281–290 of 442 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A very curious part of this is the president of the US calling him a white supremacist before the verdict is reached and the press secretary defending that portrayal [he shot three white guys]. A president who promised to 'bring normality back to the whitehouse'. That cavalier attitude toward justice creates unnecessary tensions in the community ['if the president says so, it must be true, and if the accused is acqui…
Also the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd agree with you, but we hold publishers liable to whatever they publish. My understanding is as follows. As a platform, the rationale for section 230 protections is that you are not the one making the comments, and are thus just a platform for the speech of others. The speaker, and not the platform, is thus the one liable for the speech. Conversely, a publisher, while not the one writing (contributors write, and t…
the only thing 230 does is make it so “platforms” CAN moderate speech and exercise control, without having to take on the legal liability like a newspaper publisher. Before 230, there was already effectively a distinction in that, if you ran a forum and did absolutely no moderation, you were never liable for the content - but then you also couldn’t remove any content that was vulgar, racist, hateful to other users, e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I'm not trying to say that the people Rittenhouse shot at were angels. But none of them killed anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't Grosskreutz travel a further distance to riot then Rittenhouse traveled to prevent the rioting? Or was that one of the other ones?
Grosskreutz shouldn't have had a gun either (his concealed carry permit had expired), but at the end of the day he didn't kill anyone, which sort of sets him apart. I'm not trying to say that the people Rittenhouse shot at were angels. But none of them killed anyone.
They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself. The reason Kyle wasn't murdered is not due to their sense of morals but instead their incompetence as combatants. It seems the rioters had more experience assaulting women and children and were ill equiped to assault a young man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine you were wrongfully accused of a heinous crime, and were being dragged through the mud in the court of the press. You may have an option to present your side of the story, one which is highly persuasive. Yet this is actively suppressed on the town square of today, Facebook and Twitter. You aren't even allowed to raise funds on platforms like GoFundMe. As a result, the general public's first impression of your…
Was this suppressed on Twitter? What about the NYT publishing an objective analysis of the situation? Aren't we discussing Facebook, specifically, here? In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?
> In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?
I guess you could go with alternative college newspapers? The town crier method? Creating a blog?
My point isn't necessarily that you have zero way to attempt to give your side of the story –after all, Rittenhouse's attorneys, people who saw the videos & defended Rittenhouse in public and even the NYT all produced content and were able to spread it among themselves–, but that your enemies have a tech-amplified bullhorn to distribute false claims about you (most of which are "opinion"), which you have been deprived of.
In my opinion, it's not hard to see that in the absence of additional rebuttal context, especially the kind that disrupts the original framing, people's first impression will become hardened into "their truth."
[0] https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/twitter-suspended-me-fo...
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-libertarian-party-kyle...
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…
Surely the hard question is "the line drawing". Claiming you support his right to be in a place at a time with a gun and defend himself from attackers who were intent on injuring him... feels extremely reasonable? As though it should be protected.
Far from saying Facebook needs to allow "lol I'm glad those fuckers are dead" posts to stay up but surely advocating for his innocence of any crime is not a thing that should be censored?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a fair point. So Huber was not carrying a weapon up until after Rittenhouse had already killed Rosebaum.
That would certainly be a reasonable interpretation. But in the moment he got shot himself, he already used a weapon on rittenhouse.
Although I would say that the way Huber hit Rittenhouse with the skateboard doesn't really seem as though it's intended to kill or seriously injure, it seems more like he's using it to try to push the assault rifle away from him.
We'll never know, unfortunately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Assaul…
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…
Also being not an American, I'm puzzled as to how there is apparently no requirement to report self-defense killings to the police. I guess when they find dead bodies in the street, they just assume it was self defense?