Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#361

Post by blindmute » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

monkeybutton wrote: post #102

dudul wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you get assaulted in Germany you're supposed to just let them beat you up without making a move? Aren't there any acceptable scenarios were lethal self defense can be applied?

I'm not european, but I'm not American either, and the case is weird. In isolation the outcome is correct but take a step back and do you not see what is happening to your country? Weird is an understatement. The entire set and setting for it shouldn't be happening in the first place. But it is.

Yes, we are aware. There is more ideology behind this case than just guns, for most people. My perspective: There has been an increase in violent rioting and looting across the country. The city governments are largely complicit in this and refuse to stop it from happening. The police are restricted by the city governments from performing their duty as public defenders. This unlawful behavior — and I don't just mean rioting, but also simple crimes like shoplifting distinct from any protest; cities such as Seattle have declined to prosecute all such crimes for a long while now — has become so ubiquitous as to be obviously trending toward ruination of communities. In brief, small business has already started to leave these areas, and large businesses are shuttering as well. They simply cannot remain open in the face of unchecked crime.

Now, when the state fails to uphold its obligations and the social contract is broken, what happens is that people either flee the area, or they turn to vigilantism. Doing nothing is a privilege few can afford. The people living in these communities do not want to flee. They have tried calling the police, but the police do not come. They have tried voting, but it doesn't work. They hear of another impending riot. They decide to defend their community. This is the setting of the Rittenhouse saga, and many other such sagas soon to come. Yes, it is a 'weird' situation in a first world country, but it is not weird at all in the annals of history. The case resonates emotionally about more than guns — he is either a hero who stood up when no one else would to stop this madness and defended himself from the violent hordes, or he is an instigator who inserted himself into a lawful anti-racism event and joyfully gunned down the peaceful protesters.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#362

Post by blindmute » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #251

Ancapistani wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head. In every state of which I’ve ever been a resident, responding with lethal force in such a case is in fact legal.

If that something is a deadly weapon sure. If it's fisticuffs and shoving then no it's not unless someone has you on the ground and is pounding away with no sign of letting up. I would say you would need to be beat half to death though or the jury is going to laugh at you.

This is simply false in most states. In short, you can shoot someone dead if you "reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself / herself or another". This does in fact include a guy punching you or trying to punch you.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#363

Post by GhettoComputers » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #354

GhettoComputers wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws against guns don’t affect criminals that show no regard for following the law.

Laws: who needs 'em.

Did the DMCA prevents you from ever pirating?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#364

Post by furgooswft13 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #326

GhettoComputers wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did Facebook ban statements of support for Darrell Brooks, of the Waukesha Christmas parade massacre? Legit question, I don't know the answer but if they want to be consistent they should (I'm guessing they don't, and they did not).

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#365

Post by afiori » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:54 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…

> I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city,

His father lives there, it is just a few miles from his legal residence.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#366

Post by vkou » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #360

vkou wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> to believe, and in fact believe that there is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

Which any reasonable person in that situation would have believed, with the information available to them at the time.

Had Rittenhouse dropped his gun, he would not have been an imminent threat to the crowd. But he did not. For all anybody on the scene knew, he would start shooting again, as soon as he had a chance to.

Disarming him was one way to remove that imminent threat of death and great bodily harm, which Huber tried to do. Killing him would have been another, which Grosskreutz considered, but did not try to do.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#367

Post by trhway » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

mrkstu wrote: post #348

trhway wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you're an active shooter in a populated place i think you're extremely lucky to get only slightly bashed in the head as normally much worse things would happen to you.

Again, cause and effect backwards here. He was attacked previous to any trigger pulling.

>Again, cause and effect backwards here.

cause - the guy shoots an unarmed man and just coldly walks away from it. No victim check, no attempt to render first aid, no reporting to and waiting for police and emergency services... nothing what is reasonably expected in the situation of self-defense.

effect - reasonable perception that it is a killer on the lose, a threat to defend from.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#368

Post by kbelder » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:05 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #244

polartx wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were incorrect about the thing which was the thesis of your comment! Not just incorrect but reality was in the exact opposite state as your comment portrayed it! When a person manages to be wrong so efficiently, why on Earth should they feel entitled to partial credit for supporting arguments to a factually incorrect main idea?

> You were incorrect about the thing which was the thesis of your comment! Then you misunderstood the thesis of my comment. Who provided the transport was the least part of it. The main idea is that the picture is pretty damn f'd up when teenage civillians are going armed to protect private property at/from a protest. That his mother didn't drive him makes it slightly less messed up, but the overall picture of US soc…

But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community. Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage. Take away the 1st, everything would be fine.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#369

Post by d1sxeyes » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:17 PM UTC

GhettoComputers wrote: post #359

d1sxeyes wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

Did you?

https://youtu.be/KauhJWPJu2U?t=897

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#370

Post by afiori » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

trhway wrote: post #338

polartx wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 poli…

>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. He was an active shooter, and thus a threat to anybody around, and the people tried to defend themselves from that threat. Why those people got denied the right of self-defense and treated as attackers instead? I think it is a total miscarriage of ju…

Self defence is not antisymmetric, as a contrived example suppose two people are independently running away from murderers and bump into each other in the dark (maybe add some extra factor like a gunfire sound starting at the same time) then both would be covered under self defence to use (deadly) force againt what was actually an innocent victim.