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

271–280 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#271

Post by Akronymus »

RC_ITR wrote: post #82
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…

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.

... view that someone can keep a guard dog on a property and not be looking for trouble is a very interesting one.

That's IMO essentially the same statement. Why shouldn't you have deterrence?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#272

Post by d1sxeyes »

willcipriano wrote: post #261
throwntoday wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I commented elsewhere on 'unarmed' and how it relates to Huber's skateboard.

With regards to your point about Rosenbaum, I don't disagree. But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants).

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#273

Post by willcipriano »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #272
willcipriano wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I commented elsewhere on 'unarmed' and how it relates to Huber's skateboard. With regards to your point about Rosenbaum, I don't disagree. But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants).

> But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants).

What about the 3rd assailant who admitted on the stand to pulling a gun and aiming it prior to being shot, or the man in the mob (that mob was shouting "get him" may I add) who unloaded a magazine into the air during the incident?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#274

Post by ryathal »

trhway wrote: post #228
mrkstu wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except he never pointed a gun at anybody that wasn’t already threatening/chasing him.

pointing gun isn't necessary. As we know from for example many police shootings mere presence of a gun even at a minimally tense situation is usually already perceived as a threat even by well trained and used to guns people.

Using police are a bad example, because they aren't held to the same standard as non-police. Whether that should be or not is debatable, but it's not debatable that there are clearly different standards. Police are routinely determined justified in killing people based on the possibility of a weapon, those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#275

Post by Akronymus »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #268
Akronymus wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ma…

The moment it started being used as a weapon, it became one, afaict. So, just carrying it isn't making it a weapon, but swinging it, is.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#276

Post by d1sxeyes »

willcipriano wrote: post #273
d1sxeyes wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I commented elsewhere on 'unarmed' and how it relates to Huber's skateboard. With regards to your point about Rosenbaum, I don't disagree. But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants).

> But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants). What about the 3rd assailant who admitted on the stand to pulling a gun and aiming it prior to being shot, or the man in the mob (that mob was shouting "get him" may I add) who unloaded a magazine into the air during the incident?

Yes, both the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed.

The third guy, Grosskreutz, did indeed have a handgun, which he drew and pointed at a man who had already killed two people.

Again, I'm not saying that Rittenhouse did not have a justification to fear for his life and limb in those specific circumstances.

But they were circumstances which were created largely by his own decisions (travelling to Kenosha, carrying a weapon, shooting Rosenbaum).

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#277

Post by slibhb »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #255
slibhb wrote: post #75

The funny thing about social media companies censoring is how they keep making the case for free speech over and over again without realizing it. Mill: > First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth;…

Facebook can choose to host whatever opinions they like as they own the platform. Obviously as long as those "opinions" are legal and not such things as terroristic threats, etc. That also is free speech and the right to with your property as you like.

Everyone is well aware that the first amendment does not apply to Facebook. The question is whether Facebook should censor not whether they legally can. The passage I quoted from Mill is an argument for free speech in general, not only with respect to the government.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#278

Post by d1sxeyes »

Akronymus wrote: post #275
d1sxeyes wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

The moment it started being used as a weapon, it became one, afaict. So, just carrying it isn't making it a weapon, but swinging it, is.

That's a fair point. So Huber was not carrying a weapon up until after Rittenhouse had already killed Rosebaum.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#279

Post by willcipriano »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #276
willcipriano wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants). What about the 3rd assailant who admitted on the stand to pulling a gun and aiming it prior to being shot, or the man in the mob (that mob was shouting "get him" may I add) who unloaded a magazine into the air during the incident?

Yes, both the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. The third guy, Grosskreutz, did indeed have a handgun, which he drew and pointed at a man who had already killed two people. Again, I'm not saying that Rittenhouse did not have a justification to fear for his life and limb in those specific circumstances. But they were circumstances which were created largely by his own decisions (travelling to Kenosha, carrying a we…

Didn't Grosskreutz travel a further distance to riot then Rittenhouse traveled to prevent the rioting? Or was that one of the other ones?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#280

Post by lbayes »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #248
MagnumOpus wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assault rifles are certainly a thing, both in the descriptive sense -- everyone knows what the word refers to -- and in the prescriptive sense -- various armies including the US have or had classifications that defined it as a term for selective-fire weapons that fire an intermediate power cartridge like 5.56mm or Russian 7.62x39mm.

A caliber doesn't make an "assault rifle". I can buy a hunting rifle in those calibers as well. In the USA there is no -legal- definition of an assault rifle, it is a made up term to scare people. A semi auto shot gun, hunting rifle, and pistol are all easily within 90% as dangerous as an "assault rifle". Do those get banned as well? I think that's why people say it's ludicrous to say "we just want to ban assault rif…

As a veteran of the US Marine Corps, I want to clarify this a bit for people.

Yes, caliber does not make an Assault Rifle.

No, it's not a, "made up term."

Shotguns, hunting rifles and pistols are optimized for specific activities and generally become less effective as the circumstances diverge from that optimized range or shooting position.

This makes them less ideal for killing humans everywhere we are found.

Assault rifles are optimized for human to human combat.

They are optimized to deliver a large number effective rounds down range, from a variety of positions at a variety of distances.

These tools are far more effective and efficient at killing human beings over an extended duration firefight in arbitrary circumstances.

It's the shape, flexibility and effectiveness of the platform that we're referring to when we say, "Assault Rifle."

Please don't muddy the waters here simply because the US legal system isn't able to overcome NRA bullshit.

Post reply on HN