Jump to content

washparkhorn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    9948
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by washparkhorn

  1. The very best. Some of us honkies have an irritating nasal quality to their voice that produces a gooseish honk when they speak. There are cures . . . Simplest is to project your voice to the back of your teeth, rather than directing the flow out your cavernous nasal cavities (voice placement). A lot of the work to correct a nasal voice involves releasing tongue tension. There is a "technique" that helps women, especially, with tongue-tension release.
  2. We Scots rule the world. When you mix that with gypsy, well . . . you are gonna have problems.
  3. Sometimes the objections that come out of left field are difficult to anticipate. In well-run courtrooms, these evidentiary issues are cleaned-up, prior to trial. But you are correct, good attorneys anticipate all possible attacks on the use of an exhibit and prepare accordingly. Rinse and repeat for all potential exhibits. I don't get the sense this prosecutor spent the requisite time on exhibits/evidentiary issues.
  4. I blame the mormons for that design trend. Here is Mormon "La Quinta Inn" styling:
  5. Haters gonna hate. Skaters gonna skate.
  6. we grow or die. I am a permabull. The alternative is unthinkable.
  7. Demo-tang! ~W
  8. beautiful. The objection to leading a witness on cross is the chef's kiss.
  9. Guys who abuse their testosterone gel are gonna get it banned.
  10. I bet he had one of these at one time or another . . .
  11. That is the law in Wisconsin and it is a question for the jury: The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. The Wisconsin laws on self-defense, first aggressor, and defense of property (so we are on the same page): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48 (public access).
  12. Crypto is the gateway drug to communism through UBI?
  13. The cops actions aiding and abetting his trek to the violence was certainly sus.
  14. An initial aggressor loses the right to claim self-defense.
  15. The prosecution did a horrible job preparing for potential evidentiary objections, even one out of left field like this one. And this is a courtroom-must for you aspiring courtroom lawyers (barristers) or if you are an associate helping to prepare a partner for trial. https://law.ucdavis.edu/faculty/imwinkelried/
  16. I think the emotion is getting to you, which is natural and human. I have zero respect and patience for a dishonest prosecutor. The State has heavy weaponry in criminal cases. But - ponder the evidentiary problems that arise when when working with digital images that all require an algo to render an image. This judge is about 20 years behind in tech. A good primer for those interested in the subject. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2000/berg.htm Like I said, I have no problem going back to Elmos and transparencies, but there is fuckery with that as well. And just so we are clear, the problem of deep-fakes is something every conscientious courtroom lawyer should be aware of and on guard against. They are becoming a significant issue.
  17. Cite? What controls in a claim of self-defense is whether the killer reasonably perceived that he was being threatened with an unlawful imminent deadly force attack. One doesn't need to be correct in that perception; one merely needs to be reasonable in that perception. The issue in this case is whether the killer was the initial aggressor, which, if proven, would prevent the use self-defense by the shooter.
  18. Captive audience.
  19. In 25+ years of litigating, that's not the way it works. As for the Judge's "algo" fear - when creating images from raw data, an algorithm is used to create the "original" photo representation. If algorithms are the judge's issue, no digital photos could be admitted under his reasoning.
  20. According to this judge's reasoning, the first photo is admissible (even though it had to be enhanced using an algorithm to convert from raw data into a photo). The second photo is not admissible according to this judge (because it used an algorithm to both covert it from raw data and to "lighten" the image to show detail). Works for me. I will go back to Elmo:
  21. Some could call it . . . self defense or defense of others. But definitely dumb.
×
×
  • Create New...