> But, apparently, no one cared that software presented a version with "subtracted" pixels in the first place, and only cared about pixels added by zooming in (

> But, apparently, no one cared that software presented a version with "subtracted" pixels in the first place, and only cared about pixels added by zooming in (which could have technically been "de-zooming-out", up to a point). Courts only rule on stuff like that if there's an objection to it. If you don't object, you can't come back later and complain about it, you have to object at the time. So all of Binger's pickle objections were legally irrelevant. He knows this and is playing to the cameras, that's why he's getting yelled at by the judge, because none of what he said mattered legally. He was also pretty clearly angling for a mistrial after his earlier screw-ups, like managing to obtain information harmful to his case from his own prosecution witness on direct. This is a screwup of epic proportions. In this case, there was doubt about the nature of a handful of pixels in an enlarged image and whether or not this depicted a gun. It's hardly "pedantic" to want to get experts to talk about the reliability of the image, rather than lawyers (none of whom knew anything), when the prosecution's entire theory at this point hinges on a legal standard of "provocation with intent" where one cannot regain innocence by fleeing or communication.