Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#261

Post by willcipriano » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

throwntoday wrote: post #245

d1sxeyes wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rittenhouse shot and killed 2 people, and shot and injured a third. Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. I accept that every shot Rittenhouse fired fell within the framework of self-defence under the law. I also accept that he did have a legal right to be in Kenosha. Whether he had a legal right to be carrying the gun or not is a little more contentious. Although his possession of the gun was in line with…

Am I understanding correctly that you believe because the two people attacking him were unarmed, he did not have the right to shoot them? You say you "accept" it was lawful, but it doesn't seem like you believe it should be. I wonder if two "unarmed" people were attacking you, would you just let them beat you to death? I can't understand this train of thought at all.

One was "unarmed" with a blunt weapon and the other threatened to kill Kyle prior to his attempt to steal his gun. Had Kyle not shot him, he rapidly would've became armed.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#262

Post by tarsinge » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 1:12 PM UTC

polartx wrote: post #211

tarsinge wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not American and I didn’t follow these events but sorry for me after watching that video it’s still complicated: the self-defense seems justified, but the initial issue of protecting property with guns is not: material possession and private property is not on the same level as human life. I understand a law allows it in that state hence the jury logical decision, but that doesn’t make it right, just legal. Had…

That’s what separates America from many places. While you say to the property owner, “property is not worth a human life”. We say to the burglar/arsonist, “is property worth [your] human life?” Also assault rifle isn’t a thing. The term is a made up classification of a weapon.

Given the reactions I’m not sure Americans are uniform on this, also it’s especially puzzling that in a country with Christian roots people would say that (I’m not talking about defending your life, children or home of course).

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#263

Post by sleepysysadmin » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 1:14 PM UTC

Something that blew my mind. https://www.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-says-andrew-yang...

Rittenhouse stayed out of the politics for the trial(very smart) and later he revealed that he was in the "Yang Gang"

"I'm going to get a lot of hate for this but I was a pretty big Andrew Yang supporter before all this,"

He was far left and the left wing are who attacked him as white supremacist and all that.

Just goes to show how the media is just completely full of shit.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#264

Post by Akronymus » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 1:16 PM UTC

d1sxeyes wrote: post #238

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…

Rittenhouse shot and killed 2 people, and shot and injured a third. Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. I accept that every shot Rittenhouse fired fell within the framework of self-defence under the law. I also accept that he did have a legal right to be in Kenosha. Whether he had a legal right to be carrying the gun or not is a little more contentious. Although his possession of the gun was in line with…

> Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed.

Not legally speaking. A skateboard can easily be classified as a deadly weapon. Same as a baseball bat, a big branch or similar stuff.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#265

Post by d1sxeyes » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

throwntoday wrote: post #245

d1sxeyes wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rittenhouse shot and killed 2 people, and shot and injured a third. Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. I accept that every shot Rittenhouse fired fell within the framework of self-defence under the law. I also accept that he did have a legal right to be in Kenosha. Whether he had a legal right to be carrying the gun or not is a little more contentious. Although his possession of the gun was in line with…

Am I understanding correctly that you believe because the two people attacking him were unarmed, he did not have the right to shoot them? You say you "accept" it was lawful, but it doesn't seem like you believe it should be. I wonder if two "unarmed" people were attacking you, would you just let them beat you to death? I can't understand this train of thought at all.

I think that's an overly reductive expression of my opinion, which is perhaps why you're struggling to follow.

I think it is incredibly likely that if Rittenhouse did not have a gun, then the two people he killed would still be alive, and I find it unlikely that Rittenhouse would be dead today.

You are correct that I don't believe that these specific circumstances that led to these deaths should be legal.

I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them).

My opinion is that he had a gun he shouldn't have had, was in a place he shouldn't have been, causing trouble he shouldn't have been involved in, and killed two people who shouldn't have died.

As it turns out, none of that is illegal.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#266

Post by Akronymus » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

devjungle wrote: post #224

trhway wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. my understanding is that you can't claim self-defense if you initiated violence yourself. Threatening unarmed people with a gun, pointing it at them is a credible threat of violence that the people have the right to defend themselves from, and that is what they tried to do in particular by chasing that gun wi…

There are a lot more layers to the case than you would originally think. Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc. Legal Eagle on YT did a great breakdown of it all. It's not as simple as "can't claim self-defence if you initiated violence yourself".

> Legal Eagle on YT did a great breakdown of it all.

I strongly disagree. He left out some very important details from the video. Whether by accident or not, doesn't really matter in this case, IMO. (I know he issued corrections/clarifications in the comments, but most people are not gonna read those)

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#267

Post by Akronymus » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 1:26 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #223

skinkestek wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is the main problem. A person can do the right thing even if they so far has done the wrong thing. The problem here was that he was part of a violent destructive crowd and went even further than the rest of the crowd in attacking an innocent (as judged by the court) guy with a gun.

If you are in a crowd, and an active shooter just killed one or two people in front of you, are you going to sit around and wait for a court to determine that they were legally innocent? Or would you be completely within your moral rights to defend yourself from the shooter, by any means at your disposal?

No, I'd try to retreat first. Unless the person were to aim the gun at me.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#268

Post by d1sxeyes » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 1:31 PM UTC

Akronymus wrote: post #264

d1sxeyes wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rittenhouse shot and killed 2 people, and shot and injured a third. Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. I accept that every shot Rittenhouse fired fell within the framework of self-defence under the law. I also accept that he did have a legal right to be in Kenosha. Whether he had a legal right to be carrying the gun or not is a little more contentious. Although his possession of the gun was in line with…

> Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. Not legally speaking. A skateboard can easily be classified as a deadly weapon. Same as a baseball bat, a big branch or similar stuff.

Not easily.

Wisconsin defines a deadly weapon (actually they use the term 'dangerous weapon') as "any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon [...] or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm."

You might say that the skateboard was 'likely to produce great bodily harm in the manner it was used', which I think is plausible, although clearly Huber was not skilled in using his skateboard in this way.

I would point out though that it would be *completely wrong* to say that Huber was 'armed' because he was carrying a skateboard. Although he did hit Rittenhouse with it, it doesn't seem as he was carrying the skateboard as a weapon, it was just an opportunistic usage.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#269

Post by Akronymus » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 1:31 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #207

scrollaway wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jacques, stop. You compared it to a sandwich. You don't get to complain that someone makes a comparison with a seat belt. I'm European and extremely pro gun control / anti gun in general, probably moreso than you, by the way. You are blinded by your bias and it really shows in your posts. Edit, to elaborate on why i think you're blinded by it: I am with you, it's utterly idiotic that people bring guns to these things…

I won't be told off by you or anybody else. You don't 'bring a seatbelt with you just in case', the law says that you should wear a seatbelt when you are inside a moving vehicle (unless it is public transportation, in which case apparently it suddenly doesn't apply). But you do bring a gun with you based on a conscious decision to do so, you do bring a loaded gun with you, and you do shoot to kill rather than to stop…

If you have a guard dog, you have it for deterrence. You don't hope that someone breaks in and gets hurt.

Same thing with guns, really. You have it as a deterrence and hope nobody is so stupid to attack you and force you to use it.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#270

Post by Akronymus » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 1:33 PM UTC

polartx wrote: post #211

tarsinge wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not American and I didn’t follow these events but sorry for me after watching that video it’s still complicated: the self-defense seems justified, but the initial issue of protecting property with guns is not: material possession and private property is not on the same level as human life. I understand a law allows it in that state hence the jury logical decision, but that doesn’t make it right, just legal. Had…

That’s what separates America from many places. While you say to the property owner, “property is not worth a human life”. We say to the burglar/arsonist, “is property worth [your] human life?” Also assault rifle isn’t a thing. The term is a made up classification of a weapon.

IMO the attackers value their own life less than the acts they tried to do.