3 ms·
>>and handle them well enough. I would argue they DO NOT handle them well enough at all, and I have a feeling that if the person on trial had a different polit
by syshum 5y ago
>>and handle them well enough.
I would argue they DO NOT handle them well enough at all, and I have a feeling that if the person on trial had a different political affiliation you would also be claiming they do not.
Courts routinely get technology wrong, and use this the send innocent people to prison all the time. I would say the courts get technology related evidence wrong more than they do correct.
- _djo_ 5y ago> I have a feeling that if the person on trial had a different political affiliation you would also be claiming they do not. That's an ad hominem argument. In truth I don't care who's on trial, as the outcome of this specific trial is at this point an American culture war & politics issue that I'm uninterested in. I am interested in how well courts handle technology and whether either prosecutors or defence attorneys can throw a wrench in proceedings with fanciful woo like "iPads, which are made by Apple, have artificial intelligence in them that allow things to be viewed through three dimensions and logarithms", and have that tolerated by judges who themselves are often technologically illiterate.
- syshum 5y agoThat is not a direct quote, further it is telling you are not pointing out all the ways the prosecutors are using technologically illiteracy to manipulate both the judge and the jury into a false narrative about what actually happened. Sure the defense in this case is fucking terrible, no arguments there, they are 100% technologically illiterate. That however does not excuse the complete and utter perversion of the truth the prosecution is attempting to claim as "evidence"