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

Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#101

Post by itsdrewmiller »

BobbyJo wrote: post #19
baryphonic wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had followed the case since the beginning. Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. (Intriguingly, many pro-Rittenhouse voices were arguing that he was guilty of the gun charge, though some were a bit more eagle-eyed and read the statute the way the judge ultimately did when he dismissed it.) The interesting thing about Rittenhouse is that even des…

Not a lawyer, but I find it highly improbably that section 230 would shield them in this case. It's trivial to think of a scenario where the removal of information constitutes the production of a message, and in that scenario, the information is not itself produced by third parties using a platform, but by the platform itself. Like, if I write a note that reads: "The President of the United States should morn those t…

Generally speaking the court doesn’t rule on actual situations based on hypotheticals, unless they are creating a bright line rule that would clearly fall apart under plausible scenarios.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#102

Post by monkeybutton »

dudul wrote: post #73
siva7 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.

So if you get assaulted in Germany you're supposed to just let them beat you up without making a move? Aren't there any acceptable scenarios were lethal self defense can be applied?

I'm not european, but I'm not American either, and the case is weird. In isolation the outcome is correct but take a step back and do you not see what is happening to your country? Weird is an understatement. The entire set and setting for it shouldn't be happening in the first place. But it is.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#103

Post by Nursie »

School-Cotton wrote: post #86
Nursie wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, aside from guns being highly regulated, taking the gun to a protest would be taken as a sign of intent to use it and the rest of the events would be interpreted in that light. Of course in the UK he'd be looking at multiple years in prison just for the gun offence, and it's also less likely someone else would be waving a gun around in his direction.

I'm no expert on law, but it seems likely that in a country where publicly carrying a gun at all is illegal, that both Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse would have been able to legitimately claim self-defense had they shot and killed the other, because either could have reasonably assumed (even if incorrectly) that the other was some sort of terrorist or mass shooter.

I don't think so. I think the fact that they had taken a gun along to an event like this in the first place would be taken as pre-meditation, regardless of whether they believed themselves to be in immediate mortal danger when they actually fired the shot.

Although perhaps it would be enough to get it downgraded to manslaughter.

I'd love to hear from a lawyer on this TBH.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#104

Post by inputvolch »

siva7 wrote: post #36
rayiner wrote: post #2

> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…

This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.

This case is also weird if you reimagine all of the participants as penguins in Antarctica. Since that didn't happen, it would be a waste of time to speculate what would happen in a completely different scenario.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#105

Post by xyzzyz »

dudul wrote: post #87
RC_ITR wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean I agree with you on the technicality, but the uniquely American view that someone can take a gun to a protest and not be looking for trouble is a very interesting one.

He took a gun to a protest because he had the right to do so. He can take a gun to home depot if he wants to. Doesn't matter if he was "looking for trouble", he had the constitutional right to do that.

I didn’t know that Home Depot allows guns, but I just checked, and apparently Home Depot allows even open carry in jurisdictions where it’s legal. Nice, I like Home Depot even more now.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#106

Post by jacquesm »

bobthechef wrote: post #90
jacquesm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

So instead of shooting men, criminals no less, that were blatantly threatening his life, he should have filed a police report and then appear in court to make his case?

Is today false dichotomy day and I missed the memo or something?

Is that really the only other alternative that you can come up with?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#107

Post by dudul »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #100
dudul wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He took a gun to a protest because he had the right to do so. He can take a gun to home depot if he wants to. Doesn't matter if he was "looking for trouble", he had the constitutional right to do that.

That is clearly fucked up.

Clearly not since it saved his life.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#108

Post by School-Cotton »

Nursie wrote: post #103
School-Cotton wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert on law, but it seems likely that in a country where publicly carrying a gun at all is illegal, that both Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse would have been able to legitimately claim self-defense had they shot and killed the other, because either could have reasonably assumed (even if incorrectly) that the other was some sort of terrorist or mass shooter.

I don't think so. I think the fact that they had taken a gun along to an event like this in the first place would be taken as pre-meditation, regardless of whether they believed themselves to be in immediate mortal danger when they actually fired the shot. Although perhaps it would be enough to get it downgraded to manslaughter. I'd love to hear from a lawyer on this TBH.

> I'd love to hear from a lawyer on this TBH.

Me too! I'm not at all sure I'm right -- but then again, neither are (or should be) the people with hot takes shot from the hip about how obviously he would have been found guilty of murder in enlightened Europe. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#109

Post by Teever »

TimeBearingDown wrote: post #77
jacquesm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

As the adage in the concealed carry community goes, “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six”. At that point, when your life is threatened, act, and look to ensure the involvement of medics and the law once you are safe.

I am so glad to live in a country where people do not routinely carry firearms so that I can go about my day to day life without thinking like that.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#110

Post by neartheplain »

dannyr wrote: post #76
neartheplain wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that events leading up to the shooting were problematic. If respected media commentators had not glorified riots or villianized the justified police shooting of Jacob Blake, or if the Mayor of Kenosha had requested further National Guard in advance of the second night of riots, or if the police had not abandoned downtown Kenosha to a mob armed with rifles and handguns, none of this would have happened. The im…

You conveniently omitted George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Philando Castle. The riots were not glorified. It was the outcome of the unjustified violence against African Americans. "threaten to kill a kid defending local homes and businesses" Rittenhouse is the one who is armed. People might not have attacked him if he's not brandishing a firearm.

Police brutality in another state doesn't give you the right to burn down my livelihoood, burn down my home, or kill me. Unfortunately, NPR and the Washington Post led many to believe otherwise last summer [0][1].

Many rioters openly brandished rifles and handguns. One such rioter fired the first shot of the Rittenhouse incident [2], contributing to Rittenhouse's (true) belief that he was under attack. Rioters sent a 70-year-old man to the ER on the first night of riots in Kenosha, breaking his jaw and knocking him out when he tried to stop them burning down a business. Rittenhouse saw all this on TV before he went to Kenosha next day to help clean up riot damage. Incidentally, the parts of Kenosha that burned were mainly minority-owned small businesses and apartment buildings [3].

If you threaten to kill someone, chase them down a dark street and then attempt to kill them at a riot that you started, the fact that they're armed and you're not means squat. Don't try to kill kids and burn down their towns. You'll live longer.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/there-no-d...

[1] https://spectatorworld.com/life/antifa-aesthetic-washington-...

[2] https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580073-detective-sh...

[3] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-york-times-buried-...

Post reply on HN