Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#321

Post by slowhand09 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 4:28 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.

Chiming in at the end here. Assault Rifle IS a thing, being "Select Fire" weapons typically at or above a certain minimum.

The ISSUE in this microcosm of the discussion is the CONFLATION of the terms Assault Rifle" with "Assault Weapon", which a a made up term by people trying to vilify firearms, especially scary black ones.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#322

Post by ksec » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 4:31 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…

"Facebook did the right thing" is the most un-HN thing I have read on HN in years. So while I may not agree or disagree with things you said. It is always good to have some balance on HN.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#323

Post by mindslight » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #160

rayiner wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Two wrongs etc. Taking the law into your own hands just breeds more violence.

Actually "two wrongs" is exactly how enforcement of the law works. Party A breaks into house, so Party B assaults and kidnaps them. Ideally, Party B is operating according to due process (including duly enacted "laws"), thus is approved of by wider society and the situation converges. It's not a given that Party B can only be some government-blessed police, because such police cannot be everywhere and police (or even wider society) can be corrupt (eg gun control laws gained stream after Black communities started arming themselves in self defense).

As a libertarian who is generally sympathetic to arguments from both tribes, I have to say that the red tribe arguments here seem quite sensible and applicable (which frankly is a relief to me because most everything else I've seen from the red tribe over the past two years has seemed batshit insane and I was worried that I had been captured by the political machine)

If Grosskreutz had ended up killing Rittenhouse, it's certainly possible that the legal finding would have also been self defense (with Rittenhouse not being prosecuted posthumously). In general the law doesn't have clear answers for chaotic situations, and the best way to protect yourself is to avoid them in the first place.

Which brings us back to the larger issue - if Rittenhouse's behavior was problematic for electing to become an armed combatant or force escalation at a riot or something like that, then it seems that is what needs to be criminalized directly - regardless of the specific armed confrontations precipitated. Of course any such law would have to distinguish between bona fide community defense by residents standing their collective ground.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#324

Post by slowhand09 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 4:37 PM UTC

dannyr wrote: post #76

neartheplain wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that events leading up to the shooting were problematic. If respected media commentators had not glorified riots or villianized the justified police shooting of Jacob Blake, or if the Mayor of Kenosha had requested further National Guard in advance of the second night of riots, or if the police had not abandoned downtown Kenosha to a mob armed with rifles and handguns, none of this would have happened. The im…

You conveniently omitted George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Philando Castle. The riots were not glorified. It was the outcome of the unjustified violence against African Americans. "threaten to kill a kid defending local homes and businesses" Rittenhouse is the one who is armed. People might not have attacked him if he's not brandishing a firearm.

"Rittenhouse is the one who is armed. People might not have attacked him if he's not brandishing a firearm."

Interesting argument, especially given the video clearly shows Jacob Blake, whom the police shot, was threatening said police with a knife. And he was the "reason" for the protests & riots.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#325

Post by readflaggedcomm » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

0fuchs wrote: post #57

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…

It’s unsurprising it was found to be self-defense. But he’s still a dipshit for LARPing GI Joe. Would other people have pointed guns at him if he stayed home? Not violated laws transporting weapons across state lines without an immediate threat to his life? Escalating a situation like he did should have seen him shot like an animal by police. Would have happened too if he was brown or mentally ill. America is a moral…

He was larping as an EMT, actually, offering medical help.

When GI Joe was fighting, there were also combat medics doing the same with weapons to defend themselves.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#326

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

GhettoComputers wrote: post #171

oh_sigh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The story wasn't banned. His name was banned from searches, as one does for mass murderers. And statements of support for Rittenhouse were banned, as one does for mass murderers - but anything you wanted to say about "the events in Kenosha" which was against Rittenhouse were allowed.

Mass murderers aren’t banned in search, and he is not a mass murderer, being attacked by several people and defending himself does not make him a murderer.

I understand that. My point was that fb was treating him as a mass murderer even though he wasn't. And the names of mass murderers are frequently banned shortly after the event...I'm sure it is eventually lifted but that is how they operate.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#327

Post by vkou » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

skinkestek wrote: post #235

vkou wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In case you weren't aware: Active shooter seems to have a defined meaning and the courts decided he was not. The rest of my comment assumes you were not aware of this and just meant someone who just shot someone else. Now: legally it seems in Wisconsin one doesn't have the right to follow after someone and pull a gun on them when they aren't threatening anyone. One does however has a right to shoot if someone attacks…

You seem to be missing that when you may be in an active shooter situation, you can't wait for a court to decide whether it is, or isn't one.

Rittenhouse felt threatened, but for some reason, didn't wait for a court to make a determination. The people he shot also felt threatened. And for good reason, given that he killed two of them, in two separate incidents.

If he has the moral right to use lethal force to defend himself against a threat to his person, with imperfect information, without waiting a year for a court to split hairs over who was and was not at fault, so do they. He is incredibly lucky that Grosskreutz gave the question of killing a man more thought than he did.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#328

Post by hagbard_c » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:27 PM UTC

Jtype wrote: post #304

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 vi…

Add the tendency of the press to fail to report on anything which doesn't fit the required narrative, e.g. the recent example of multiple vehicular homicide in Waukesha where a casual reader would conclude that a self-driving SUV went rampant, the way the school shooting in Timberview and the subsequent release of the shooter (including a festive reception by his family) was buried [1] and far too many other examples of what is clearly an agenda. What those media seem to fail to realise is that they have lost nearly all trust among the general population - i.e. they are preaching to their own activist choir.

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/did-media-bury-mass-shooting-becaus...

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#329

Post by ctdonath » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #161

ctdonath wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You omit the qualifications for that exemption, which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact, which FB/T/etc are going way beyond and will likely have to defend in court with difficulty.

> You omit the qualifications for that exemption No, I don't, because there aren't any that are relevant here. > which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact No, 230 has an additional immunity for good faith effort by a provider or user to restrict access to material “the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether…

Mountain_Skies' anecdote above certainly does not meet any form of "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable", nor does (say) any of the objective reporting & fair discussion of the Kyle Rittenhouse incident, or other commonplace views normalized among fully half the population.

Arbitrary culling of content which does not constitute "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" is exactly what "publisher" applies to, and which is the point of this thread.

We can agree to disagree, while watching Kyle Rittenhouse sue Facebook (maybe not quite into oblivion, but the number of digits in the settlement check should be striking) and the court clarify exactly which of us is right to what degree. Popcorn?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#330

Post by muzz » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

flyingfences wrote: post #290

muzz wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

He literally did report it, though. He walked straight down the street to the police and told them he'd just shot people.

Is there any police record? Or any evidence at all that the police heard that?