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

491–500 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#491

Post by ryantgtg »

ALittleLight wrote: post #345
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…

I don't think hackernews is an appropriate place to discuss the nuances of the case - it veers too close to politics. I will note though that you seem to select one or two details of the case that seem compelling to you and ignore the rest. It seems strange to base an opinion on what happened on what the defendant said before the event rather than the video and testimony of the event itself. My understanding of the l…

I hear you. Just to clarify, I wasn't forming an opinion on what happened, nor did I state an opinion on what happened. Those two selected details were basically all I absorbed. What's important to me is "why was this person there in the first place" (and I feel like I got the gist!). Not "what happened after this person showed up and how would I defend/prosecute this case if I pretended I was a lawyer." I only have so much bandwidth in my life. Sad event all around.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#492

Post by ryantgtg »

HideousKojima wrote: post #390
ryantgtg wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. Yes, exactly my point. It's cosmetically scary and calling it an assault rifle makes the minds of many of those hearing it jump to a fear-based response. When in reality an AR-15 is no more or less deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle in the same caliber. Slapping black plastic on a gun may make it look "scarier" to the uninformed, but it doesn't c…

Hey, that's my point, too! In this particular event, everyone aside from him was uninformed.

Walking through the streets of a riot (I won't say "brandishing" but...) carrying what LOOKS to be a big scary gun is sending a very strong message to other people around him. A lot of people equate that gun with "active shooter" and "paramilitary."

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#493

Post by ryantgtg »

betwixthewires wrote: post #396
ryantgtg wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#494

Post by ryantgtg »

remarkEon wrote: post #381
ryantgtg wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a really big rifle. Next question.

It's not. Most hunting rifles for e.g. deer rifles fire larger caliber rounds than the rifle in question in the case. Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but "big" does not necessarily mean "more deadly", nor does "big" actually apply to this rifle.

Thank you for the explanation (genuinely). I wasn't exactly being sarcastic, though - my interest is in the messaging that this gun carries when wielding it in a urban environment during a riot.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#495

Post by Dylan16807 »

teakettle42 wrote: post #473
Dylan16807 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you have large enough ice cube — or any other object — that is capable of inflicting serious bodily harm, and you use it to physically attack someone, you’ve committed assault with a deadly weapon. 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…

I'm talking about normal ice cubes. They can inflict bodily harm. With 'serious', does that mean you're suggesting a different definition from the one you quoted?

> This is why someone can be charged for assault with a deadly weapon while trying to run someone over with their car.

A car is at least in a medium category where it's not a generally safe object.

Remember that my original objection was saying someone was "armed". If we used the definition you gave to figure that out, I think almost everyone is armed. Or they transform from unarmed to armed when they smack someone??

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#496

Post by roenxi »

belltaco wrote: post #487
HideousKojima wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is currently a court case trying to decide if they are victims or not. We'll hopefully get to know what the jury think after considering all the evidence.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#498

Post by belltaco »

roenxi wrote: post #496
belltaco wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>assailants You mean victims.

There is currently a court case trying to decide if they are victims or not. We'll hopefully get to know what the jury think after considering all the evidence.

Too bad the victims are not around to defend their actions and give the jury the full picture.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#499

Post by ALittleLight »

ryantgtg wrote: post #480
ALittleLight wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My word. Well I never. I do believe you are trolling. I haven't expressed any opinion about this Rosenbaum person who, I should stress, I just learned about in this thread. 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 pre…

I believe it's against the hackernews rules to accuse people of trolling. I'm not trolling either way though.

Perhaps if, as you say, you don't know anything about the case, you should stop sharing your opinion on it. You are misstating matters of fact and being misleading. To me, when you say you don't know anything about the case and then share the tiny detail you do know, it comes across as someone selectively presenting an argument while giving themselves license to mislead - because you "don't know" about any contrary evidence.

You say that Rittenhouse traveled "waaay out of his way" and "in from out of town". In fact, Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha, his father lived there, and Kyle lived nearby, twenty minutes away, with his mother. This isn't "out of town" or out of his way, it's his local community.

You wrote that Rittenhouse has a "history of wanting to shoot shoplifters". Actually, there was a single video where only a voice was heard saying this (Rittenhouse was not on screen) and the prosecution said the voice belonged to Rittenhouse. The prosecutor was not able to explain where the video came from. The anonymous video without the defendant on it and no reason to believe the prosecutor's hunch that the voice was Rittenhouse's wasn't allowed at trial. You can understand, perhaps, why "I'm not following the case" comes across to me more as a rhetorical trick than the truth when one of the random factoids you do know is a denied prosecutor's motion to add evidence at trial. Oh, but because you "aren't following the case" you didn't know it wasn't sourced, no evidence it's Rittenhouse on the tape, and it wasn't admissable at trial.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#500

Post by lovecg »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #417
stale2002 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are just going to call the entire court system rigged, or whatever, then it is corrospondingly difficult to take what you are saying seriously. As a general rule, I think that the legal experts know more about this than you do.

No, not rigged. But sometimes things get interpreted in ways that really stretch the meanings of words. I think anyone that has looked at legal history can agree with that. And sometimes legal definitions are dumb, which isn't even a court thing. Also even if it's correct inside its realm, if enough objects count as deadly weapons then "he had a deadly weapon" loses most of its impact and gets misleading. I'm reminde…

I think you’re being hung up on the literal meaning of the words a little bit. It seems reasonable to have more severe consequences for someone attacking someone else with a rock compared to somebody just using their fists. We decided to call the former “assault with a deadly weapon”. This doesn’t mean that a rock is a “deadly weapon” under all circumstances. You can’t get charged with “possession of a deadly weapon” for simply walking around with a rock without intent of hurting anyone.
Post reply on HN