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

371–380 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#371

Post by afiori »

trhway wrote: post #367
mrkstu wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is an argument for justifying the following attacks on Kyle. Kyle acting in self defence does not imply that Huber was not acting in self defence.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#372

Post by marcusverus »

tarsinge wrote: post #196
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…

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…

> Had he not posed with an assault rifle in the first place two people would not be dead today, he is still morally responsible for that to me.

So basically Rittenhouse 'morally accountable' for not foreseeing the unforseeable. How silly.

Rittenhouse attended a protest while legally carrying a firearm. 2020 had seen tens of thousands of people do the same. How many people were forced to fire their guns in self-defense at a protest? I can't think of a single one. Any risk he was incurring would have been remote and purely hypothetical. For that you hold him morally responsible for these men's deaths?

What about the actions of those men who he killed? Unlike Rittenhouse's attendance at the protest, their decision to attack Kyle Rittenhouse was decidedly not legal. Unlike Rittenhouse's choice to attend the protest, which carried only hypothetical danger, his attackers would have had no doubt that attacking a man with a gun carried risks that were neither remote nor hypothetical.

Remember, when conflict seemed imminent, Rittenhouse ran away, attempting to avoid conflict. His attackers chased him down and forced the issue.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#373

Post by Svettie »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #352
hajile wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The last line is just your opinion, and clearly Rittenhouse disagreed. If it's not illegal for me to be somewhere, then I have the right to be there, and I can choose to exercise that right.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#374

Post by Svettie »

trhway wrote: post #346
ryathal wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using police are a bad example, because they aren't held to the same standard as non-police. Whether that should be or not is debatable, but it's not debatable that there are clearly different standards. Police are routinely determined justified in killing people based on the possibility of a weapon, those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.

i'm not talking about standards. I'm talking about human perception of gun danger and use as an example well established perception of gun danger by the people known to be well accustomed to guns and associated dangers. >those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them. these people were defending themselves and others around from Rittenhouse after he shot an unarmed man and just walked away…

There doesn't need to be a clear "bad guy" in every situation. Situations can escalate and get out of hand without any individual actors with bad intentions. So it's entirely plausible that the people charging Rittenhouse thought he was a terrorist and wanted to disarm him, and it's entirely plausible that Rittenhouse feared for his life when he shot them. To illustrate my point:

Suppose there are two people at two corners of a dark alleyway. They both hear a gunshot towards the center of the alley and draw their pistols in self-defence. They take a few steps and now see each other holding a gun. Each one raises his gun at the other, thinking that's the shooter. One fires and kills the other. AFAIK it would be justified self-defense

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#375

Post by Svettie »

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…

"a true self-defense situation", according to who?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#376

Post by Svettie »

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…

So the massive list of uncontested gun victims is caused by a bunch of people with a vain fascination with deadly weapons? Either: a) this is the same type of fallacy you started out criticizing, or b) it's hyperbole, because "massive" and "bunch" could mean anything and you haven't substantiated it

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#377

Post by Nursie »

kbelder wrote: post #368
Nursie wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community.

I disagree. It's all a huge mess. Armed citizens setting themselves up as effective vigilante defence forces is terrible both for the circumstances that lead there, and the action itself. It really looks like a broken society, and is something I'd expect in far less developed countries.

> Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage

Maybe, but maybe there would be more people alive.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#378

Post by esyir »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #357
throwntoday wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My takeaway is very different from yours as to where ultimate fault lies.

Maybe enforcement should do their job so children don't have to try to do their job for them.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#379

Post by esyir »

Svettie wrote: post #373
d1sxeyes wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The last line is just your opinion, and clearly Rittenhouse disagreed. If it's not illegal for me to be somewhere, then I have the right to be there, and I can choose to exercise that right.

Something I've found interesting is that the arguments deployed against Rittenhouse are pretty analogous to victim-blaming in rape cases.

- Rittenhouse did something legal, but risky and potentially foolhardy.

- An external agent intervenes, causing the incident

- "Well, he shouldn't have been there to begin with" vs "Well, she knew that was a bad part of town"

Main differences there would be that he defended himself successfully, so to some, victim and aggressor get flipped.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#380

Post by xyzzyz »

vkou wrote: post #366
xyzzyz wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. D…

That’s a cool story, but it’s not how law works, so I do not recommend testing this theory.
Post reply on HN