Live data from Hacker News

YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

twitter.com

501–510 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#501
post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

With all the witnesses, video recordings, FBI heat imaging video, etc. what makes you suspect the jury is not getting the full picture? If Kyle is convicted on all charges, will you protest the conviction because of this?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#502

The streams are back up. Yet, this thread quickly devolved into a discussion about the grand conspiracy to censor instead of the repeated failure of automated tools and the ease at which they're abused.

It's very sad to see how people blame and thrash services like youtube instead of respecting the fact that all of it is provided absolutely free of cost.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You absolutely did form an opinion. You wrote "'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."

I understand having limited bandwidth in your life. It's good to recognize when you don't aren't informed on a subject. However, when you aren't informed on a subject the thing to do is not share your strong opinions on that subject.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> my interest is in the messaging that this gun carries when wielding it in a urban environment during a riot.

Yeah, exactly. ""Assault"" rifles are defined entirely by your emotional response to seeing it. It's a concept invented by the media.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there is a faceless algorithm which has seemingly been programmed specifically to remove content which fails to align with a specific political narrative Or, without having to put on a tinfoil hat, it's been trained to remove content that discusses shooting and killing people? Or even more benignly, a lot of people reported the stream because users also have a vested interest in abusing censorship systems for politi…

> Or, without having to put on a tinfoil hat... You don't have to attack the legitimacy of someone's position like this. Sure, it is possible that the reasons for it are what you're saying, but this personal dismissive attack is unwarranted, and frankly at this point tired and ineffective.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That isn't relevant to the case, but I understand what you're getting at.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I'm talking about normal ice cubes. They can inflict bodily harm.

If you used it as a weapon, it's a weapon. There aren't generally enhanced criminal charges for non-deadly weapons, however — that's usually just charged as assault.

> With 'serious', does that mean you're suggesting a different definition from the one you quoted?

No, I'm tying this question back to the actual law.

> 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.

You're treating the law like it's some sort of extremely idiotic expert system that implodes anytime someone grabs their child's baseball bat with the intent of murdering someone — or actually does so.

Google "mens rea". You're not going to beat a charge with the argument of "It was a little league baseball bat!".

If this still isn't clear, maybe it'd help to see how Colorado defines a "deadly weapon":

> (I) A firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; or (II) A knife, bludgeon, or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.

If you can figure out how to use your ice cube as a deadly weapon, then congratulations, at the moment you picked up an ice cube with the intent to use it as a deadly weapon, you armed yourself with a deadly weapon.

> Or they transform from unarmed to armed when they smack someone??

They transform from unarmed to armed when they arm themselves with an object they intend to use as a weapon.

You know you could just google this stuff, right? This is very simple, well-established law.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> my interest is in the messaging that this gun carries when wielding it in a urban environment during a riot. Yeah, exactly. ""Assault"" rifles are defined entirely by your emotional response to seeing it. It's a concept invented by the media.

I wouldn't say the concept was "invented" by the media, but it does have a swirling personality around it that feels that way. Obviously I am biased, but "assault" to me always meant the rifle has ergonomic enhancements that make it safer to employ since you can better control recoil, among other things. That's ... not exactly something you'll hear on CNN.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head >> I've more or less read that fact on NYT though. >> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige... > Would be interesting to see the percentage people who only saw the first headline: https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/202... What does a Was…

Archive is removed?

> Archive is removed?

Huh? What does archiving have to do with anything? What seems to have happened is someone is confusing the Washington Post for the New York Times in a way that leaves a misleading impression in this thread. It's like if you're talking about your software engineer friend Denny, and someone responds with a criticism of some software engineer named Eric like he's talking about the same person.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pre…

That all sounds reasonable. Thanks for taking the time to explain these details. And sorry for thinking you were trolling. I definitely regret chiming in. I don't like arguing on the internet, I genuinely haven't followed the case, and I was getting hit by more replies than I expected (that were leveling weird things against me based on the few words I said).

My entire opinion on this event (not the court case), is essentially, "fuck this guy, and I'm not at all surprised that bad shit went down." I am from Los Angeles, and when I was a kid the Rodney King riots featured massive amounts of violence and destruction, and shopowners were defending their livelihoods with guns. If a white dude from Lancaster - who had a job "in the county" - decided to visit South Central and walk down the street prominently carrying a rifle, then I would have had the same opinion I just shared. That's it! That's all I was trying to share. He escalated an already bad situation.

But yeah, if that "shooting shoplifters" video is that sketchy, I accept that. All I had heard was a headline with the judge saying it was irrelevant. And then immediately after that I saw another headline where the judge agreed with the defense that zooming in on a picture can create digital demons (did I get that right? :D).

Post reply on HN