5 ms·

To Mark Zuckerberg: "So, how do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?" To George Floyd witness: "So you had something called

by dheera 6y ago

To Mark Zuckerberg: "So, how do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?" To George Floyd witness: "So you had something called a mobile device right? And a mobile device is capable of taking pictures right? And you used the mobile device to use that capability right? And your eyes were able to see things besides the phone right?" No shit Sherlock, have you never used Facebook and seen the glaring ads? A 15-year old could figure that out. Oh and yeah phones take pictures and people have eyes that can move. Just play the damn video. Yes, play the video, not "publish the exhibit". They really do sound pretty stupid to me.

salawat 6y ago
Old prosecutor's/attorney's trick. Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. You're there to tease out the record in your favor, and try to control the narrative through leading questions. The legal system is not about truth. It's about corraling 12 fish out of water to your way of seeing things. Throw the judges/lawyers a curveball with something like jury nullification and see how quick things get nasty.
- dheera 6y ago
  If you know the answer, just say it. I don't want to pay $900/hour for someone to ask rhetorical questions.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Attorneys for parties ina case are not witnesses, can’t be cross-examined, and are not permitted to just introduce fact claims into evidence themselves. They have to ask questions of witnesses, who are the subject to cross examination. There a very good reasons for it even if it isn’t maximally entertaining viewing.
    - dheera 6y ago
      > introduce fact claims I'm sure everyone would agree that people have eyes and phones and that a phone can take pictures. Why is that a fact claim? Just show the pictures. And then ask real questions, like "what do you see" "oh look someone's knee on someone's neck". I hate inefficiency.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > I'm sure everyone would agree that people have eyes and phones and that a phone can take pictures. Why is that a fact claim? Just show the pictures. Every single one of those questions is establishing a fact in the record without which the opposing counsel would potentially have grounds to object to the presentation of the pictures. You can’t just show pictures without an explanation through facts themselves introduced as evidence, whether by testimony or otherwise, unless freely stipulated by the opposing party, of what the evidence is, where it came from, and why it is relevant. Again, yeah, it makes crappy theater. The rules are about due process for the parties in a case, not keeping the proceedings engaging for an audience.
        dheera 6y ago
        To what extent does that go? Why don't they ask: "Humans have legs right?" "And how many legs do you have?" "And legs can be used for locomotion right?" "And you used those legs to translate your body to the location of the mobile phone right?" "Oh yeah, you have a body, right? I forgot to ask" "And there are these appendages called arms right?" "How many arms do you have?"
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        Book suggestion: Adversarial Legalism by Robert Kagan.

by dheera 6y ago

salawat 6y ago

Old prosecutor's/attorney's trick. Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. You're there to tease out the record in your favor, and try to control the narrative through leading questions. The legal system is not about truth. It's about corraling 12 fish out of water to your way of seeing things. Throw the judges/lawyers a curveball with something like jury nullification and see how quick things get nasty.

dheera 6y ago
If you know the answer, just say it. I don't want to pay $900/hour for someone to ask rhetorical questions.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Attorneys for parties ina case are not witnesses, can’t be cross-examined, and are not permitted to just introduce fact claims into evidence themselves. They have to ask questions of witnesses, who are the subject to cross examination. There a very good reasons for it even if it isn’t maximally entertaining viewing.
  - dheera 6y ago
    > introduce fact claims I'm sure everyone would agree that people have eyes and phones and that a phone can take pictures. Why is that a fact claim? Just show the pictures. And then ask real questions, like "what do you see" "oh look someone's knee on someone's neck". I hate inefficiency.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > I'm sure everyone would agree that people have eyes and phones and that a phone can take pictures. Why is that a fact claim? Just show the pictures. Every single one of those questions is establishing a fact in the record without which the opposing counsel would potentially have grounds to object to the presentation of the pictures. You can’t just show pictures without an explanation through facts themselves introduced as evidence, whether by testimony or otherwise, unless freely stipulated by the opposing party, of what the evidence is, where it came from, and why it is relevant. Again, yeah, it makes crappy theater. The rules are about due process for the parties in a case, not keeping the proceedings engaging for an audience.
      - dheera 6y ago
        To what extent does that go? Why don't they ask: "Humans have legs right?" "And how many legs do you have?" "And legs can be used for locomotion right?" "And you used those legs to translate your body to the location of the mobile phone right?" "Oh yeah, you have a body, right? I forgot to ask" "And there are these appendages called arms right?" "How many arms do you have?"
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      Book suggestion: Adversarial Legalism by Robert Kagan.