361–370 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's public video - there's no copyright to claim.
Not DMCA; Content ID has never been a legal force YT is forced to comply with, but rather they do it on their own will to appease rights holders to not sue them en mass. YT can remove any video under the guise of "copyright content detected" even if it's not something copyrightable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't "waaay out of his way" though, and he was also there helping provide first aid. It's also mindblowing that you think that him being threatened and chased by a convicted child rapist (the first person he shot), then running away and only shooting again when people were trying to kill him when he fell on the ground, aren't important details.
Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary! Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that…
Between stuffing non-monetized videos with ads, the dislike button thing, and capricious censorship, I'm seriously looking into self-hosting[0] my video and streamed content. Disregarding the difficulty of maintaining a following outside of the big platforms, do any of you HNers have experience with hosting your own video and streaming sites? What software do you use? [0] I could also just switch platforms, but I hav…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head I've more or less read that fact on NYT though. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige... > “So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi, a defense lawyer, asked. > “Correct,” Mr. Gr…
It's also worth noting that the statement you quoted from GP is objectively incorrect without the qualifier that Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed at Kyle's head, because Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them. Keep that in mind while we're talking about omitting information to manipulate the narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> these smaller independent journalists and commenters go against the reality that media companies want you to believe you live in. For an example from this specific case, compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head , to the coverage of his testimony by CNN, et. al. The mainstream media l…
Yes, that was terrible. First, here's a copy of the photo of their interaction for reference which I found online. There are plenty of copies, including in the tweet referenced by Snopes below if you don't like this one: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/290695292964306948/90... Now here's what Grosskreutz said on the stand: Corey Chirafisi: Now, you’d agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse. Correct? G…
The unspent ammo from the glock comes from Lachowski clearing it. Grosskreutz didn't rerack the gun, but he did have one in the chamber ready to shoot, meaning that he meant to take out Rittenhouse when he advanced before having his bicep blown off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't "waaay out of his way" though, and he was also there helping provide first aid. It's also mindblowing that you think that him being threatened and chased by a convicted child rapist (the first person he shot), then running away and only shooting again when people were trying to kill him when he fell on the ground, aren't important details.
Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary! Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that…
You obviously, by your posts, don't know the facts of this case, so why are you weighing in the first place?
> Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment?
The situation was already dangerous - people were looting and setting shit on fire. Rittenhouse had already put out one of those fires. And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one? In fact, if the third guy had not brought a gun, he'd still have most of his bicep.
> one with a huge weapon
Stop calling it a "huge weapon". You sound ridiculous. It's a fucking AR-15. It's not a Howitzer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> these smaller independent journalists and commenters go against the reality that media companies want you to believe you live in. For an example from this specific case, compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head , to the coverage of his testimony by CNN, et. al. The mainstream media l…
>compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head You mean Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head. Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them. Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing "the mainstre…
Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing your fellow commentators of lying by omission
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe. Buts its also as likely that this is the result of an automated copyright take-down notice.
If I'm re-streaming a public access channel, say PBS, that is live-streaming a trial and I'm doing commentary on it how exactly does that trigger an automated copyright take-down notice? Am I missing something on how public events are covered under copyright law? (IANAL)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> these smaller independent journalists and commenters go against the reality that media companies want you to believe you live in. For an example from this specific case, compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head , to the coverage of his testimony by CNN, et. al. The mainstream media l…
>compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head You mean Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head. Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them. Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing "the mainstre…
Many young men were following Rittenhouse, yelling things like "Get him" and "Beat him up". I sensed a lot of dangerous emotions in the videos, in the sound of the voices and the movements of the bodies. Some say that those yelling "get him" merely wanted to makes sure than Rittenhouse did not escape legal accountability (for Rittenhouse's shooting minutes earlier of Joseph Rosenbaum). But consider that Rittenhouse was walking down the middle of a wide street towards a line of cops. What need was there to detain Rittenhouse rather than simply to follow him at a distance to make sure he keeps walking toward the police line?
Then someone hit Rittenhouse on the head, Rittenhouse kept walking quickly, but fell down after a few seconds. During questioning in court, he says he fell because he got dizzy because of the blow to his head. While sitting on his ass in the middle of the street, someone ran up to him, hit him on the shoulder with a skateboard and (almost in the same motion if I recall correctly) grabbed Rittenhouse's gun and tried to pull it away from him. This someone was making the kind of dramatic-but-somewhat-clumsy movements of their whole body that people tend to make when they are in the throes of an intense emotion and trying hard to achieve some physical outcome.
Then Rittenhouse shot that someone (Anthony Huber), which very sadly killed him.
Did I leave anything important out?
EDIT. I changed "hit him on the head" (with a skateboard) to "hit him on the shoulder".