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

481–490 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#481

Post by belltaco »

naasking wrote: post #446
belltaco wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It all depends on the scientific evidence in the highest quality large clinical trials. Ivermectin has failed to show benefit, the Pfizer drug has. >I don’t care if it is effective or not so much as I don’t think news and corporate interest should drive the national opinion. Even more frightening is that a lot of people who think that don't have the same opinion on things like these that are way worse than anything N…

> Ivermectin has failed to show benefit, the Pfizer drug has. Ivermectin has failed to be seriously studied, while the patentable drug got a good study out of the gate. I wonder why.

Because the Trump admin didn't match Pfizer's level of funding? I wonder why.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#482

Post by CyberRabbi »

Fnoord wrote: post #334
CyberRabbi wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's sad. In reality, there has never been much tolerance for free speech. This has been the norm for all of human history. It has also been the norm that people with non-controversial thoughts have believed they had freedom of speech. It’s only once you finally happen to have a thought that isn’t tolerable by those in power that you realize there was never any freedom from the beginning. Is that sad? It’s an incre…

The world is as happy as you project it to be. Freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom to spout anything without repercussion. Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance). I'd like to believe we have more freedom of speech nowadays than 100 years ago when society was more hierarchical. However... every fart you make gets recorded and if zoomed…

> Freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom to spout anything without repercussion. Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance).

It’s interesting that you’re regurgitating this fairly standard talking point in response to my comment even though it refutes a point my comment never made. It’s as if you grepped the term “freedom of speech” in my comment and that mechanically triggered this cookie cutter response. As long as you’re not thinking critically about the content you are reading, you’ll never have an original thought that actually may be intolerable to those in power.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#483

Post by 0des »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #434
Jensson wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you started using your desk items as a weapon and swung them at a person in a manner that could reliably kill them then the court would consider you to have a deadly weapon as well. If you use an item in a manner that can reliably kill people then you use a deadly weapon even if it wasn't intended to be a deadly weapon. Is a pair of scissors a deadly weapon? Yes. Is a heavy hard blunt object (like a statue) a dead…

Well, noted I guess. I probably dismissed the idea in the wrong way then. Next time I'll just say "'deadly weapon' is a very low bar and doesn't mean much". It's not productive to argue about definitions, even if they don't make sense to me. My intent wasn't a semantics argument.

The requirement is that you be in fear for your life or the life of another in your vicinity. Let's say you grabbed a Bic pen, and went for someone's neck with it: in this situation the courts would favor the persons right to self defense given the credible threat to their life. The same counts for something that is a risk to incapacitate them, because courts have historically favored the argument that what happens after you are disarmed or incapacitated could result in death.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just offering my observations of precedent.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#484

Post by confidantlake »

hasdf wrote: post #388
Natsu wrote: post #157

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…

GG is a interesting person. He was already convicted of home invasion and is therefore prohibited from carrying/owning/purchasing a gun. He had DUIs after this event but was let off There has been some suggestion that his ability to avoid prosecution suggests that he is a likely FBI informant in Antifa. GG isn't from Kenosha but no one makes any issue about him illegally traveling there to riot with a weapon

The reason that no one makes an issue of it is because he did not kill anyone and is therefore not the one on trial. If he had killed someone it is perfectly reasonable to bring this up. (Also as far as I know he did not illegally travel there or am I misunderstanding? )

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#485

Post by loonster »

duskwuff wrote: post #435
loonster wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses not intended for human consumption Maybe the solution to this is to allow OTC sales of human grade Ivermectin. The drug is one of the safest in the world. No reasonable reason to deny the drug if someone wants it.

> The drug is one of the safest in the world. This is not true at all. Ivermectin has some nasty neurological effects (vertigo, seizures, blindness) at high doses.

The dose makes the poison. At the usual dosages that Ivermectin is given at, it is considered to have no toxic effects (with the exception of those that have a severe Loa Loa infection).

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#486

Post by belltaco »

betwixthewires wrote: post #392
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…

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.

Sure, prosecute those people too, if they haven't been shot dead.

The difference is

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#487

Post by belltaco »

HideousKojima wrote: post #229
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…

It wasn't an assault rifle, and it is legal for 17 year olds to open carry rifles and shotguns under Wisconsin law. Open carrying is not provocation, otherwise open carrying itself would be inherently illegal, nor sure what your reasoning is there. Edit: Also, what the hell does him crossing state lines have to do with anything? He lives like 5 minutes from the Wisconsin border and lives closer to Kenosha than his th…

>assailants

You mean victims.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#488

Post by nradov »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #375
YeBanKo wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it objectively incorrect, if he pretty much quoted a direct speech verbatim? At least one of them hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard, so he was armed.

If you're calling a skateboard a weapon I'm going to take everything you say with a mountain of salt.

There was a notorious incident in San Francisco in 2019 where a skater nearly killed a security guard by hitting him in the head with a skateboard.

https://skatenewswire.com/jesse-vieira-black-rock-security-g...

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#489

Post by ryantgtg »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #422
ryantgtg wrote: post #310

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…

"The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it." It is going to sound like a very radical position, but burning a city to the ground does not sound like mere shoplifting to me. That a kid may have said something stupid is a possibility, but you can throw a rock in this crowd and find examples of speech that is not exactly bolstering their cause. In fact, if you do…

Thanks. Yeah, I hear you. For the sake of the court case (which I wasn't trying to argue about it), the particular events that lead up to it are what matters. I have a lot of trouble accepting why he was there in the first place, though. I'm not saying that _has_ to impact the case (unless there can be a clear connection between expressing a desire to shoot shoplifters and his actions of the night, which - from a 10k ft view - there is), but just... showing up there with a rifle is sending a loud message, and shit is going to get ugly. Seems like he's very lucky to be alive.

I have a friend here in LA whose business was smashed in during the riots last year (I learned about it when I saw a picture of him standing in front of his business in the LA Times). I felt so bad, and I was outraged! When I checked in with him, he just shrugged and was like, "eh, I have insurance." It took me a minute to understand. But, I mean, it's super complicated, because protests can easily be co-opted by kids who want to opportunistically rage/profit. And, as an All Gas No Brakes episode taught me, it's cathartic and feels like the only thing that some of them can do that has any impact.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#490

Post by ryantgtg »

jpindar wrote: post #348
ryantgtg wrote: post #265

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…

But your details are false. Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha and lived only a few miles away. The rifle is not large one in any way, neither in overall size nor in caliber. It doesn't bother you that your opinion is based on falsehoods?

It bothers me a little that you think you just corrected me. This is an honest question: do you not understand what "opinion" means? For example, do you understand that I can say, "large gun" and that it doesn't mean the same thing you think when you say, "large gun"? When you say, "the rifle is not large," I'm still correct when I say, "yes it is." We're both stating our opinions!

I see pictures of Kyle posing with a gun that appears to be about half the length of his body; when he is out on the streets during the riots, you can tell he is holding a gun from very far away. The messaging I get from this is not "response worker there to provide medical aid and put out fires." Do you truly not have any clue why his presence negatively contributed to the situation?

Obviously my point about him defending strangers' property was to note that he did not have a direct interest in defending his own property. The length of his drive is far from the point. But that's super true: he worked in the same county, and it was only like a 30 minute drive. I just looked it up! Amazing. Really makes me think.

Correcting details that are beside the point != winning an argument.

Post reply on HN