Live data from Hacker News

Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

bbc.com

421–430 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#421

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 whole comment shows that you really don’t understand physical violence/haven’t been involved in it. One punch can easily cause physical damage that can ruin lives. One hard shove can crack someone’s head on a concrete curb. These are all things I’ve seen happen. The idea that you could be “beaten half to death” and then have the presence of mind to decide that it’s ok to defend yourself with a weapon is equally absurd.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree that Rittenhouse would be justified to believe that, yes. Although I would say that the way Huber hit Rittenhouse with the skateboard doesn't really seem as though it's intended to kill or seriously injure, it seems more like he's using it to try to push the assault rifle away from him. We'll never know, unfortunately.

He tried to hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard. How does that not seem as "intended to kill or seriously injure"? I don't think you are arguing in good faith.

I think I’ve put quite a lot of time and effort into responding in good faith to everyone who has entered into discussion with me, so I find your comment a bit rude to be honest.

With regards to your specific point, my very next phrase explains what I see in the video instead of an intention to kill or seriously injure.

You might disagree, which is your right, but please don’t accuse me of not arguing in good faith.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He tried to hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard. How does that not seem as "intended to kill or seriously injure"? I don't think you are arguing in good faith.

I think I’ve put quite a lot of time and effort into responding in good faith to everyone who has entered into discussion with me, so I find your comment a bit rude to be honest. With regards to your specific point, my very next phrase explains what I see in the video instead of an intention to kill or seriously injure. You might disagree, which is your right, but please don’t accuse me of not arguing in good faith.

He attacked Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse was fallen on the ground surrounded by multiple people running after him and attacking him. The situation was extremely violent: it was during a violent riot that tried to blow up a gas station. At least one of the people attacking him was armed with a handgun and multiple people were armed with baseball bats. At least one of the attackers was a convicted child molester.

It's pretty clear the attacker was part of the attempted beating of Rittenhouse. You wrote it seems like he was just "using it to try to push the assault rifle away from him" to justify the attacker's actions, but you failed to mention the obvious consequence that Rittenhouse would die / be beat up had the attacker succeeded in disarming Rittenhouse.

Everyone can see high quality video footage at 0:15 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I’ve put quite a lot of time and effort into responding in good faith to everyone who has entered into discussion with me, so I find your comment a bit rude to be honest. With regards to your specific point, my very next phrase explains what I see in the video instead of an intention to kill or seriously injure. You might disagree, which is your right, but please don’t accuse me of not arguing in good faith.

He attacked Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse was fallen on the ground surrounded by multiple people running after him and attacking him. The situation was extremely violent: it was during a violent riot that tried to blow up a gas station. At least one of the people attacking him was armed with a handgun and multiple people were armed with baseball bats. At least one of the attackers was a convicted child molester. It's…

> He attacked Rittenhouse

He hit Rittenhouse with his board, sure. Whether it was attack or defence is questionable.

> that tried to blow up a gas station

Can you support this with evidence? I haven’t seen anything that suggests they were trying to blow up the gas station.

> one of the attackers was a convicted child molester

Disgraceful but ultimately irrelevant, unless you think that Rittenhouse knew that and acted on his knowledge.

> attempted beating [… with] the obvious consequence that Rittenhouse would die / be beat up had the attacker succeeded in disarming Rittenhouse.

This is not obvious by a long shot, although it is possible. The police were a few hundred yards down the road, and it is plausible that Rittenhouse would have been held on the ground until police arrived, or marched down to the police, etc.

I have seen the footage and I stand by what I said. If Huber’s intention was to kill or seriously injure Rittenhouse, he would have swung harder and from further away. From 0:14 in your linked video, you can see Huber approaching with his skateboard held at waist height, almost as though he has forgotten he’s carrying it. Others have made a big point about how heavy a skateboard is, but Huber doesn’t leverage any of that weight, by swinging it, he instead sort of jabs with it.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#425
post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in America do cops allow basically The Hunger Games to occur, while they stand by and do nothing

Only in America? That kind of thing happens all over the world every day. What a silly statement.

Not in developed countries it doesn't.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#427
post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entirely misses the point

You asked if there is evidence. There is.

Commenter was replying to the part specifically about a police report. Here is a link that may help you comprehend: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29427563

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#428
post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rittenhouse had shot one person, who had chased him and lunged for his gun, at the time the mob chased after him. He was not aiming his gun at anybody else nor did he fire his gun at anybody else until he was being attacked. Grosskreutz had chased after him after he had shot Rosenbaum, but Grosskreutz did not witness the shooting himself - none of Rittenhouse's pursuers had. He got close enough to Rittenhouse to ask…

Did you watch the video? In what world did none of his pursuers not know he had just killed someone? And to be a pedant, he was only drawn on after the second murder, even though they were in close succession. [0]Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!” As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires f…

> In what world did none of his pursuers not know he had just killed someone?

Didn't say that, I said the pursuers were not a witness to the shooting themselves. That is, they didn't see it happen for themselves. For example, Grosskreutz's story:

> Gaige Grosskreutz testified that he was filming the protest as a legal observer for the American Civil Liberties Union on a Facebook livestream. Shortly before midnight Grosskreutz said he heard gunshots to the south and observed Rittenhouse running in his direction[86] on Sheridan Road.[87] Grosskreutz said he ran alongside Rittenhouse and asked "Hey, what are you doing. You shot somebody?"[86]

> And to be a pedant, he was only drawn on after the second murder, even though they were in close succession.

It wasn't a murder, and it as for 'close succession', that's subjective; Rittenhouse had ran for two blocks after he shot Rosenbaum, and Grosskreutz had already been pursuing Rittenhouse (that's when he recorded the video in the tweet). Grosskreutz would have witnessed Rittenhouse shoot Huber, but he would have also seen Huber slam a skateboard into Rittenhouse's head and attempt to grab his rifle before Rittenhouse had shot Huber since Grosskreutz had been pursuing Rittenhouse prior to this. So 1) Grosskreutz didn't witness Rosenbaum's shooting, 2) Grosskreutz would have witnessed Huber attacking Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot Huber. I.e., he would have known nothing about the first shooting, and the second shooting he would have witnessed the entire self-defence case as it happened, giving zero reasonable indication that Rittenhouse was an 'active shooter'.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#429
post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that he was going to turn himself in. That might be what you meant by passive.

Sure, but we take teenagers (who just shot someone and are RUNNING away) at their word now? And if you don't, you're justified in being shot while pursuing him?

You're justified in being shot if you try to physically attack them by repeatedly hitting them in the head and then trying to grab their gun, yes.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He attacked Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse was fallen on the ground surrounded by multiple people running after him and attacking him. The situation was extremely violent: it was during a violent riot that tried to blow up a gas station. At least one of the people attacking him was armed with a handgun and multiple people were armed with baseball bats. At least one of the attackers was a convicted child molester. It's…

> He attacked Rittenhouse He hit Rittenhouse with his board, sure. Whether it was attack or defence is questionable. > that tried to blow up a gas station Can you support this with evidence? I haven’t seen anything that suggests they were trying to blow up the gas station. > one of the attackers was a convicted child molester Disgraceful but ultimately irrelevant, unless you think that Rittenhouse knew that and acted…

> He hit Rittenhouse with his board, sure. Whether it was attack or defence is questionable.

Rittenhouse was running towards the police and away from the mob. He ran after Rittenhouse to attack him instead of fleeing.

> Disgraceful but ultimately irrelevant, unless you think that Rittenhouse knew that and acted on his knowledge.

> This is not obvious by a long shot, although it is possible. The police were a few hundred yards down the road, and it is plausible that Rittenhouse would have been held on the ground until police arrived, or marched down to the police, etc.

We are not debating Rittenhouse self-defense as that it is obvious from the video footage and the trial. The fact that one of the attackers was a convicted child molester is one of the signals that indicate that the attackers would beat up (and possibly kill) Rittenhouse. Other signals include the fact that there were previous beatings in those riots, that rioters previously attacked police, etc.

You are derailing the conversation and I do not want to repeat myself or extend my time on this. You can see the trial for more information.

Post reply on HN