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

YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#391

Post by Eelongate »

ryantgtg wrote: post #317
HideousKojima wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to falsely claiming he had an assault rifle and thinking that somehow strengthens the emotional/moral impact of an argument?

You are either being intentionally disingenuous or you are so deep in this that you don’t understand how other people think. To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. And saying “actually it’s technically not an assault rifle” makes absolutely no difference. It’s not always a false claim; rather it’s a minor, irrelevant detail. Swatting it down doesn’t matter, except to the person swatting it do…

"Machine gun? Not a machine gun? What's the difference?"

You may not appreciate it, but there is a substantial difference, not just practically but legally. If you're ignorant of that difference, that's fine. Everybody is mistaken or ignorant some of the time. We're all human after all. But if you know the difference and choose to use the wrong terminology anyway, then you are being deliberately deceptive. Either way, it warrants a correction.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#392

Post by betwixthewires »

belltaco wrote: post #191
HideousKojima wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We have a justice system if there are crimes like that. And robust self-defense laws for when someone poses an immediate threat and there's not enough time to go to law enforcement to help. >The GP said they were laughing and celebrating it, that's quite different from 'aren't feeling much sympathy for someone dying'. It's called "understatement." To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while th…

Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles and point them at others (prior to the incident where life wasn't threatened) as admitted in court. > To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while they are in the process of trying to assault and/or kill someone (which the evidence clearly shows) is in fact something to be celebrated. The world is a better place for his absence from it. I…

If "provocation" is a defense for someone to follow, ambush and assault someone, wouldn't what Kyle did also be defensible?

You don't have to answer that, you can if you want, but I just felt the need to point out how ridiculous this "provocation" point actually is.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#393

Post by YeBanKo »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #385
YeBanKo wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not me, but courts. Not just a weapon, but a deadly weapon.

Courts aren't automatically reasonable. You're endorsing the classification. Fists can do just as much damage as a skateboard.

Yeah, and a knife can kill just as well as a gun. Except it can’t. A medium build woman can break one’s skull with 2-3 swings of a skateboard, especially if it lands on the edge or on a sticking metal part. To achieve the same damage with fists, it would take years of training and would also cause a significant damage to one’s hands.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#394

Post by Eelongate »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #385
YeBanKo wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not me, but courts. Not just a weapon, but a deadly weapon.

Courts aren't automatically reasonable. You're endorsing the classification. Fists can do just as much damage as a skateboard.

You've heard of levers, I'm sure. One classic 'simple machines'. Skateboards have more leverage than fists.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#395

Post by smoldesu »

lovelyviking wrote: post #281
baryphonic wrote: post #155

Never forget that Susan Wojcicki won a free speech award sponsored by YouTube. [0] Never forget it. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/youtube-ceo-susan-wojcicki-gets-fre...

It even worse. Ukraine is under Russian attack for more then 7 years. Yet all disputes are directed to 'Moscow office' because Susan Wojcicki thinks it is absolutely logical to have such structure. As result any attempts to stand against Russia sponsored propaganda and lies are prosecuted by Youtube. There are brave Ukrainian man and women who with their own time and resources are trying to stand against huge Russian…

Oh man, if you're surprised by Big Tech's active oppression of minority cultures, you should have been here when Apple handed over the keys to their digital kingdom to China's communist party.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#396

Post by betwixthewires »

ryantgtg wrote: post #298
belltaco wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles and point them at others (prior to the incident where life wasn't threatened) as admitted in court. > To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while they are in the process of trying to assault and/or kill someone (which the evidence clearly shows) is in fact something to be celebrated. The world is a better place for his absence from it. I…

I suggest not ever using the phrase “assault rifle” because you’ll just get responses where people say “it’s not an assault rifle” and they’ll think they actually won an argument.

The word "assault rifle" has a definition, and when you call something that isn't an assault rifle an assault rifle as pertinent to your point and someone points out that it is not an assault rifle and therefore your point is invalid, they have in fact actually won an argument.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#397

Post by HideousKojima »

0des wrote: post #210
belltaco wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles and point them at others (prior to the incident where life wasn't threatened) as admitted in court. > To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while they are in the process of trying to assault and/or kill someone (which the evidence clearly shows) is in fact something to be celebrated. The world is a better place for his absence from it. I…

What is an assault rifle?

To answer your lower question since I can't respond directly, the legal difference between a rifle and pistol is pretty much only barrel length. Overall length also matters, and whether or not the AR "started out" (at manufacture) as a rifle or pistol determine if it becomes a "short barreled rifle" after certain modifications, but that's getting into the inane and nonsensical world of ATF regulations.

As far as what an assault rifle is, it's basically a rifle capable of burst fire or automatic fire (it's a bit more complicated than that but that's the basic idea). Rittenhouse's AR (and virtually all civilian owned firearms for that matter) are not capable of burst or automatic fire and are not assault rifles.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#398

Post by LordDragonfang »

hasdf wrote: post #368
LordDragonfang wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head You mean Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head. Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them. Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing "the mainstre…

kind of like how you fail to admit that one of the two 'unarmed' men was armed with a skateboard that he was trying to beat kyle to death with. Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing your fellow commentators of lying by omission

>that he was trying to beat kyle to death with.

So, let's continue to clarify the facts. I went and found the video of the incident, and you're stretching the truth to the point of being disingenuous.

Here's the video (obvious warning, it has footage of Rittenhouse shooting his victims) https://files.catbox.moe/ayaw6u.mp4

Considering he never even swings it at Rittenhouse, and merely has it in his hand when he tries to stop him running away, that's a real stretch to say he's "trying to beat him to death". I won't argue that trying to stop an armed person by jumping them is a bad idea, but that's not what you said.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#399

Post by Dylan16807 »

Eelongate wrote: post #394
Dylan16807 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts aren't automatically reasonable. You're endorsing the classification. Fists can do just as much damage as a skateboard.

You've heard of levers, I'm sure. One classic 'simple machines'. Skateboards have more leverage than fists.

They're not that big compared to arms. Moderately more leverage, but a significant reduction in weight.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#400

Post by Jensson »

shuntress wrote: post #117
GenerocUsername wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doubt. Over the last 6 years there have been toooooo many coincidences which go in 1 direction politically instead of equally in both directions. You only need to flip a coin 5-6 times before you suspect it might be rigged... and after 100's of tosses there is no longer any question.

This is a false equivalency and willful ignorance of the Overton window. "Reality has a well known liberal bias" If heads & tails are left & right and the edge is far right extremism, it's not a "coincidence" that these "coin tosses" go in "1 direction politically instead of equally in both directions" when "1 direction" is left or right and the other "direction" is far right extremism

> "Reality has a well known liberal bias"

Yes, but not "American liberal bias". American liberal identity politics is mostly not on the side of reality, and that is like half their platform. It isn't liberal either so the statement isn't technically wrong, but since your statement was made by American liberals I'll assume you think it is.

I do support many of the things American liberals wants to do since I do support a balanced mix of freedom and guard rails, but I still think they are very wrong about around half the things they talk about. So "reality has a well known American liberal bias" only works if you have a biased view of reality.

And to be on topic, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is very much an identity politics topic, and in that topic reality is not on the American liberal side. Lots of people will of course argue otherwise, just like how lots of American republicans will argue that human caused climate change isn't a thing, but reality doesn't seem to agree with those two groups.

Post reply on HN