Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#301

Post by d1sxeyes » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:40 PM UTC

willcipriano wrote: post #298

d1sxeyes wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself. Again, not trying to paint these guys as angels, but it does not seem that this is correct: - the 'mob' chasing Rittenhouse that led eventually to him opening fire on Rosenbaum were shouting 'get him', and may even have shouted 'kill him'. We know that at least one of these people had a gun, but this gun was fired up into the air, rather than at Rittenhouse, and…

I think if readers compare our arguments they will be able to come to their own conclusions. I feel I have sufficiently made my case and don't believe I can offer you anything that would change your mind.

To be honest, I'm not sure there are many people left (certainly here on HN) who haven't already looked at the evidence themselves and come to one conclusion or another.

Thanks for the discussion though, always interesting to hear someone else's point of view, even more so when neither of us has any different facts to the other.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#302

Post by polartx » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:45 PM UTC

lbayes wrote: post #280

stjohnswarts wrote: post #248

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…

There are hunting rifles, and there are sport rifles.

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

This is precisely where a blanket term like “assault rifle” becomes pretty impossible to specifically define, and consequently regulate.

>large number effective rounds down range

Based on this comment, you’re referring caliber? And capacity? And perhaps action? So what about a semi-auto 5.56 with a pencil barrel and a 5 round magazine? Still an “assault weapon?”

>from a variety of positions at a variety of distances

How would you interpret this into characteristics of a rifle? Does this mean it has to have a folding bipod? It has to be under a certain weight? *Any* rifle can be more or less effective at a variety of ranges. The cartridge and shooter have more influence over that criteria than the rifle.

>It's the shape, flexibility and effectiveness of the platform

This is feels territory. Because none of these are concrete characteristics inherit to this claim. Define “effective”, or define “ineffective”. Tell me how the “shape” would designate or exclude one specific rifle over another…

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#303

Post by Ekaros » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #157

jacquesm wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The really correct answer is that the police don’t allow rioters to burn down a city for two days so that idiot kids don’t feel the need to take the law into their own hands.

The army should have been treating all of the people involved as potential terrorist. Which by any definition they clearly are. Using violence(destroying property, attacking others) for political goals. Just shoot anyone who resist and ship rest to Guantanamo or some other such location.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#304

Post by Jtype » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

anshumankmr wrote: post #174

Might be downvoted but there was a fact checker website that denied at the time President Trump’s claim that Kyle had acted in self defense. This was a year ago and I saw it for myself as still being up a few weeks ago. I am not an American and I really see both sides here. The jury system worked as per the law defined in the US (and I am not a pro 2A person ) but I also agree that most likely increase vigilantism wh…

The increased vigilantism is directly related to the media demonizing the police and misrepresenting facts. If the police are demonized and told to stand down by mayors during times of riots then someone will fill that vacuum. If you don't want vigilantism then you need police and politicians to do their jobs.

In my opinion, this and many other issues in the past few years are due, almost exclusively, to reporters viewing themselves as activists instead of reporters of fact. This specific case has too many examples of this to be coincidence, from the way the Jacob Blake story was reported initially( failing to report on the knife), to the intentional misrepresentation of the facts in the Rittenhouse case.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#305

Post by hajile » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #215

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…

This is an interesting conclusion, because as I understand it this is only really true in some states. Wisconsin's self defense law is more permissive than many, and so Rittenhouse probably couldn't have used the same defense as easily in many states. In other words, it's not "plainly obvious", and this comes down to the context beyond the moments before he shot people. Wisconsin law says you can ignore that context,…

> This is an interesting conclusion, because as I understand it this is only really true in some states. Wisconsin's self defense law is more permissive than many, and so Rittenhouse probably couldn't have used the same defense as easily in many states.

Let's look at the five rules of self defense as they apply pretty much everywhere in the US. The last one is the big difference in Wisconsin.

* Innocence (was he there to commit a crime or hurt someone) -- Rittenhouse was generally there to help people. The altercation was started because he put out a fire.

* Imminence (was the use of force against him about to be used) -- The video shows Rosenbaum cornering him and lunging. The gunpowder stippling pattern shows that Rosenbaum's hand was on the barrel of the gun too. He shot at Maurice Freedman (jump kick man -- his identity was known to the prosecutors, but they hid his identity) who was in the process of trying to kick his face in with heavy boots. He shot at a guy assaulting him with a skateboard. Finally, he shot someone pointing a gun at his face.

* Proportionality (not excessive force -- in this case, only deadly force can be stopped by deadly force). I don't know of any state where grabbing a gun, pointing a gun, hitting someone with a skateboard (they weigh around 11 pounds -- a baseball bat weights around 2 pounds), or trying to crush someone's face aren't considered deadly force.

* Reasonableness (would any other reasonable person in that situation fear for their life) -- If you were a naive teenager (or even an adult) and an adult said they'd kill you and then waited until you were alone to chase you into a corner, would you be afraid? Would you wonder if you were about to die?

* Avoidance -- this is the different one. Some states have clear stand your ground law. You never have to retreat from a fight if you are defending yourself. Some states have castle doctrine which says you have to retreat on the street, but not in your home or it's curtilage (the frequently used area around the house). Some states say you must retreat first in all situation up until you are completely cornered. 38 states are stand your ground. A few more like California, Illinois, or Oregon have castle doctrine. only a handful in the Northeast have duty to retreat everywhere.

Now, even if there were a duty to retreat, Rittenhouse did this too. He ran away until he was cornered and only then (and with Rosenbaum mid-charge) did he shoot the gun. Likewise, he did not shoot his gun at the others until he'd been hit in the head with a rock and collapsed to the ground a few steps later in the middle of retreating to the safety of the police line.

TL;DR -- This shooting would have been justified even in states with the most strict self-defense laws.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#306

Post by hajile » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

trhway wrote: post #237

devjungle wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

>Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc. If you're targeted personally i suppose. When the violence isn't targeted your running away wouldn't change the situation if there are other people around who can be shot. That reminds about that veteran who attacked the shooter several years ago at the Oregon college - he could have fled i guess, yet he didn't. Did he had an obligation to flee? I don't think an…

Oregon does NOT have a stand your ground law. If that were the only statute, he'd be guilty of murder (showing that such a law is not well thought out). My guess is they have another law (like most states do) that allows coming to the defense of someone else.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#307

Post by polartx » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

trhway wrote: post #231

polartx wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Threatening unarmed people with a gun a) he never threatened anyone. In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety than, say, a Hollywood actor/producer 3 times his age. b) how can you claim the crowd was unarmed? Of the 3 people that stuck around to be searched, 2 of them had weapons. A skateboard used as a bludgeon. And a Glock pistol that was drawn from concealment and pointed at his head.

>In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety Ah! so that is what responsible gun owner's gun safety looks like - 2 dead 1 wounded just because that stupid POS wanted to get off playing with a gun feeling all powerful. He didn't even bother to check on his victims and render first help (his skills he was so boasting about to journalists just 15 minutes before he killed his first victim), nor attempted to call for help…

>Ah! so that is what responsible gun owner's gun safety looks like - 2 dead 1 wounded

I know you’re being sarcastic, but *yes*, that is responsible gun safety in a scenario where deadly force is required (which is why he was acquitted). Kyle exercised an incredible measure of discipline in his restraint—not shooting wildly into a mob that was overtaking him, only firing on those who were attacking him. Show me a police bodycam video where the officer is equally restrained.

Btw I agree that the so-called-armoror was inexperienced and immature. I can only imagine why a producer would so irresponsibly hire her? Wait..wasn’t the executive producer of that film also the main actor that pointed a gun at a crew member and pulled the trigger?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#308

Post by hajile » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:02 PM UTC

GhettoComputers wrote: post #14

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…

I’m really susprised if they didn’t watch the videos and read about the case. Most people watch video now so is it possible they avoided all videos or they just didn’t believe the videos? Nobody I know didn’t watch the videos.

They claimed Rittenhouse shot someone who had their hands up and showed a picture. This was wrong for at least two reasons. First, they deceptively cropped the gun out of the image. Second, the video they refused to play clearly shows (contrary to the implication) that Grosskreutz wasn't shot until later when he pointed his gun.

Likewise, the videos shown on most media networks were very selectively edited to remove any bits that might hint at self defense.

Very few of the "Kyle is a murderer" crowd have seen the actual full-length, unedited videos of what happened.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#309

Post by hajile » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:08 PM UTC

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #156

umvi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process

Also the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process I don't think that's quite true. Biden's initial comment was "Look, I stand by what the jury has concluded," he said. "The jury system works, and we have to abide by it." His handlers went on to later change the narrative. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/politics/joe-biden-kyle-ritte...

If you've followed politics for more than the last 5 years, it's very weird having an entire administration constantly running around contradicting whatever comes out of the President's mouth.

"Handlers" is quite the term.

Do we believe the President or not? If we can't believe what they say and other people have to speak and do for them, why don't we elect one of those people? instead?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#310

Post by anshumankmr » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:10 PM UTC

hagbard_c wrote: post #218

anshumankmr wrote: post #174

Might be downvoted but there was a fact checker website that denied at the time President Trump’s claim that Kyle had acted in self defense. This was a year ago and I saw it for myself as still being up a few weeks ago. I am not an American and I really see both sides here. The jury system worked as per the law defined in the US (and I am not a pro 2A person ) but I also agree that most likely increase vigilantism wh…

> I also agree that most likely increase vigilantism which will be good for no one. If the alternative to vigilantism is mob rule I'll choose vigilantism. The real issue here is that this should not be an issue for those living in a western-style representational republic or democracy to deal with, this being the task of the police. If the monopoly on violence - i.e. the police - is not used to keep the violent at ba…

I agree "defunding the police" is such a vague term and is pure political poison.And that is why almost no one apart from a small vocal minority consider it as a policy worth pursuing.

Vigilantism is not good. Sure, if you are under threat or the ones you care about are under threat, you have every right to protect yourself.But you can read about Ahmaud Arbery's shooting to consider where vigilantism was at play and he was shot to death.

I fear if more people are emboldened by the court's decision to acquit Kyle to take the law into their own hands especially in cases where the self defense angle is not justified, it is a slippery slope to be on. Ahmaud Arbery's case is one such example also.