah.


Please, we're almost through this.


Let's.

Be.

Cool.

.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:



The only thing the computer can even do here is guess and make shit up.

I've had days like that.

All the blown up still photos are mostly worthless to tell what actually happened.
Aside from not making details any more clear, they don't show any relative motion, and that's often the most important element.
If it was me, I'd rather see an original video played 20 times over and over in real time speed so you can see small details that might be missed the first time.
In any case, the only shooting that didn't have enough good video to see it was clearly justified, was the first one, and that has now been shown from so many angles and had so much testimony that it's pretty clear what happened there too.

Why do those enhanced photos look like my colonoscopy results?

Don’t know what’s going on up yours, but it’s probably the same shit.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Why do those enhanced photos look like my colonoscopy results?

Because digital enhancement can do only so much. The poor resolution and lighting, the distance to the subjects of interest under those conditions, the complexity of the scenes, all make for target subjects that cannot reasonably be enhanced.

As to why the judge allowed the "enhanced" frame captures to be admitted into evidence: In watching the trial I got the impression he felt they wouldn't do a damn thing to aid the prosecution's case.

I think he was right--particularly after the State's expert witness' testimony.

I've followed the trial fairly closely. Listening to some of the 'news' accounts makes me wonder what trial they are watching. Watching that scumbag with the reduced bicep and his attorney lie about what he testified to in court just the day before was unbelievable. It should be reasonably clear to any fair and thinking person what happen and I expect the jury will acquit on any major charges. The Media is really going to be butthurt