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

381–390 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#381

Post by esyir »

Maursault wrote: post #331
d1sxeyes wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. As it turns out, none of that is illegal. Well put, I disagree only with your last sentence, unless cynical. I think prosecution made a mistake going after intentional homicide charges. All resources and focus should have bee…

So, that's illegal, for one thing. Judges can overrule the jury in a civil case, and only if they determine that "no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict". However, that's null here, as this is a Criminal case. The judge should not, and thankfully cannot overrule the jury here, as that's a violation of the accused's 5th amendment rights.

I'd also have to ask. The jury, with more exposure to the evidence than anyone else here found him not guilty. What exceptional case/point would you make to say that would show Rittenhouse's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Furthermore, the maximal, and I mean maximal, punishment for the misdemeanor is 9 months, far less than the few years you suggest.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#382

Post by JamesBarney »

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.

Why would Huber half-heartedly swing the skateboard?

If he believed Kyle was an active shooter why would he "pull" his punches so to speak. If he didn't believe Kyle was an active shooter than he didn't have any reasons to attack and disarm him.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#383

Post by vkou »

xyzzyz wrote: post #380
vkou wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which legal theory? The 'wait around to get shot, because it takes three days of deliberation for 12 people to determine whether or not the person running around shooting people in a riot can be defined as an active shooter' theory?

Not waiting around for that determination seems to have worked out pretty well for Rittenhouse. He's both not dead, and a free man.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#385

Post by muzz »

hajile wrote: post #342
muzz wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did he stop and talk to the police or keep going? How long after the shootings did the "police station in another nearby town" occur? Also, whom did the call after his first shooting-- the police or someone else?

The police pepper sprayed him when he got close. He called his friend who owned the gun. No need to call the police when they were less than a block away. I'd also imagine that 911 was swamped given how so much of the city was being destroyed.

So in America, the police just kinda stand by while "so much of the city was being destroyed" and two people are killed. Wow.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#386

Post by d1sxeyes »

JamesBarney wrote: post #382
d1sxeyes wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would Huber half-heartedly swing the skateboard? If he believed Kyle was an active shooter why would he "pull" his punches so to speak. If he didn't believe Kyle was an active shooter than he didn't have any reasons to attack and disarm him.

That's a good question, and it's a shame we can't ask him.

My personal opinion is that he wasn't trying to use the skateboard as a weapon, he was trying to use it as a shield, or to give him a bigger surface to push the gun with.

Either that or that the idea came to him too late to swing fully.

Those are both good questions though, and I don't have answers to either.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#387

Post by d1sxeyes »

esyir wrote: post #378
d1sxeyes wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Completely agree on this one.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#388

Post by d1sxeyes »

afiori wrote: post #365
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…

> 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.

Fair point.

I don't think that this was discussed at trial (and probably rightly), but I do question how much he actually visited his father.

It seems as though he lived with his mum and sisters half an hour away from Kenosha.

His mother and sisters were in the courtroom when the verdict was read.

Anyway, I don't argue that the simple fact that he was in Kenosha was wrong. Being exactly where he was, at the time he was, with a weapon...

I don't really know what I want from this. I certainly don't think that the government should pass laws stopping people from travelling, or from being wherever they want to be, but nonetheless, I feel as though the whole thing was avoidable and ended in tragedy for three families, and yes, I include the Rittenhouse family here.

Even though it's been established that Rittenhouse is not guilty of the charges, the rumours about the family history are saddening. I don't believe he went out planning to kill people, I think he was playing policeman, but the fact remains that he killed two people and has to live with that

Plus I'm sure there are civil suits to follow.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#389

Post by d1sxeyes »

esyir wrote: post #379
Svettie wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a really interesting point, and I've thought about this a little bit to try and understand why I think these are not analogous.

I would probably think that a potential rape victim who successfully defended him or herself was justified in doing so.

But there is a scale.

You can't go and stand on the sidelines at an orgy, then shoot anyone who looks at you funny. You can't go and shoot someone who offers to buy you a drink on the off-chance they might slip a roofie in it. You can't just turn around and shoot someone who is walking behind you in case they might be a rapist. On the other hand, if you shoot a guy who tries to drag you into his car, that's pretty clearly a sensible defence.

There are grey areas here too. What if a guy runs up behind you and you spin around and shoot, and it turns out you'd left your phone at the bar, and he was trying to catch up and give it to you.

> 'legal, but risky and potentially foolhardy'

This does describe both 'drinking a lot' and 'going with a gun to a riot', but I don't think it does justice to the differences between the behaviours.

Drinking too much, wearing short skirts, etc. does not imply any kind of consideration of consequences. Bringing a gun to a riot DOES. It shows that Rittenhouse was aware of the increased likelihood of violence, and had already decided that he was prepared to respond with deadly force.

Out of interest, with regards to Huber and Grosskreutz, do you believe that they were also justified in trying to defend against what seemed at the time to be an active shooter?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#390

Post by d1sxeyes »

Maursault wrote: post #331
d1sxeyes wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. As it turns out, none of that is illegal. Well put, I disagree only with your last sentence, unless cynical. I think prosecution made a mistake going after intentional homicide charges. All resources and focus should have bee…

I don't think that judges should be allowed to overrule juries. You can see how many individual opinions there are in this thread - do you think any one of us in isolation should be allowed to make that decision?

The intentional homicide charge was the right thing for the state to do, but I also think it was right he was found not guilty.

Based on the law as it's written, I don't think there's anything that Rittenhouse could actually have been charged with that he could have been found guilty of (except possibly the dismissed curfew violation charge). I just can't reconcile that with the fact that a kid took a gun to a protest and killed two people, which I think almost everyone would agree is not a good outcome for society (although I know there have been discussions about the value of human life around Rosenbaum particularly).

Post reply on HN