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

311–320 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#311

Post by caeril »

baryphonic wrote: post #293
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. All of the people Rittenhouse shot at were armed. Multiple witnesses including the state's testified to the fact that Rosenbaum, the pedophile screaming the N-word repeatedly that night (and he was white in case you're wondering) who was shot first, was lunging and trying to grab the gun. A person becomes armed when he attempts to take another person's weapon. The se…

> (and he was white in case you're wondering)

What's been most shocking about the media coverage over this matter, and the incessant, unfounded claims of "white supremacy" on the part of Mr. Rittenhouse, is that without actually saying it, the media has strongly implied to the average normie that Kyle killed black people.

For one example, see https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#312

Post by BobbyJo »

itsdrewmiller wrote: post #101
BobbyJo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer, but I find it highly improbably that section 230 would shield them in this case. It's trivial to think of a scenario where the removal of information constitutes the production of a message, and in that scenario, the information is not itself produced by third parties using a platform, but by the platform itself. Like, if I write a note that reads: "The President of the United States should morn those t…

Generally speaking the court doesn’t rule on actual situations based on hypotheticals, unless they are creating a bright line rule that would clearly fall apart under plausible scenarios.

They rule based on analogy though, which is how I tried to structure my comment.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#313

Post by at_a_remove »

vineyardmike wrote: post #64
koolba wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally I am sick and tired of the way this character is now put forward as some kind of saint, in my book he's a multiple murderer and there isn't anything that will change that. If you refuse to accept any concept of self defense then of course your going to convict him without looking at the evidence. By your standard it’s impossible for someone to defend themself with lethal force as the use of that force wo…

> Walking around your neighborhood is not walking into a bar fight. He didn't. He drove out of state to a new neighborhood... with a gun. Thats asking for trouble.

He drove out of state ...

Okay, so Rittenhouse lives in Antioch. You can pull up Google maps to find that the state line is 1.3 miles -- not even as the crow flies -- away.

And the folks he shot? Drove farther to get to the locale than he did.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#314

Post by at_a_remove »

jacquesm wrote: post #95
apostacy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is not so much the trial as it is the events leading up to it and the fact that kids walk around with powerful weapons. Do you also feel that way about the armed vigilantes on the other side of the incident? Was it ok that Gage Groskreutz was menacing people with his gun, and was never charged with a crime, and never even had his gun confiscated? There were many armed civilians that night with guns, why…

Obviously, yes, but we're not discussing them, we're discussing mr. Rittenhouse.

Weird, because you were just talking about society. Don't move those goalposts.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#315

Post by GhettoComputers »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #252
GhettoComputers wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world isn’t neatly 18 or under 18. Grown children who were aged adults attacked a teen openly carrying a rifle. The guilty party is the aggressors who decided to lawlessly attack a person with every right to defend themselves. He went to administer first aid and was seen cleaning graffiti. She raised him well.

lol he didn't go to render first aid. He was there to be a tough guy. I agree with the outcome of the trial but let's not actually be naive enought to believe that made up garbage.

There’s video of him doing both

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#316

Post by rayiner »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #288
Akronymus wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would certainly be a reasonable interpretation. But in the moment he got shot himself, he already used a weapon on rittenhouse.

I would agree that Rittenhouse would be justified to believe that, yes. 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.

“Assault rifle” lol.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#317

Post by d1sxeyes »

caeril wrote: post #311
baryphonic wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. All of the people Rittenhouse shot at were armed. Multiple witnesses including the state's testified to the fact that Rosenbaum, the pedophile screaming the N-word repeatedly that night (and he was white in case you're wondering) who was shot first, was lunging and trying to grab the gun. A person becomes armed when he attempts to take another person's weapon. The se…

> (and he was white in case you're wondering) What's been most shocking about the media coverage over this matter, and the incessant, unfounded claims of "white supremacy" on the part of Mr. Rittenhouse, is that without actually saying it , the media has strongly implied to the average normie that Kyle killed black people. For one example, see https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825

Hm. I wouldn't say that the claims are unfounded.

The 'Kenosha Guard' were formed in response to the George Floyd protests, so race can't be excluded here as a contributing factor in the formation of the militia. There is also evidence that the Boogaloo Boys formed at least part of the militia, who can be generously described as 'white-supremacist adjacent'.

On the day of his 'not guilty' plea, he met with Proud Boys in a bar, and was caught displaying the 'OK' symbol on camera.[0] I don't have anything nicer to say about the Proud Boys than the Boogaloo Boys.

This wasn't admissible at trial, but is nevertheless true, and leaves little doubt in my mind that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist, or at least associates with white supremacists.

I think it's important to remember that these events didn't occur in a vaccuum, and the backdrop of the protests/riots/unrest/whatever you want to call it is one of the shooting of a Black man in questionable circumstances, so which 'side' you are on is important.

[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://...

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#318

Post by HNTA_1 »

RC_ITR wrote: post #198
mannerheim wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rittenhouse wasn't an 'active shooter' by any stretch of the definition of the word. Further, Grosskreutz knew that Rittenhouse wasn't one because he videod himself running after him asking where he was going, and Rittenhouse responded that he was going to the police. And yes, pointing a gun at someone is threatening their life, which makes shooting them self-defence.

Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people. Is your argument that he was passive or that guns don’t shoot?

>Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people.

No he didn't. He had just defended himself against two assailants, while trying to flee. He was never, at any point in time, an "active shooter".

An "active shooter" is "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims."[0]

He had a pattern of selection. Kyle shot and neutralized those who were trying to kill him (or cause grievious bodily harm). That is, by definition, self-defense, not an "active shooter" event.

[0] https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.p...

QED.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#319

Post by [deleted] »

anshumankmr wrote: post #175
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…

It is still up as of now. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/01/donald-tru...

[deleted]

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#320

Post by HNTA_1 »

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…

Wow. This is one of the most chilling things I've seen in a long time. So divorced from reality (suffering from TDS) that they're on the "war is peace, ignorance is strength"-level of delusion. They're the ones who have elected themselves as the arbiters of what is "fact", what is "truthful". Orwellian is underselling how insane this is.
Post reply on HN