Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#431

Post by d1sxeyes » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

yes_really wrote: post #430

d1sxeyes wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hund…

> He ran after Rittenhouse to attack him instead of fleeing.

And yet when Rittenhouse turns and shoots Rosenbaum instead of continuing to flee, that's self-defence?

> We are not debating Rittenhouse self-defense [...] You are derailing the conversation and I do not want to repeat myself or extend my time on this.

No, we were debating Facebook's response. I said that I thought it was reasonable for Facebook to act with an abundance of caution around the killing of two unarmed men.

Someone objected to me calling him 'unarmed'. My contention is that although a skateboard can be used as a weapon, that wasn't how Huber used his skateboard.

I'm not sure what I'm 'derailing', or what you think 'the conversation' is, but you're welcome to stop commenting if you don't want to debate further.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#432

Post by RC_ITR » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 12:50 AM UTC

mannerheim wrote: post #428

RC_ITR wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Gr…

Cool. I’m not going to convince you, especially not with video you won’t watch, and I guess that’s fine.

Please just try to limit the amount of time you spend encouraging people to show up armed to protests, or even riots if you want to call them that.

Who am I kidding? Never mind.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#433

Post by RC_ITR » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 12:53 AM UTC

mannerheim wrote: post #429

RC_ITR wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As far as everyone knew, Rittenhouse was a shooter (that’s a risk you run carrying a rifle)

What were they supposed to do, let him flee?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#434

Post by RC_ITR » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 12:54 AM UTC

HNTA_1 wrote: post #416

RC_ITR wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter is bullied and hit in a fight. He shoots bully dead and starts running. He then shoots two people tackling him. Is he not an active shooter? Why are you doing such mental gymnastics to lionize this kid? You can debate over whether he should go to jail or not, but the reality is he extra-judicially ki…

>Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Proof that they didn't think he was a threat, not an active shooter. He was trying to flee a rioting mob that attempted to kill him. >Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter And there it is, your mask fell off. Freudian slip. You're already aligning him with a "school shooter" even though the scenario you describe is anything but that. >…

Damn. I’ve never been more scared by a comment in my life.

Please dont shoot anyone. I can make the promise I won’t.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#435

Post by mannerheim » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 2:21 AM UTC

RC_ITR wrote: post #432

mannerheim wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Gr…

Cool. I’m not going to convince you, especially not with video you won’t watch, and I guess that’s fine. Please just try to limit the amount of time you spend encouraging people to show up armed to protests, or even riots if you want to call them that. Who am I kidding? Never mind.

> especially not with video you won’t watch

Dumb, baseless assumption from you not reading what I wrote correctly. Grosskreutz and the other pursuers didn't personally witness Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum. If he had, why did Grosskreutz ask Rittenhouse if he had just shot somebody?

> Please just try to limit the amount of time you spend encouraging people to show up armed to protests, or even riots if you want to call them that.

You're obviously not arguing in good faith.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#436

Post by mannerheim » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

RC_ITR wrote: post #433

mannerheim wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As far as everyone knew, Rittenhouse was a shooter (that’s a risk you run carrying a rifle) What were they supposed to do, let him flee?

Ah yes, the only two options here were to let Rittenhouse flee and to repeatedly bash in his head.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#437

Post by mannerheim » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 2:26 AM UTC

RC_ITR wrote: post #434

HNTA_1 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Proof that they didn't think he was a threat, not an active shooter. He was trying to flee a rioting mob that attempted to kill him. >Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter And there it is, your mask fell off. Freudian slip. You're already aligning him with a "school shooter" even though the scenario you describe is anything but that. >…

Damn. I’ve never been more scared by a comment in my life. Please dont shoot anyone. I can make the promise I won’t.

We get that you're upset about your fantasies about an 18-year-old kid getting sodomised in prison for the rest of his life not becoming a reality, but that's not an excuse for all these bad faith comments.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#438

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 5:42 AM UTC

RC_ITR wrote: post #434

HNTA_1 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Proof that they didn't think he was a threat, not an active shooter. He was trying to flee a rioting mob that attempted to kill him. >Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter And there it is, your mask fell off. Freudian slip. You're already aligning him with a "school shooter" even though the scenario you describe is anything but that. >…

Damn. I’ve never been more scared by a comment in my life. Please dont shoot anyone. I can make the promise I won’t.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#439

Post by HNTA_2 » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 6:16 AM UTC

RC_ITR wrote: post #434

HNTA_1 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Proof that they didn't think he was a threat, not an active shooter. He was trying to flee a rioting mob that attempted to kill him. >Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter And there it is, your mask fell off. Freudian slip. You're already aligning him with a "school shooter" even though the scenario you describe is anything but that. >…

Damn. I’ve never been more scared by a comment in my life. Please dont shoot anyone. I can make the promise I won’t.

>Damn. I’ve never been more scared by a comment in my life.

LiTeRaLlY sHaKiNg! Your White fragility is here on full display. Scared because your delusional narrative got shatter.

>Please dont shoot anyone.

Please don't try to attack and kill people. Someone may shoot you in self-defense.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#440

Post by jaybrendansmith » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 11:14 PM UTC

GhettoComputers wrote: post #188

jaybrendansmith wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. My point of view is as a parent of a 16-year old myself. Kyle's parent needs to be locked up here. She's the guilty party, as the supposed guardian of this child. Kyle, defending himself in that bizarro situation, and given current law in that state, was innocent. But there's no world in which a parent should allow that situation to EVER occur. If we dropped a bunch of armed teenagers in the middle of a riot,…

The world isn’t neatly 18 or under 18. Grown children who were aged adults attacked a teen openly carrying a rifle. The guilty party is the aggressors who decided to lawlessly attack a person with every right to defend themselves. He went to administer first aid and was seen cleaning graffiti. She raised him well.

If you do have a child who is 16, you might understand. They are not ready to make these kinds of decisions. They are unbearably righteous, whether righty or lefty. They will go in and kill and be killed with whatever weapon you provide them. The worst thing you can do is to give them a weapon and put them in a war, unless you DO want death and destruction. For those downvoting me because they believe he is guilty, clearly he was going in with many motivations in mind, but probably thought he was doing the right thing. How can we hold a minor accountable without looking at his guardians? Don't parents hold responsibility for their children?