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

241–250 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#241

Post by redis_mlc »

devjungle wrote: post #224
trhway wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. my understanding is that you can't claim self-defense if you initiated violence yourself. Threatening unarmed people with a gun, pointing it at them is a credible threat of violence that the people have the right to defend themselves from, and that is what they tried to do in particular by chasing that gun wi…

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.

Generally speaking, that's not the law in the US, and not recommended unless you're Usain Bolt.

For example, in California, the law is you do not have to retreat. Other states have "stand your ground" laws.

However, generally speaking, parties cannot flee and then return to fight. So the best legal approach is to continue the fight if you think you can incapacitate the attacker, then retreat and call police.

I watched the Kyle videos, and he did what was prudent and legal.

Actually, I've talked to several young people and they all think they can block the path of other people or act in an aggressive manner, and always act surpised when I tell them they will get knocked out if it continues. Their expression is like, "That can't possibly happen to me." If you watch the Kyle and 2020 BLM riots, you can tell the assailants don't realize the personal danger they're in when they run at a random stranger, who could be armed or trained to defend themselves.

An overweight woman on a bicycle attacked one of Larry Elder's bodyguards earlier this year. One shove and she would have fallen sideways hard on the pavement. Luckily for her, he was a trained bodyguard and was paid to move Larry along, not get involved in the crowd scene.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#242

Post by native_samples »

NoRelToEmber wrote: post #118

The BBC does not mention it, but Rittenhouse's ability to raise funds for a legal defense was also hindered on many levels, including blocks by Twitter, GoFundMe, and the Discover payment processor: https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-blocks-givesendgo-kyle-ri... Perhaps if their blocks were successful in preventing his legal defense, they could now claim to be justified by a guilty verdict..

Yes. The tech industry has made itself look exceptionally bad here. Facebook did something deeply unethical and now it's blown up in their faces. They will not admit that's what they did, but it was. They have directly contributed to the erosion of the principles of justice for no better reason than to appease radical employees.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#243

Post by Epitom3 »

RC_ITR wrote: post #200
neartheplain wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He took a gun to a small business at the owner's request, per police investigation, photo and video evidence, and the sworn testimony of numerous witnesses. The riot came to him.

Uhhhh, why is a teenager who isn’t legally allowed to drink in charge of armed protection of capital? It’s fine, you can say out loud that you don’t value the lives of people you disagree with.

say that when a group of violent individuals are chasing you down saying they will kill you.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#244

Post by Nursie »

polartx wrote: post #212
Nursie wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, as usual, someone picks up on one of the least important bits to intimate that the whole point must be wrong. Perhaps if you'd read past that you might have been able to address the theme rather than one of the less important parts. OK great, the mother wasn't involved, TIL. But the rest stands, there is so much wrong with the whole picture leading up to the (inevitable) tragedy.

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 society it paints is pretty much the same giant WTF as it was before.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#245

Post by throwntoday »

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…

Am I understanding correctly that you believe because the two people attacking him were unarmed, he did not have the right to shoot them? You say you "accept" it was lawful, but it doesn't seem like you believe it should be.

I wonder if two "unarmed" people were attacking you, would you just let them beat you to death? I can't understand this train of thought at all.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#246

Post by perryizgr8 »

trhway wrote: post #228
mrkstu wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except he never pointed a gun at anybody that wasn’t already threatening/chasing him.

pointing gun isn't necessary. As we know from for example many police shootings mere presence of a gun even at a minimally tense situation is usually already perceived as a threat even by well trained and used to guns people.

> pointing gun isn't necessary.

If you threaten a person with bodily harm, I think it is reasonable to point a gun at them to get them to stop. Would you voluntarily get bashed in the head with a skateboard if you were in that position?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#247

Post by stjohnswarts »

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…

We believe also that you're responsible for your own actions. That include sthe guys who attacked him while holding the gun. It is also entirely stupid to attack a person with a gun rather than backing away slowly and moving elsewhere. You won't win in the situation 99/100 times so you should extract yourself from the situation. He was not breaking the law by being there with a gun. If he was this court trial would have had a completely different verdict. As with most things in life there are two sides to the same story and two sets of responsibility and expectations.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#248

Post by stjohnswarts »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #225
polartx wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s what separates America from many places. While you say to the property owner, “property is not worth a human life”. We say to the burglar/arsonist, “is property worth [your] human life?” Also assault rifle isn’t a thing. The term is a made up classification of a weapon.

Assault rifles are certainly a thing, both in the descriptive sense -- everyone knows what the word refers to -- and in the prescriptive sense -- various armies including the US have or had classifications that defined it as a term for selective-fire weapons that fire an intermediate power cartridge like 5.56mm or Russian 7.62x39mm.

A caliber doesn't make an "assault rifle". I can buy a hunting rifle in those calibers as well. In the USA there is no -legal- definition of an assault rifle, it is a made up term to scare people. A semi auto shot gun, hunting rifle, and pistol are all easily within 90% as dangerous as an "assault rifle". Do those get banned as well? I think that's why people say it's ludicrous to say "we just want to ban assault rifles" because we all know what comes after that if you give in to that logic.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#249

Post by stjohnswarts »

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #94
Benjammer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you not allowed to shoot someone in Germany if they fire a gun into the air and then point it at you? What about if someone is swinging a blunt object violently at your head? Is there just not such a thing as "self defense" in Germany? I feel like I sound like one of the right wing sympathizers but I'm honestly just curious how things work over there, are you willing to explain?

You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head. Otherwise all bar fights would end in gun violence like in a cheesy Western film.

Depends on what they're swinging, if they are swinging a lead pipe or brick it would absolutely be an act of self defense. Just a fist meh I don't see it happening unless there are multiple assailants attacking you

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#250

Post by throwaway4good »

thumbellina wrote: post #151
throwaway4good wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was: This is not really censorship. They appear to censor, appease their advertisers, but actually they are amplifying. That is in their (Facebook) economic interest. If you decentralize you will end up with a media for each particular group, and you will have less engagement as you are only discussing with people you agree with.

It's a clear case of censorship. In censorsing they might have amplified the story, but this amplification only occurred after the matter/case was decided. That is too late. > If you decentralize you will end up with a media for each particular group, and you will have less engagement as you are only discussing with people you agree with. This already happens with centralization, as the OP raised. Multiple groups at…

I actually think FB knows what they are doing.

Their censorship provokes and manipulates people to engage more with their platform.

Post reply on HN