Rittenhouse and the right to self-defense
I probably will write more about this over the weekend, because I need more information on it in order to say something more intelligent about it. But I’ve been appalled at two things recently in the Rittenhouse trial – in addition to the fact that he was charged with murder in the first place. Both things underscore, for me, how much of our legal system depends on the integrity of public officials such as prosecutors.
Prosecutors have a lot of power, even though the system is set up to protect the rights of the accused through rules such as the presumption of innocence. But even being charged with something like murder is an ordeal – and there’s also the creation of an atmosphere (by the MSM and political operatives such as Biden) that prejudices the public against a defendant such as Rittenhouse and includes the threat of violence if a guilty verdict isn’t reached. That threat of violence is not only against the community as a whole, but against specific jurors who will supposedly be doxxed if the verdict isn’t guilty.
Remember that the genesis of this entire horror show was MSM lies about the shooting of Jacob Blake, and resultant rioting, as well as the abdication of the government of the city in keeping the peace. Rioters were allowed to – well, to run riot – and that’s the only reason Rittenhouse was there in the first place, as well as the reason anarchy prevailed in the streets that August night.
The DA’s office charged Rittenhouse precipitously, without having nearly enough information to know whether the charges were valid. It was either a cave to the mob or a political decision by leftists, but either way it was shockingly fast under the circumstances. The performance of the ADA (Binger) during the trial has been abominable, and the case against Rittenhouse is astonishingly weak. A DA with integrity would never have brought this case, but these DAs did, and the prosecutors in this trial have pursued it doggedly.
Yesterday the prosecution was allowed to introduce some extraordinarily weak and dubious evidence (you can read about it here), an “enhanced” video that surfaced recently that was originally impossible to decipher and whose “enhancement” involved a process by which the image is hopelessly distorted by the addition of enormous numbers of pixels that weren’t there in the first place.
Has such evidence ever been admitted in a court of law? It’s possible, but I certainly haven’t heard of it before. The prosecutors contend that it shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at someone, which could go to the issue of provocation and could at least arguably cancel out his right to self-defense.
Today, it appears (I’ve gleaned this mainly from discussions in comments around the blogosphere, but the situation should emerge more clearly later on) that that the judge has allowed the prosecution to include lesser charges at this late date. The trial is over in terms of evidence, and my understanding so far is that in Wisconsin there apparently is a rule that the prosecution can add new charges if the judge thinks they fit, even after all the testimony is over. To me, this would seem to give the prosecution a terribly unfair advantage if they have a weak case and want to pursue a defendant and make sure he’s put away on something.
At least, that’s my understanding at this point. If you’ve been watching the trial today (I haven’t), and/or if you know more about the Wisconsin laws on these points, please feel free in the comments.
On August 27 of 2020, shortly after the events in this case transpired, I wrote that this case could have the result of “discouraging bona fide self-defense on the part of the rioters’ targets.” The left has been trying for a long time to weaken this right in the US as they already have done in countries such as Britain, and they see this case as a big opportunity.
Now it comes down to the jury, but so far this case has been appalling in every way.
The jury already has been threatened. It seems that the system ought to have some mechanism for their protection. Or a new one needs to be created in light of the permitted lawlessness we have seen over the past several years. This country has arrived at a place I never imagined 40 years ago.
That is frightening being forced to be at the mercy of Rioting, because they don’t seem to have much mercy.
Read Andrew Branca’s explaining this new evidence and looks to me the fix is in to at least hold him on something. Feel sorry for Kyle but he might not get out even if it’s not any murder charges.
T-Rex,
40 years ago? Heck, I couldn’t envision this 10 years ago. It was the Zimmerman fiasco and then especially Ferguson which were aha moments for me, and I think many others, as to how far we have descended as a society.
I was surprised to learn that the prosecutor could petition to add lesser included offenses not previously on the indictment or information. IMLO, the provisions of the penal code might and perhaps should be composed so that the lower degrees are lesser included offenses of the higher, and so a selection of nominated offenses are lesser included offenses of others (e.g. manslaughter v. murder, trespass v. burglary, menacing or reckless endangerment v. assault). It’s also distressing how weakly filtered are prosecutors’ contentions. In New York, a finding of no-true-bill by a grand jury occurs 0.3% of the time. Perhaps judges presiding over preliminary hearings have more critical distance.
Ideally the judge’s function would be limited to ruling on questions of law and on whether to accept or reject a plea bargain, and sentences prescribed explicitly in the code or computed according to formulae specified in the code.
Part of the problem may be that our prosecutors are elected officials; I doubt, though, you could demonstrate with empirical observation that U.S. Attorneys are more ethical than local prosecutors.
Yep, get him on something is the way it is going to go. Just what we don’t know.
MSM lies about the death of Jacob Blake,
IIRC, Blake is still alive. There have been inconsistent accounts as to the degree of paralysis he’s suffering.
Yep, get him on something is the way it is going to go. Just what we don’t know.
Let’s hope Mr. Rittenhouse has a better jury than did Mr. Chauvin – one that won’t co-operate with the government shysters’ schemes.
“Getting him on something” will lead to his economic destruction/destitution in any civil suit sure to follow. That’s one reason for it. The other is the idiot prosecutor perhaps thinking that any conviction will halt the mob. It won’t. They are ready to riot no matter what the verdict is just like when a B-ball team wins or loses a championship.
If fleeing as far as possible before defending oneself is murder, why not in for a penny, in for a pound? What do you have to lose? And by pleading guilty, you save legal fees.
Not sure this is the moral path, but it’s the logical one. Is this what is desired? Certainly, comparing Roderick Scott’s acquittal to Zimmerman’s leads one in that direction.
I suspect a major problem is one the crankish Paul Craig Roberts has written about these last twenty years: the collapse of professional ethics among prosecutors. The bench is drawn largely from the ranks of government lawyers, so provides little resistance.
They are ready to riot no matter what the verdict is just like when a B-ball team wins or loses a championship.
Flood the zone with cops, and the riot will be suppressed in short order. (Of course, that would require skeevy Democratic pols to get out of the way and allow the police to do their jobs).
Someone got to the judge and scared him.
Art Deco:
Yes, thanks, of course Blake is still alive. Will fix.
IANAL. From what I understand Rittenhouse can refuse the lesser charges, and the legal panel on the Rekieta Law Youtube broadcast today were confused as to why his defense team chose not to do so.
On the enhanced video, they were also using a LG brand 4K TV (I’ve had one for years) which automatically upscales video sources not already in 4K or higher resolution. There is no option to disable the upscaling available to the user. Perhaps in the service menu, and maybe that was done, but I have my doubts.
There is also a setting called TruMotion, which automatically boosts the refresh rate, IMO greatly altering the source material. It can be disabled by the user.
Ben and Jerry have weighed in against Rittenhouse.
There is pond scum.
There is whale feces.
But at the very bottom are Ben and Jerry.
After a trial has begun, adding any additional charges is a form of double jeopardy. It clearly catches the defense unprepared and without the time needed to mount a proper defense. It’s unconscionable and arguably, unconstitutional, especially as it in effect denies the defendent a fair trial.
“this case could have the result of “discouraging bona fide self-defense on the part of the rioters’ targets.”
It won’t just “discourage” a bona fide claim of self-defense. It declares a claim of self-defense to be null and void whenever it suits the left’s agenda. Which eviscerates the 2nd amendment.
Art Deco,
“Flood the zone with cops, and the riot will be suppressed in short order.”
That was always an option. But one that will never happen when rioting (by ‘aggrieved parties driven by intolerable oppression into violence’) serves the left’s agenda.
An alternative means of ending rioting is for sniper cells to take out a half dozen of the rioters.
In the aftermath of the third riot handled in such a manner… the message will have spread, rioters will have learned their lesson and will seek their pleasures elsewhere.
Slaying barbarians who threaten civilization has much precedence.
Jeanne,
That’s certainly a possibility but if it is Wisconsin law, he’s bound to accept it or risk an appeal.
an “enhanced” video that surfaced recently that was originally impossible to decipher and whose “enhancement” involved a process by which the image is hopelessly distorted by the addition of enormous numbers of pixels that weren’t there in the first place.
All they are doing is using software to zoom in, just like you do on your iPhone. I’m seeing this described as something nefarious. It’s not, there’s no way to enlarge a digital photo without doing this.
Even when the judge was looking at the “original” photo on a 4K TV, that TV itself was adding ” enormous numbers of pixels that weren’t there in the first place.” (The defense pointed this out.)
It’s not “distortion” that’s going on, it’s interpolation, and different implementations do this differently. But it’s not nefarious and it’s not intended to produce a prejudicial result.
And of course if you’re trying to see things in interpolation, you may see things that weren’t there and wouldn’t look like they were there if different software zoomed in for you. So they shouldn’t be trying to review the photo at any other resolution than the original. But this is all the prosecution has, so they’re trying to help the jury squint into the blur and see what they say they are seeing. They are not however “distorting” the image.
I will be pleasantly surprised if Rittenhouse is acquitted. I learned my lesson in the Chauvin trial that the evidence is meaningless in political prosecutions.
Yancey Ward:
Agreed. Chauvin was a turning point for me, because the evidence against him was so very weak. He was not as sympathetic a figure as Rittenhouse, though, to say the least. I don’t know whether that will matter with the jury, but the jury is what it comes down to.
In the Zimmerman case and the Ferguson (Darren Wilson) case, juries and grand juries were still able to see that the propaganda was wrong and was contradicted by the evidence. But in Chauvin it was revealed that that was not the case for that jury. Things had escalated by then – for example, BLM was only started as a result of the Zimmerman case and it expanded greatly after Floyd’s death. Chauvin’s verdict was the result. Rittenhouse is the next step. I hope the jury is more like the Zimmerman jury than it is like the Chauvin jury, but I have extreme doubts that that will be the situation.
Frederick:
I don’t see what point you’re trying to make. No one said that THEY are trying to distort the image. I wrote that the image is distorted, by the process. The software itself distorts it unavoidably because it must add data, and that data can be misleading and should not be introduced as evidence. As you yourself wrote, “they shouldn’t be trying to review the photo at any other resolution than the original.”
Neo @ 6:22: I think you mean “Ferguson” (Darren Wilson).
News reports say 500 Wisconsin National Guard troops will be mobilized next week.
I am hoping that, even in a traditionally blue-collar Democrat town, jurors won’t ignore the evidence (or lack of it).
@neo:I don’t see what point you’re trying to make. I wrote that the image is distorted, by the process. The software itself distorts it…
“Distort”, like “lie”, is a loaded word, and to say “hopelessly distort” as you did is something I don’t think you’d ever say if you pinched-and-zoomed on a picture of a cute grandbaby–“why this child is hopelessly distorted by this enormous number of pixels”. You don’t describe your TV or computer or phone as “hopelessly distorting” when it does this very same thing every time you view just about any kind of image on it. A lot of commenters besides you are talking about like this some evil and obscure thing the prosecution thought up, but it’s really just how digital images are displayed on any device.
Which is why the prosecution affected surprise at having to justify showing the image–we all literally do it every day without most of being aware or noticing anything.
What you don’t generally do with your computer or phone or TV is zoom way way in on something trying to make detail out of a blur on a grassy knoll in the background. The prosecution should not do that either. But there’s nothing odd going on here. It’s the nature of technology you use every day without a second thought and a million times you’ve looked yourself at images that were interpolated and never thought they were “hopelessly distorted”…
You never see it mentioned in the news that Riittenhouse had a medical kit with him or that Kenosha is a very short distance from his hometown. I believe he even worked there. They make it sound like he carried a rifle halfway across the country.
He sounds more like a kid who would cross the state line to help a friend shovel snow for his grandparents.
The “distortion” argument is interesting. Criminal law requires exactness and accuracy – honest to the scene that was recorded – before allowing evidence that has been electronically recorded. “Sharpening” – which I believe is one of the algorithms at issue here, beyond mere zooming – does result in an alteration of the image from what the original recorded. The algo “chooses” (I know, not the real “chooses”) to, for instance, fill in a blank pixel in between two other pixels that have content in order to make the image appear sharper. But it’s not part of the original picture.
Very small difference, I know, but how to draw the line between that and the algorithm that places the defendant’s face on the blurry body at the behest of the prosecutor? It’s simply too easy and trivial now to alter an image any way you would like.
(But then, any image captured digitally is going to differ from the original scene, at least because the resolution recorded will never be as good as the actual image projected into the camera.)
Frederick:
No, “distort” is not like “lie.” “Lie” always involves a human agent and a knowing and purposeful mendacity, a telling of something that that human agent knows is untrue. Sometimes the word is used incorrectly to mean a mere mistake, but that is a misuse of the word (sometimes an intentional misuse, sometimes merely an ignorant one).
If a person writes, as I did, that “the prosecution was allowed to introduce” an image “whose ‘enhancement’ involved a process by which the image is hopelessly distorted by the addition of enormous numbers of pixels that weren’t there in the first place,” it ia clear there, I think, that it is the PROCESS that distorts the photo, and that the wrongdoing of the prosecution is not that they personally invented the process but that they asked that the distorted image be introduced in evidence and also that the judge allowed it.
I did not say anything remotely like the idea that the process itself was evil or obscure. But it does distort, and as far as I know such enhanced images are not ordinarily (or in fact ever, until now?) introduced as evidence of some extraordinarily important element of a case. Especially in the absence of any other other evidence (of Rittenhouse’s supposed gun-pointing), this is a remarkably prejudicial type of evidence and in my opinion it should not have been allowed.
Your analogies make no sense. I don’t describe zooming on my phone as “hopelessly distorting” because I am not trying to use such zooming images in any important way, in particular to put someone away for life on the basis of said images. But in fact, if you zoom enough – and the image in the Rittenhouse case was zoomed to an extreme degree – they are indeed hopelessly distorting. It’s just that it doesn’t usually matter.
The issue with the enhanced image is that neither it nor the original is clear enough to support the prosecution’s claim that Kyle raised his gun prior to shooting Rosenbaum.
Kate:
Yes, Ferguson. Haste makes waste; will fix.
I’d like to see the original frame from the drone video and the enlarged version. I’d like to know what software was used and precisely which manipulations were applied.
So far I am unable to find this information.
Interpolation does add information that wasn’t there and there are different techniques for it. I wouldn’t trust the prosecution and the FBI an inch not to screw around until they got an image that worked against Rittenhouse.
If Photoshop was used, the zoomed Photoshop file would have a record of what exactly was done to the image.
See link below, #5 in particular: “Select Resampling Method.”
“How to Enlarge an Image Using Photoshop”
https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=282942&p=1888161
I doubt this is simple “pinch and zoom.” I wouldn’t be surprised if they are also applying other manipulations to “enhance details.” As far as I’m concerned the judge was a fool to allow something he didn’t understand into evidence without calling in a serious computer graphics expert.
huxley,
“I’m concerned the judge was a fool to allow something he didn’t understand into evidence without calling in a serious computer graphics expert.”
I’m beginning to suspect that the judge has started to crack under the pressure.
Ben and Jerry have weighed in against Rittenhouse.
There is pond scum.
There is whale feces.
But at the very bottom are Ben and Jerry.
—————–
And they repeat the lie about Rittenhouse carrying his rifle across state lines which isn’t true but tells me they know nothing of the facts of the case beyond the first day.
“Sharpening” – which I believe is one of the algorithms at issue here, beyond mere zooming – does result in an alteration of the image from what the original recorded.
bobby b:
Sharpening is exactly the sort of manipulation that could come under the heading of “image enhancement” which concerns me.
In a sane world there ought to be a law that OOC (Out of Camera) imagery is admissible but not any extra processing beyond exposure adjustments. Things are already complicated enough because the camera firmware has already done a lot of processing beyond scope of present discussion. Makes sense to draw the line at reasonable default camera settings and let the chips fall where they may.
Certainly no upscaling given unscrupulous prosecutors or lawyers can then go artifacts shopping.
… artifacts shopping.
Zaphod:
Indeed. If one plays around much with Photoshop, these problems become obvious.
According to Legal Insurrection:
_______________________
The defense argued sensibly that the evidence in support of the State’s narrative of provocation—the “unicorn” drone video left by the evidence fairy on the State’s doorstep last Friday, and the “enhanced” photos produced for the first time yesterday—were too flimsy a basis to support an argument of provocation. [The defense] pointed out the poor quality of the video and images and noted that for Kyle to be raising his rifle as the State claimed he would have had to suddenly decide, for the first time that night, to handle the rifle as if he were left-handed.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-day-9-prosecutions-big-win-on-provocation-saves-a-chance-at-conviction/
@Huxley:
And artifact issue compounds when you’re dealing with compression across video frames with subject motion added to the mix.
(More for laypersons)
All video out of commercial CCTV has undergone compression before it leaves the camera. This compression is not lossless. So information has been lost. To then go selecting a random frame from a video feed where all kinds of weirdness is happening in the compression and presenting it as evidence is Not Good.
Understand that you can compress a video feed, reduce its information theoretical content, and have it look perfectly normal and OK to you the viewer because a lot of psycho-visual research has gone into making stuff look right to the viewer at 30 frames per second. That makes no guarantees as to the veracity of every given bunch of pixels in part of a single freeze frame.
Expat: ” . . . Kenosha is a very short distance from his hometown.”
That short distance is about 20 miles (I did a google maps view); which, in my opinion is a very short distance for most Americas who get around by car.
You’re right in that they don’t mention that much; nor do they mention that his grandmother, father, aunt, uncle, and a cousin all live in Kenosha. Nor do they mention much that Kenosha is where he was a lifeguard. Grayslake is the other town a short distance away (google maps about 10 miles in another direction) where he was a police explorer.
20 miles in one direction, ten miles in another direction really isn’t that far in a suburban area.
And, by omitting all of this the MSM and others are trying to portray him as an “outsider” coming in to “stir up trouble.”
Well, in addition to all of that above, if he were trying to stir up trouble why did he give his (Grayslake police issued bullet-proof vest) to another guy that night?
Zaphod:
Well-said and important.
My graphics work has been with stills and even there I know today’s digital cameras are doing a boatload of work to make the subject and the photographer look good.
The notion that a camera passively records visual truth is entirely naive.
You never see it mentioned in the news that Riittenhouse had a medical kit with him or that Kenosha is a very short distance from his hometown. I believe he even worked there. T
Kenosha and adjacent tracts make a discrete community of about 100,000. The Census Bureau places it within the Chicago commuter belt, while Racine is placed just outside. If I’m not mistaken, Kyle’s father lives in Kenosha.
Zimmerman’s life is still being made hell.
He got out of his car in his neighborhood and was on the sidewalk. In his neighborhood! Obviously, anyone who does that deserves to have a career thug with a thirst for violence jump him and try to kill him by smashing his head into the sidewalk.
The altercation was all Zimmerman’s fault for being on the sidewalk in his neighborhood. No reason to blame Trayvon for trying to kill him. After all, who among us could possibly fail to react with deadly violence after that kind of provocation?
And then we have to add that Zimmerman’s ethnicity as a hispanic immigrant with a black grandmother makes him the perfect embodiment of white supremacy in America.
Stan, Satan’s slaves that dare to resist, will be made an example of. See Zimmer.