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

351–360 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#351

Post by hajile »

Maursault wrote: post #344
hajile wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Very few of the "Kyle is a murderer" crowd have seen the actual full-length, unedited videos of what happened. If I can translate, your claim is that they are uninformed, which is plainly a fallacious argument. Just how could you know this? This is kind of an unrelated rant, but it reminds me just a little of Justice Scalia pulling a random and made up statistic out of his hat, something he couldn't possibly know a…

The bias in self-defense cases is very high.

Sure, if a stranger was breaking into your house in the middle of the night and gets shot, there's probably no charges.

Outside of a pretty narrow window, it's likely to go to trial. From there, conviction is extremely likely no matter what. Juries have a definite bias to favor the prosecutor which in my opinion is why so many innocent people have been convicted over the years.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#352

Post by d1sxeyes »

hajile wrote: post #350
d1sxeyes wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't my argument at all, actually: > I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them). Your other points are all good and interesting - one in particular caught my eye: > If they’d pinned him down, t…

> That's true, but they might not have. You can't just go around shooting people because you're afraid that their friend might come and shoot you. He wasn't worried about that. He was worried about they guy trying to grab the gun in his hands (as proven due to the powder stippling on half of Rosenbaum's hand). We've got the Joker just released from the mental hospital. He beats up the woman he's supposed to love and…

> You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation.

This is the second time you're telling me what I'm arguing, and the second time you're wrong.

I absolutely, completely believe that Rittenhouse was in mortal fear for his life when he killed Rosenbaum.

But he should never have had a gun, and he should never have been in that situation.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#353

Post by School-Cotton »

Zickzack wrote: post #234
School-Cotton wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not so if the shot down people can also make the case that they feared for their lives Can you cite the specific German statute or case history that says this? Or is it just what you intuitively expect to be true? > There is a good reason why only highly trained government forces are allowed to carry a weapon let alone some teenager. For what it's worth, I wish that were the case in the US too. But whether carrying…

If you can read German, then search for the term Putativnotwehr - or Erlaubnistatbestandsirrtum which looks so much more German. It refers to an understandable, but wrong belief to be in a situation that justifies self defense. It is a valid excuse in penal law, yet it does not apply to civil liabilities. You can still be sued for damages. An official prosecutor told me that you can use it once in your life to beat s…

Thanks!

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#355

Post by d1sxeyes »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #349
Dakizhu wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To preface this, I think Kyle is a wannabe cop and I still think he shouldn't have been there. But the narrative that he's a white supremacist is probably false. The bar incident occurred because it was arranged by Lin Wood who he fired afterward. Also the FBI investigated him and found no connection to white supremacists iirc.

Does defending yourself turn you into a “wannabe cop” when he was there mostly giving first aid and cleaning graffiti? Are people with first aid kits wannabe medics who have no business unless a doctor is present?

He was definitely a wannabe medic. He told people an EMT which he was not, and when it might actually have been useful for him to kick into gear (after he shot Rosenbaum), he instead just stood there and called a friend.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#356

Post by throwntoday »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #295
willcipriano wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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…

Dude what is the matter with you. Did you really just try to rationalize a grown man hitting a child with a skateboard as being done half-heartedly?

Anyone stupid enough to charge someone carrying a weapon is not the kinda person you wanna take a chance being in close proximity with. You expect him to just stand there and take a beating? Or try to talk it out while the mob is threatening to kill him. How much time should he spend analyzing the situation?

Feel free to stand around and get beat down by a mob while you try to explain yourself. I think the rest of us would rather deal with a jury.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#357

Post by d1sxeyes »

throwntoday wrote: post #356
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…

Dude what is the matter with you. Did you really just try to rationalize a grown man hitting a child with a skateboard as being done half-heartedly? Anyone stupid enough to charge someone carrying a weapon is not the kinda person you wanna take a chance being in close proximity with. You expect him to just stand there and take a beating? Or try to talk it out while the mob is threatening to kill him. How much time sh…

Maybe half-hearted was a poor choice of words, but the video clearly shows the skateboard hit, and it is obvious that Huber was capable of swinging much harder and did not.

Maybe children shouldn't have guns. Maybe children shouldn't get themselves into situations where they feel the only way they can survive is to shoot and kill people.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#358

Post by blindmute »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #265
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.

I think that's an overly reductive expression of my opinion, which is perhaps why you're struggling to follow. I think it is incredibly likely that if Rittenhouse did not have a gun, then the two people he killed would still be alive, and I find it unlikely that Rittenhouse would be dead today. You are correct that I don't believe that these specific circumstances that led to these deaths should be legal. I don't bel…

> My opinion is that he had a gun he shouldn't have had, was in a place he shouldn't have been, causing trouble he shouldn't have been involved in, and killed two people who shouldn't have died.

He had a gun he had a right to have, in a place he had a right to be, at a protest that he had a right to be involved in as much as the protesters, and killed two people rightfully in self defense. What's the problem here? If people don't want to be killed, I would recommend they don't chase down an armed man and imminently threaten his life.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#359

Post by GhettoComputers »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #355
GhettoComputers wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does defending yourself turn you into a “wannabe cop” when he was there mostly giving first aid and cleaning graffiti? Are people with first aid kits wannabe medics who have no business unless a doctor is present?

He was definitely a wannabe medic. He told people an EMT which he was not, and when it might actually have been useful for him to kick into gear (after he shot Rosenbaum), he instead just stood there and called a friend.

>“After I shoot Mr Rosenbaum, he tried to grab my gun. I was running away. There was a gunshot behind me. After I shot him, I run around the car because I was going to go render first-aid to him,” the teenager said in a recorded TV interview on Monday.

>He added: “I wasn’t able to, because then there was a mob forming and calling for my execution to get him and kill him.”

What did you expect him to do? EMTs are not gods that reverse death, nor was he wrong getting away from a violent crowd. He offered first aid, where did he say he was an EMT?

Did you actually watch the video or read the interview?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#360

Post by xyzzyz »

vkou wrote: post #327
skinkestek wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The relevant legal standard is not “felt threatened”, but that a person must have a reasonable grounds (by objective standards of a reasonable person, not by subjective standards of threat, which might be completely unreasonable) to believe, and in fact believe that there is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

Since Rittenhouse was quite apparently running away, and Grossenkreutz was pursuing him, in no way can a reasonable conclude that Rittenhouse was an imminent threat to Grossenkreutz — if he didn’t pursue him, he’d be completely safe.

Post reply on HN