Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 118 posts

Re: Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha

#91

Post by benmmurphy »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #86

Typical IANAL: W.r.t the Kenosha shooter. 1. He was 17. It was illegal for him to possess that rifle. In his home state you have to be 21, in Wisconsin you have to be 18. This was crime 1 2. Crossing the State line with an illegally possessed weapon is a pretty big deal and a big fat #2 on crime list 3. Wisconsin totally allows for the use of deadly force in self defense, but the caveat is that you can't be committin…

Section 3 of 948.60 means that 948.60 does not apply to him because he is in possession of a long barrelled rifle. More information here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1299046068089430018.html

A lot of people have come out and confidently said he was in possession of an illegal rifle. But I have a feeling none of them have actually read the statute.

Re: Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha

#92

Post by benmmurphy »

tedivm wrote: post #34
tome wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the significance of 12 miles here?

The fact that he illegally transported a gun over state lines to "defend" a community he wasn't part of and which didn't want him there to begin with.

Where is the evidence that he illegally transported a gun over state lines? He was legally in possession of a rifle in WI. I'm not sure of the law in Illinois but we don't know if he was in possession of the weapon in Illinois or if someone transferred possession to him when he reached WI where it is legal for him to possess.

Re: Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha

#93

Post by JamisonM »

nickff wrote: post #59
JamisonM wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a case of advocating to suppress one kind of speech because it will lead to the suppression of another kind of speech. So maybe there isn't a problem here? If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?

>"This is a case of advocating to suppress one kind of speech because it will lead to the suppression of another kind of speech. So maybe there isn't a problem here?" >"If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?" I don't understand what you're trying…

"Excessive blaming" is just another kind of speech.

If people observe bad things happening because of stuff going on on the Facebook platform and engage is excessive blaming that's just speech.

If Facebook becomes averse to risks with respect to what is on their platform, that is just Facebook being responsive to customer concerns.

You're just not going to have a platform where this relationship doesn't exist, there's always mods.. we need 'em.

Re: Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha

#94

Post by dazilcher »

tedivm wrote: post #74
dazilcher wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't you be arguing for fewer police killings, period? Last I checked more white people were being killed by police than black people.

Not as a percentage, which I'm sure you're aware of.

Indeed. Have you adjusted for police interactions though? How about poverty level and criminal history?

We can play statistics all day, which is kinda my point. It's pretty obvious there is a bias, but not so obvious (to me) what the root causes are. Racism and second degree soci-economic factors are definitely on the table. Labeling every single police event as racially motivated makes no sense though.

Re: Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha

#95

Post by DuskStar »

basch wrote: post #62
hpoe wrote: post #43

So what happened in Kenosha was tragic, and I don't think the issue is as cut and dry as either side would have you believe. But my concern is I felt like this was inevitable, and will continue. I know the BLM protests are politically charged, but the problem is that there are many people's whose livelihoods and business are being permanently put out of commission and communities that are being devastated by the the…

This is the kind of more controversial comment Id like to see upvoted to spur good discussion. The Second Amendment says well regulated militia. Should a group of people be able to organize, with guns, to protect businesses from riots and looters? This one is looking like a very complicated situation as it unfolds. Someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, probably doesn't fall into well regulated. (Furthermore, wha…

> Someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, probably doesn't fall into well regulated.

Except AFAICT open carry of long guns by minors 16-17 is legal in Wisconsin, as long as if you're hunting you have the appropriate license. And the gun itself is very definitely legal - IIRC it's the most popular "modern sporting rifle" in existence, and millions exist in similar configurations.

Re: Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha

#96

Post by DuskStar »

meheleventyone wrote: post #79
basch wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the shooter was alone. I havent watched much of it, but the one I did see starts with him being chased. I'm not sure what kind of conclusion I can draw from that. >anti-authority militias seem to have been entirely coopted into state support It is, almost an enemy of my enemy situation.

If he wasn’t alone where were his militia buddies whilst all this happened? Watching from a safe distance? And I don’t think it’s an enemy of my enemy thing. I think these groups genuinely think Trump supports them.

His militia buddies were back at the original car dealership they were protecting. The shooter left there to provide medical assistance, which required crossing a police line - the police didn't allow him to return to his group after that.

This is from the following twitter thread by a NYTimes reporter: https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809

Re: Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha

#97

Post by ptd »

hpoe wrote: post #54
tedivm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a simple solution here- stop the police from murdering black people. If a house burns down it can be rebuilt, but you can't rebuild the lives ended by white supremacy in our police departments.

I agree police reform is needed, but the rioting doesn't seem like a good way to deliver this message and will instead make enemies of those who could otherwise be allies. I mean what does some guy who owns a furniture shop in Seattle have to do with a police officer shooting someone in Chicago? At this point I fear that the good that could come from this is being drowned out by the violence and the destruction and i…

So maybe do something less violent, like kneel during a football game. People will definitely unilaterally support that, right?

Re: Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha

#98

Post by GaryNumanVevo »

benmmurphy wrote: post #91
GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #86

Typical IANAL: W.r.t the Kenosha shooter. 1. He was 17. It was illegal for him to possess that rifle. In his home state you have to be 21, in Wisconsin you have to be 18. This was crime 1 2. Crossing the State line with an illegally possessed weapon is a pretty big deal and a big fat #2 on crime list 3. Wisconsin totally allows for the use of deadly force in self defense, but the caveat is that you can't be committin…

Section 3 of 948.60 means that 948.60 does not apply to him because he is in possession of a long barrelled rifle. More information here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1299046068089430018.html A lot of people have come out and confidently said he was in possession of an illegal rifle. But I have a feeling none of them have actually read the statute.

Ah my mistake, you're right. It was illegal for him to own a long barrelled rifle in his state of residence Illinois [0]. He then drove across state lines into Wisconsin with that illegal firearm.

[0] https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...

Re: Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha

#99

Post by DuskStar »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #98
benmmurphy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Section 3 of 948.60 means that 948.60 does not apply to him because he is in possession of a long barrelled rifle. More information here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1299046068089430018.html A lot of people have come out and confidently said he was in possession of an illegal rifle. But I have a feeling none of them have actually read the statute.

Ah my mistake, you're right. It was illegal for him to own a long barrelled rifle in his state of residence Illinois [0]. He then drove across state lines into Wisconsin with that illegal firearm. [0] https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...

Do you have a quote as to what section says people under 18 or 21 cannot own/carry rifles? A search for '18' and '21' came up with a few 'illegal to transfer a weapon that can be concealed to someone under 18' and the like, but also a section saying:

> (c) Nothing in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Section prohibits a person under 18 years of age from participating in any lawful recreational activity with a firearm such as, but not limited to, practice shooting at targets upon established public or private target ranges or hunting, trapping, or fishing in accordance with the Wildlife Code or the Fish and Aquatic Life Code.

which implies there are at least some situations in which it is legal for a 17 year old to possess and possibly transport a rifle.

EDIT: Here's a summary I just found:

> Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess in Illinois

> Illinois prohibits any person under age 18 from possessing a handgun. State law also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a handgun to any person under age 18. However, Illinois also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a firearm to any person who does not hold a FOID card. To obtain a FOID card, an individual must be over 21 years of age or have the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire any firearms and ammunition. Further, the parent or legal guardian must not be prohibited from obtaining a FOID card. Persons under age 21 also do not qualify for a FOID card if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor (other than a traffic offense) or adjudged delinquent.

from https://www.ichv.org/legislation/illinois-state-gun-laws/

Which says Illinois prohibits minors from owning pistols, but also says if they have the appropriate FOID card then they can own things-other-than-pistols.

Re: Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha

#100

Post by DuskStar »

pstuart wrote: post #81
jaywalk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"white people suck" is a cut and dried racist comment, regardless of context.

Hmm, so being a white person myself and criticizing other white people for using their whiteness as proof of their so-called superiority is racist? I don't think so, and your opinion doesn't change things.

Personally, I think "X people are Y characteristic" is racist whether X is Black, White, Asian, Jewish, American Indian or anything else, and whether Y is good or bad. The definition should be symmetric.
Post reply on HN