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

131–140 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#131

Post by vkou »

xyzzyz wrote: post #97
RC_ITR wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wonder where the 'we need good guys with guns to stop the bad guys with guns' go when they're talking about Gaige. He saw Kyle, an active shooter, drew on him to get him to stop shooting people, and so Kyle just gets to shoot him? EDIT: This flamewar is not worth it (what did I expect in this thread?), but just please try to remember the lessons Batman tries to teach us about vigilante justice (it just encou…

For starters, a prerequisite to be a “good guy with a gun”, you need to possess and carry that gun legally, which Gaige did not do. He was a convicted felon, ineligible to possess a gun, much less carry one concealed. However, he was not, and will not be prosecuted for that, almost as if gun control people were not interested in actually controlling illegally possessed guns.

So, if he was not a convicted felon, would shooting and killing Rittenhouse had been a more or less reasonable thing for him to do?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#132

Post by Nursie »

monkeybutton wrote: post #102
dudul wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am european, but no longer living in Europe (or America) and I can't help but agree.

Kyle Rittenhouse isn't guilty of murder under US law, and the killings have been determined to be self defence. OK then.

But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent, picking up a firearm on the way, ostensibly to use the threat of deadly force to help prevent property damage to some businesses as part of some sort of vigilante militia. There is just so much wrong with this picture before we even get to the (inevitable IMHO) tragedy.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#133

Post by TrispusAttucks »

monkeybutton wrote: post #102
dudul wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Weird is an understatement. But this case is less weird the most of the world at the moment.

This country, that country, everything is an upsidedown bizarro clown world reality now. How the hell did we get here. Just look at the leaders of the free world. It's a joke. Have a laugh or cry.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#134

Post by esyir »

chii wrote: post #83
thumbellina wrote: post #25

I fully accept that FB is free to run itself how it pleases. That said, it's clear they are not in a position to act as a neutral platform for civic discourse. I try to support technologies and platforms that provide a voice to all. Decentralized over centralized. I try to curate my own list of sources, rather than rely on third-party curation. How else can I ensure a healthy and diverse information perspective?

The problem isn't you, but others who do not try to curate their own diverse sources. When time comes to make democratic decisions, if those who are influenced outnumbered people like you, there'd be no way for you to make your case and convince the others of your correctness.

Is it really a healthy democracy if the flows of information are controlled from the top down? If I provide you with a tuned set of information in which everything says what I cant, I can get you to believe whatever I want.

This is just changing the source of said influence, not removing it.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#135

Post by Nursie »

boppo1 wrote: post #122
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.

"Protest" is an incomplete characterization. The night he was there was the second night of wanton destruction. It was something between a riot and a protest. I have a hard time grasping the racial justice achieved by destroying property owned by people of color.

Even so, J Random Citizen getting tooled up and travelling to do something about it... it's very alien.

That's a law enforcement role in most of the rest of the western world.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#136

Post by boppo1 »

Nursie wrote: post #135
boppo1 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Protest" is an incomplete characterization. The night he was there was the second night of wanton destruction. It was something between a riot and a protest. I have a hard time grasping the racial justice achieved by destroying property owned by people of color.

Even so, J Random Citizen getting tooled up and travelling to do something about it... it's very alien. That's a law enforcement role in most of the rest of the western world.

I agree, as do many of the level-headed takes I saw in threads following the live trial. It's been rumored that the police department pulled out of a large part of the community based on instructions from the mayor's office [0]. Hence, if the rumors are true, the real fault here lies with the local administration.

[0] I have no source, but it seems consistent with the police behavior observable in the videos.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#137

Post by hasdf »

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #111
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.

The US has a long history of letting murderers off the hook when there is a racial component[0]. With someone like Rittenhouse, who has become a darling of the white supremacy movement, the trial is part of an ongoing culture war. And culture warriors are going to do what they always do. [0] See, for example, the use of jury nullification after the US Civil War.

If a hispanic guy being aquitted for defending himself from three white attackers is your best example of white supremacy in action and your reference is from the civil war - maybe take a deep breath and realize the country isn't doing as bad as your peers at facebook claim

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#138

Post by vkou »

School-Cotton wrote: post #96
vkou wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, then the other individual with the gun (or, quite literally, any bystander in such a situation, defending themselves from an active shooter) shooting and killing Rittenhouse would have also been a perfectly reasonable outcome. I have no doubt that he, too, felt threatened for his life by an armed gunman at some point in that altercation. I also assume that, as th…

That's not the contradiction you seem to think it is. It's easy to imagine scenarios where two parties could be legitimately acting in self-defense, because of what they reasonably -- but possibly incorrectly -- believe about the other's motive. This kind of very easy dramatic escalation is exactly why carrying rifles around on the street at all should be illegal. But that's a separate question from the one of whethe…

I think you've outlined exactly the kind of contradiction that I think it is - a moral, not a legal one. The laws on the books encourage this sort of insane behaviour, and as a result, two people are dead, but legally speaking, nobody's at fault. I'm not blaming any of this on the jury.

Had the facts gone even a little differently, one person would have been dead, and again, it's unlikely that anyone would have been found at fault.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#139

Post by RubberMullet »

jacquesm wrote: post #121
RubberMullet wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You either didn't watch any of the videos from that night or don't know what trigger happy means. Rittenhouse made a number of mistakes but being trigger happy was not one of them.

If I bring a sandwich to work I intend to eat it. If I bring a ball to the park I'm going to play with it. If I bring a loaded weapon to a riot I intend to use it. Normal people do not walk into riots with loaded guns unless they want to partake in that riot.

If you wear a seat belt while driving a car do you intend to crash? Do you have any idea how many people were open carrying that night and never fired a shot? Rittenhouse hit every target he aimed at and all whom had attacked him. 100% of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse were not shot. That is not trigger happy. And Rittenhouse didn't even fire the first shot, Ziminski did.

Who is "normal" at a riot? The people firebombing immigrant owned businesses in the name of justice?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#140

Post by urda »

jacquesm wrote: post #93
urda wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a reason more civilized countries have decided that the state should have the monopoly on violence There are only two kinds of individuals that argue someone shouldn't have the right to self defense or the right to keep and bear arms: A) someone naive to history and the purpose of that rifle on the labourer's cottage wall or B) someone attempting to argue in bad faith as they wish to disarm them to do evil…

That's a false dichotomy if there ever was one but feel free to limit your view to those two options.

The only false dichotomy here I see is someone who has failed to understand human history, is arguing in bad faith to disarm them, so ergo the only conclusions we can come to is those types of characters wish to bring harm to others.

Just because you disagree with individuals having the right to self-destiny and self-protection, which is evident from your comments that you think nobody should have any right to self defense, you are only here to bring harm.

So no, that's not what history and facts has taught us. Authoritarians can try and come and take it, but be ready for a fight.

Post reply on HN