471–480 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube Well there is; you don't put takedowns in the hands of an algorithm. Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law.
> Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law. Why?
>Why?
So that the Rekieta folks can live stream it, of course!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary! Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that…
> Like I said, I haven’t followed this You obviously, by your posts, don't know the facts of this case, so why are you weighing in the first place? > Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? The situation was already dangerous - people were looting and setting shit on fire. Rittenhouse had already put out one of those fires. And…
> I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses.
I don't disagree with a level of neutrality (though it depends on the context - for example, the media has a tendency to go overly-neutral when describing "cars colliding with pedestrians"), but I was saying that further detail is valuable and attainable on-site. In this case, whether the shooter is, say, a business owner defending their business (such as the Korean shopowners perched on the roofs during the Rodney King riots), or a guy from out of town walking through the streets carrying - yes - a super visible weapon (aka a huge gun). Some commenters in this thread are also throwing things at me about the criminal past of the other people involved, which sounds to me like they're also having trouble following the thread (which again, is about the neutrality of initial reporting).
> And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one?
I don't understand your logic. Are you pretending that I'm defending this third guy or something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A skateboard, when used as a weapon, is a deadly weapon. weapon, n: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. Does a skateboard have other innocent purposes, to which it is generally put to use? Of course — that’s generally why skateboards are brought to riots. It provides plausible deniability during the times when you’re not using it to hit people in the head with a deadly weapon.
If we go with that definition, and nothing else, then imagine "one of them threw an ice cube at someone, so he was armed". It's a thing used to inflict bodily harm in that context, but calling it "a weapon" seems crazy to me.
Why is this crazy to you? This is why someone can be charged for assault with a deadly weapon while trying to run someone over with their car.
Do you think that’s crazy just because cars are usually meant to be used for driving?
Dry run for when the verdict is announced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I haven’t followed this story or the trial closely at all. But what you describe would be woefully inadequate coverage of an event. The details are important, and to me the important details (that allow me to form an opinion) are “guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.” Nuff said. My opinion is the…
It wasn't "waaay out of his way" though, and he was also there helping provide first aid. It's also mindblowing that you think that him being threatened and chased by a convicted child rapist (the first person he shot), then running away and only shooting again when people were trying to kill him when he fell on the ground, aren't important details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where's the legal definition of "assault rifle" == "machine gun" from?
the phrase comes from the unique German WW2 weapon "Sturmgewehr 44" (literally Assault Rifle 44). It was the first example of the Assault Rifle weapon type with the defining characteristics being an intermediate cartridge (between pistol round and rifle round) that allows controllable automatic fire at engagement ranges further than submachine guns. Most AR15s cannot be considered 'Assault Rifles' as although they ar…
Every game I've played where it is relevant uses the "Assault Rifle" term, and way more young people are familiar with game definitions than anything else. Here is roughly how weapons are defined in games:
Submachine gun - Automatic pistol with large clip.
Rifle - Single shot long barrel higher calibre weapon
Battle Rifle - Burst fire rifle with large clip
Assault Rifle - Automatic fire rifle with large clip
Machine gun - Belt fed automatic fire rifle
Edit: Nothing legal about the above, of course, just noting what the general population would associate with each term. And you can understand why people would be worried about automatic fire high calibre weapons. They aren't useful for anything other than to kill lots of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an adversarial proceeding where both sides get to present their case and a takedown has to be for a violation of a law that complies with the First Amendment. Notice that this is different than what you promote. Search results are sorted by an algorithm; that's unavoidable and excessively simple algorithms like "alphabetical order" are useless. And then it's a hard problem, to which the best solution is probably…
> It's an adversarial proceeding where both sides get to present their case and a takedown has to be for a violation of a law that complies with the First Amendment. Why should this be the standard by which YouTube can remove videos? Why shouldn't they be legally allowed to remove content via algorithms even if it creates a bad user experience?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that was terrible. First, here's a copy of the photo of their interaction for reference which I found online. There are plenty of copies, including in the tweet referenced by Snopes below if you don't like this one: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/290695292964306948/90... Now here's what Grosskreutz said on the stand: Corey Chirafisi: Now, you’d agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse. Correct? G…
If I'm not mistaken Lachowski testified that when attending Grosskreutz after being shot he found the glock on the ground and cleared it. There was one in the chamber. The unspent ammo from the glock comes from Lachowski clearing it. Grosskreutz didn't rerack the gun, but he did have one in the chamber ready to shoot, meaning that he meant to take out Rittenhouse when he advanced before having his bicep blown off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A skateboard, when used as a weapon, is a deadly weapon. weapon, n: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. Does a skateboard have other innocent purposes, to which it is generally put to use? Of course — that’s generally why skateboards are brought to riots. It provides plausible deniability during the times when you’re not using it to hit people in the head with a deadly weapon.
> that’s generally why skateboards are brought to riots. A skateboard can certainly be a weapon but I believe this is conjecture.
If you go back to the 1999 Seattle WTO protests, you mostly see people using short, concealable weapons, such as wooden clubs.
At some point, the gear of choice evolved towards the plausibly deniable, including skateboards, umbrellas, etc.
2020 example:
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGunzShow/status/12668514068222...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary! Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that…
Very odd how you think a voice that may or may not have been Kyle's saying he wanted to shoot shoplifters is "very relevant" but the criminal conviction for Rosenbaum raping a child or his history of violent behavior is irrelevant.
Not everyone needs to take a side in cases like this. My opinion - uninformed or super informed - has no impact on the case (neither does yours), and I am not a stakeholder in this case. I have some trust in the justice system (and mostly, I'm pretty busy at the moment).
But like I said, guy driving in from out of town with a gun to defend the property of strangers is asking for trouble. And just to ward off more weird replies like this one, I'm aware that he's not the only active party in this incident.