Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59486397
409 comments
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 despite the NYT telling the truth through their video analysis, the rest of the press and tech monopolies ratcheted the story in one direction: that Rittenhouse was a "mass shooter" who was carrying out a white supremacist terrorist attack.
During the trial, my overlapping bubbles either had seen the videos and/or watched the trial and believed him innocent, or had only read the media reports, and believed him guilty.
Given the weird nature of this case, and how only one viewpoint about it was allowed on social media, I wonder if that constitutes defamation on the part of the social media companies, since they were in practice making an editorial decision that he was bad.
That said, I doubt any courts would ever actually find that section 230 does not shield tech monopolies when they do this, but I am curious.
The interesting thing about Rittenhouse is that even despite the NYT telling the truth through their video analysis, the rest of the press and tech monopolies ratcheted the story in one direction: that Rittenhouse was a "mass shooter" who was carrying out a white supremacist terrorist attack.
During the trial, my overlapping bubbles either had seen the videos and/or watched the trial and believed him innocent, or had only read the media reports, and believed him guilty.
Given the weird nature of this case, and how only one viewpoint about it was allowed on social media, I wonder if that constitutes defamation on the part of the social media companies, since they were in practice making an editorial decision that he was bad.
That said, I doubt any courts would ever actually find that section 230 does not shield tech monopolies when they do this, but I am curious.
Not a lawyer, but I find it highly improbably that section 230 would shield them in this case. It's trivial to think of a scenario where the removal of information constitutes the production of a message, and in that scenario, the information is not itself produced by third parties using a platform, but by the platform itself.
Like, if I write a note that reads: "The President of the United States should morn those that die of COVID." And the note is posted by someone else with "morn those that" removed, they can no longer point to me as the producer of the message. Likewise if video footage is edited to show a different story than reality, the person that did the editing is culpable for the resulting hoax, not the videographer. I think the same applies to editing information produced by multiple other people. The moment you edit information to conform to a certain narrative, you are then the source of that new narrative. In that way, I think Facebook, though they were editing the information available on their platform, are in fact the source of a new narrative that exists in the negative space of their editing.
It would indeed be super interesting to see this argued in court. It would make a really good balance to the free reign that platforms have now to curtail certain messages or information. If they were responsible for the story the surviving information creates, it would make them tread more carefully when censoring users.
Like, if I write a note that reads: "The President of the United States should morn those that die of COVID." And the note is posted by someone else with "morn those that" removed, they can no longer point to me as the producer of the message. Likewise if video footage is edited to show a different story than reality, the person that did the editing is culpable for the resulting hoax, not the videographer. I think the same applies to editing information produced by multiple other people. The moment you edit information to conform to a certain narrative, you are then the source of that new narrative. In that way, I think Facebook, though they were editing the information available on their platform, are in fact the source of a new narrative that exists in the negative space of their editing.
It would indeed be super interesting to see this argued in court. It would make a really good balance to the free reign that platforms have now to curtail certain messages or information. If they were responsible for the story the surviving information creates, it would make them tread more carefully when censoring users.
Generally speaking the court doesn’t rule on actual situations based on hypotheticals, unless they are creating a bright line rule that would clearly fall apart under plausible scenarios.
They rule based on analogy though, which is how I tried to structure my comment.
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 the letter of the law, it seems likely from the wording that the exception was intended to apply to minors hunting and is poorly written, rather than an intentional decision to allow 17 year olds to carry AR-15s. Poorly worded laws are read in favour of the defence, which is why the gun charge was dropped. He likely would not have been allowed to buy or possess the gun in his home state.
But whatever the legality, I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city, kill two unarmed people, and pose for celebratory photos with white supremacists afterwards.
The flow of information today is too fast to wait for definitive, legal judgements on every case, and balancing free speech, opinion, and commentary against spreading false news and inciting hatred is an incredibly challenging task. In the aftermath of the shooting, it seems Facebook implemented their 'mass shooting' playbook, which is, from my perspective, completely reasonable.
Facebook choosing not to allow praise or support for a killer is, in my opinion, sensible and logical. Once it became clear that the killings were not illegal, then Facebook removed these restrictions. I'm not exactly an ardent defender of Facebook's policies, but in this case, especially given that none of the facts are in contention, I think Facebook did the right thing.
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 the letter of the law, it seems likely from the wording that the exception was intended to apply to minors hunting and is poorly written, rather than an intentional decision to allow 17 year olds to carry AR-15s. Poorly worded laws are read in favour of the defence, which is why the gun charge was dropped. He likely would not have been allowed to buy or possess the gun in his home state.
But whatever the legality, I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city, kill two unarmed people, and pose for celebratory photos with white supremacists afterwards.
The flow of information today is too fast to wait for definitive, legal judgements on every case, and balancing free speech, opinion, and commentary against spreading false news and inciting hatred is an incredibly challenging task. In the aftermath of the shooting, it seems Facebook implemented their 'mass shooting' playbook, which is, from my perspective, completely reasonable.
Facebook choosing not to allow praise or support for a killer is, in my opinion, sensible and logical. Once it became clear that the killings were not illegal, then Facebook removed these restrictions. I'm not exactly an ardent defender of Facebook's policies, but in this case, especially given that none of the facts are in contention, I think Facebook did the right thing.
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.
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.
One was "unarmed" with a blunt weapon and the other threatened to kill Kyle prior to his attempt to steal his gun. Had Kyle not shot him, he rapidly would've became armed.
I commented elsewhere on 'unarmed' and how it relates to Huber's skateboard.
With regards to your point about Rosenbaum, I don't disagree. But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants).
With regards to your point about Rosenbaum, I don't disagree. But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants).
> But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants).
What about the 3rd assailant who admitted on the stand to pulling a gun and aiming it prior to being shot, or the man in the mob (that mob was shouting "get him" may I add) who unloaded a magazine into the air during the incident?
What about the 3rd assailant who admitted on the stand to pulling a gun and aiming it prior to being shot, or the man in the mob (that mob was shouting "get him" may I add) who unloaded a magazine into the air during the incident?
Yes, both the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed.
The third guy, Grosskreutz, did indeed have a handgun, which he drew and pointed at a man who had already killed two people.
Again, I'm not saying that Rittenhouse did not have a justification to fear for his life and limb in those specific circumstances.
But they were circumstances which were created largely by his own decisions (travelling to Kenosha, carrying a weapon, shooting Rosenbaum).
The third guy, Grosskreutz, did indeed have a handgun, which he drew and pointed at a man who had already killed two people.
Again, I'm not saying that Rittenhouse did not have a justification to fear for his life and limb in those specific circumstances.
But they were circumstances which were created largely by his own decisions (travelling to Kenosha, carrying a weapon, shooting Rosenbaum).
Didn't Grosskreutz travel a further distance to riot then Rittenhouse traveled to prevent the rioting? Or was that one of the other ones?
Grosskreutz shouldn't have had a gun either (his concealed carry permit had expired), but at the end of the day he didn't kill anyone, which sort of sets him apart.
I'm not trying to say that the people Rittenhouse shot at were angels. But none of them killed anyone.
I'm not trying to say that the people Rittenhouse shot at were angels. But none of them killed anyone.
> But none of them killed anyone.
They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself. The reason Kyle wasn't murdered is not due to their sense of morals but instead their incompetence as combatants. It seems the rioters had more experience assaulting women and children and were ill equiped to assault a young man.
They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself. The reason Kyle wasn't murdered is not due to their sense of morals but instead their incompetence as combatants. It seems the rioters had more experience assaulting women and children and were ill equiped to assault a young man.
> They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself.
Again, not trying to paint these guys as angels, but it does not seem that this is correct:
- the 'mob' chasing Rittenhouse that led eventually to him opening fire on Rosenbaum were shouting 'get him', and may even have shouted 'kill him'. We know that at least one of these people had a gun, but this gun was fired up into the air, rather than at Rittenhouse, and Rosenbaum threw a bag of clothes at Rittenhouse. Yes, Rosenbaum was approaching Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse was probably scared, but it doesn't look like Rosenbaum was about to kill him.
- Huber's half-hearted hit with the skateboard hardly seems like the kind of force he could have mustered if his intent were to smash Rittenhouse's head in (it also seems from the video as though Huber was already moving away from Rittenhouse by the time Rittenhouse shot him)
- Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his pistol drawn and pointed at Rittenhouse, but did not fire at him, instead opting to try to disarm him. If he'd been trying to kill him, he'd have had the chance to do so.
Again, not trying to paint these guys as angels, but it does not seem that this is correct:
- the 'mob' chasing Rittenhouse that led eventually to him opening fire on Rosenbaum were shouting 'get him', and may even have shouted 'kill him'. We know that at least one of these people had a gun, but this gun was fired up into the air, rather than at Rittenhouse, and Rosenbaum threw a bag of clothes at Rittenhouse. Yes, Rosenbaum was approaching Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse was probably scared, but it doesn't look like Rosenbaum was about to kill him.
- Huber's half-hearted hit with the skateboard hardly seems like the kind of force he could have mustered if his intent were to smash Rittenhouse's head in (it also seems from the video as though Huber was already moving away from Rittenhouse by the time Rittenhouse shot him)
- Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his pistol drawn and pointed at Rittenhouse, but did not fire at him, instead opting to try to disarm him. If he'd been trying to kill him, he'd have had the chance to do so.
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 believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them).
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.
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 believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them).
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.
Let’s say you carry a gun. Someone attempts to rape you. Nobody is likely to die. Your argument says that you should just be raped.
There’s a case (I think it might still be pending) about a drunk guy who hits someone one time and kills them. I’ve seen a video of a kid hitting his friend and killing them. In fact, a lot of people have died from being hit just one time the wrong way.
Even if he weren’t armed, Rosenbaum still chases him down. Rosenbaum’s buddy Zaminski had a gun too. If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him given all the trouble they went through to ambush him.
Also, Grosskreutz is interesting. He ran down Rittenhouse while pulling a gun. At the same time, he testified he had no reason to believe Rittenhouse had shot anyone.
Mob mentality is crazy. Loads of people have died at the hands of unarmed mobs. Any individual would never hurt anyone else, but together, the mob mentality results in something terrible happens.
There’s a case (I think it might still be pending) about a drunk guy who hits someone one time and kills them. I’ve seen a video of a kid hitting his friend and killing them. In fact, a lot of people have died from being hit just one time the wrong way.
Even if he weren’t armed, Rosenbaum still chases him down. Rosenbaum’s buddy Zaminski had a gun too. If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him given all the trouble they went through to ambush him.
Also, Grosskreutz is interesting. He ran down Rittenhouse while pulling a gun. At the same time, he testified he had no reason to believe Rittenhouse had shot anyone.
Mob mentality is crazy. Loads of people have died at the hands of unarmed mobs. Any individual would never hurt anyone else, but together, the mob mentality results in something terrible happens.
That wasn't my argument at all, actually:
> I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them).
Your other points are all good and interesting - one in particular caught my eye:
> If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him
That's true, but they might not have. You can't just go around shooting people because you're afraid that their friend might come and shoot you.
> I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them).
Your other points are all good and interesting - one in particular caught my eye:
> If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him
That's true, but they might not have. You can't just go around shooting people because you're afraid that their friend might come and shoot you.
> That's true, but they might not have. You can't just go around shooting people because you're afraid that their friend might come and shoot you.
He wasn't worried about that. He was worried about they guy trying to grab the gun in his hands (as proven due to the powder stippling on half of Rosenbaum's hand).
We've got the Joker just released from the mental hospital. He beats up the woman he's supposed to love and He's trying to burn down the city. How much self control will he have toward a complete stranger who is foiling his plans?
You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation.
What other options are there once the situation is inevitable?
He wasn't worried about that. He was worried about they guy trying to grab the gun in his hands (as proven due to the powder stippling on half of Rosenbaum's hand).
We've got the Joker just released from the mental hospital. He beats up the woman he's supposed to love and He's trying to burn down the city. How much self control will he have toward a complete stranger who is foiling his plans?
You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation.
What other options are there once the situation is inevitable?
> You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation.
This is the second time you're telling me what I'm arguing, and the second time you're wrong.
I absolutely, completely believe that Rittenhouse was in mortal fear for his life when he killed Rosenbaum.
But he should never have had a gun, and he should never have been in that situation.
This is the second time you're telling me what I'm arguing, and the second time you're wrong.
I absolutely, completely believe that Rittenhouse was in mortal fear for his life when he killed Rosenbaum.
But he should never have had a gun, and he should never have been in that situation.
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 successfully, so to some, victim and aggressor get flipped.
- 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 successfully, so to some, victim and aggressor get flipped.
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?
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?
> 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.
He had a gun he had a right to have, in a place he had a right to be, at a protest that he had a right to be involved in as much as the protesters, and killed two people rightfully in self defense. What's the problem here? If people don't want to be killed, I would recommend they don't chase down an armed man and imminently threaten his life.
He had a gun he had a right to have, in a place he had a right to be, at a protest that he had a right to be involved in as much as the protesters, and killed two people rightfully in self defense. What's the problem here? If people don't want to be killed, I would recommend they don't chase down an armed man and imminently threaten his life.
> I would recommend they don't chase down an armed man and imminently threaten his life
I think Rittenhouse had reason to fear for his life, but I don't agree with the statement that they were imminently threatening his life as a fact.
It may be true that Rosenbaum had threatened Rittenhouse's life. But neither Huber nor Grosskreutz had done so.
You may ask whether Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Rittenhouse constitutes threatening his life, and the answer to that is... maybe? But if the fact alone of pointing a gun at someone is threatening someone's life, then we have to rewind and look at whether Rosenbaum had reason to fear for his life.
We have video evidence of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Rosenbaum while Rosenbaum is still at least 20 feet away.
I think Rittenhouse had reason to fear for his life, but I don't agree with the statement that they were imminently threatening his life as a fact.
It may be true that Rosenbaum had threatened Rittenhouse's life. But neither Huber nor Grosskreutz had done so.
You may ask whether Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Rittenhouse constitutes threatening his life, and the answer to that is... maybe? But if the fact alone of pointing a gun at someone is threatening someone's life, then we have to rewind and look at whether Rosenbaum had reason to fear for his life.
We have video evidence of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Rosenbaum while Rosenbaum is still at least 20 feet away.
> 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 been on a successful felony gun conviction. Only then should the prosecutor turned to felony murder charges. Even with the jury's finding, the judge should have partially overturned the jury's finding, and found guilty on lesser but included charges to ensure at least a few years of incarceration.
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 been on a successful felony gun conviction. Only then should the prosecutor turned to felony murder charges. Even with the jury's finding, the judge should have partially overturned the jury's finding, and found guilty on lesser but included charges to ensure at least a few years of incarceration.
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).
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).
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.
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.
I agree that Kyle was in a place he should not have been. As to causing trouble, I agree with that, thought may others might not. It must also be stated that the people who engaged with him were also in a place they should not have been in and were also in the process of causing some mischief.
All of this just leads me to believe that no one of "good quality" shows up to those events with the idea of causing excess trouble (outside of peacefully demonstrating). How else could it be that the three people who he shot had vast criminal back grounds (which don't apply to his self defense because he did not know about the criminal history when he was shooting them) being that of a child molester and domestic abusers and Kyle himself was on video beating up some girl.
When bad situations happen amongst a crowd of people, the "good quality" people see themselves out and try to leave while the "bad quality" people get hype and try to instigate further.
All of this just leads me to believe that no one of "good quality" shows up to those events with the idea of causing excess trouble (outside of peacefully demonstrating). How else could it be that the three people who he shot had vast criminal back grounds (which don't apply to his self defense because he did not know about the criminal history when he was shooting them) being that of a child molester and domestic abusers and Kyle himself was on video beating up some girl.
When bad situations happen amongst a crowd of people, the "good quality" people see themselves out and try to leave while the "bad quality" people get hype and try to instigate further.
> Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed.
Not legally speaking. A skateboard can easily be classified as a deadly weapon. Same as a baseball bat, a big branch or similar stuff.
Not legally speaking. A skateboard can easily be classified as a deadly weapon. Same as a baseball bat, a big branch or similar stuff.
Not easily.
Wisconsin defines a deadly weapon (actually they use the term 'dangerous weapon') as "any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon [...] or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm."
You might say that the skateboard was 'likely to produce great bodily harm in the manner it was used', which I think is plausible, although clearly Huber was not skilled in using his skateboard in this way.
I would point out though that it would be *completely wrong* to say that Huber was 'armed' because he was carrying a skateboard. Although he did hit Rittenhouse with it, it doesn't seem as he was carrying the skateboard as a weapon, it was just an opportunistic usage.
Wisconsin defines a deadly weapon (actually they use the term 'dangerous weapon') as "any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon [...] or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm."
You might say that the skateboard was 'likely to produce great bodily harm in the manner it was used', which I think is plausible, although clearly Huber was not skilled in using his skateboard in this way.
I would point out though that it would be *completely wrong* to say that Huber was 'armed' because he was carrying a skateboard. Although he did hit Rittenhouse with it, it doesn't seem as he was carrying the skateboard as a weapon, it was just an opportunistic usage.
The moment it started being used as a weapon, it became one, afaict. So, just carrying it isn't making it a weapon, but swinging it, is.
That's a fair point. So Huber was not carrying a weapon up until after Rittenhouse had already killed Rosebaum.
That would certainly be a reasonable interpretation. But in the moment he got shot himself, he already used a weapon on rittenhouse.
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.
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 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.
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
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
> Facebook choosing not to allow praise or support for a killer is, in my opinion, sensible and logical.
Surely the hard question is "the line drawing". Claiming you support his right to be in a place at a time with a gun and defend himself from attackers who were intent on injuring him... feels extremely reasonable? As though it should be protected.
Far from saying Facebook needs to allow "lol I'm glad those fuckers are dead" posts to stay up but surely advocating for his innocence of any crime is not a thing that should be censored?
Surely the hard question is "the line drawing". Claiming you support his right to be in a place at a time with a gun and defend himself from attackers who were intent on injuring him... feels extremely reasonable? As though it should be protected.
Far from saying Facebook needs to allow "lol I'm glad those fuckers are dead" posts to stay up but surely advocating for his innocence of any crime is not a thing that should be censored?
> Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed.
All of the people Rittenhouse shot at were armed. Multiple witnesses including the state's testified to the fact that Rosenbaum, the pedophile screaming the N-word repeatedly that night (and he was white in case you're wondering) who was shot first, was lunging and trying to grab the gun. A person becomes armed when he attempts to take another person's weapon.
The second man shot at, "jump kick man," was using his feet as weapons when he was shot at. When we use even our bodies in a violent manner, they become weapons.
The second man shot was in the act of wielding his skateboard as a weapon, and also grabbed the gun. He became armed when he started using the skateboard as a weapon, and further when he grabbed the gun.
The final person shot was literally armed with an illegally-possessed handgun. He was not shot until he approached Rittenhouse and pointed it at Rittenhouse's head.
All armed.
> 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 the letter of the law, it seems likely from the wording that the exception was intended to apply to minors hunting and is poorly written, rather than an intentional decision to allow 17 year olds to carry AR-15s. Poorly worded laws are read in favour of the defence, which is why the gun charge was dropped. He likely would not have been allowed to buy or possess the gun in his home state.
It seems to me that banning sixteen and seventeen year olds from possessing sawed-off shotguns and pistols makes sense outside of a hunting context. I personally didn't find the law particularly strangely worded, unless we're going in with the expectation that it will nail a kid.
FWIW, Rittenhouse testified on the stand that he had asked police for advice before his friend bought the rifle, and was told their arrangement complied with the law. That may not be a real legal defense, but I mean, sheesh. Hard to fault anyone who takes pains to comply with the law.
> But whatever the legality, I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city, kill two unarmed people, and pose for celebratory photos with white supremacists afterwards.
His father and grandmother live in Kenosha. He had a job there. He had in fact been photographed cleaning graffiti from the walls of a Kenosha high school earlier that same day. It was "his city" as much as anyone else's.
All of the people Rittenhouse shot at were armed. Multiple witnesses including the state's testified to the fact that Rosenbaum, the pedophile screaming the N-word repeatedly that night (and he was white in case you're wondering) who was shot first, was lunging and trying to grab the gun. A person becomes armed when he attempts to take another person's weapon.
The second man shot at, "jump kick man," was using his feet as weapons when he was shot at. When we use even our bodies in a violent manner, they become weapons.
The second man shot was in the act of wielding his skateboard as a weapon, and also grabbed the gun. He became armed when he started using the skateboard as a weapon, and further when he grabbed the gun.
The final person shot was literally armed with an illegally-possessed handgun. He was not shot until he approached Rittenhouse and pointed it at Rittenhouse's head.
All armed.
> 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 the letter of the law, it seems likely from the wording that the exception was intended to apply to minors hunting and is poorly written, rather than an intentional decision to allow 17 year olds to carry AR-15s. Poorly worded laws are read in favour of the defence, which is why the gun charge was dropped. He likely would not have been allowed to buy or possess the gun in his home state.
It seems to me that banning sixteen and seventeen year olds from possessing sawed-off shotguns and pistols makes sense outside of a hunting context. I personally didn't find the law particularly strangely worded, unless we're going in with the expectation that it will nail a kid.
FWIW, Rittenhouse testified on the stand that he had asked police for advice before his friend bought the rifle, and was told their arrangement complied with the law. That may not be a real legal defense, but I mean, sheesh. Hard to fault anyone who takes pains to comply with the law.
> But whatever the legality, I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city, kill two unarmed people, and pose for celebratory photos with white supremacists afterwards.
His father and grandmother live in Kenosha. He had a job there. He had in fact been photographed cleaning graffiti from the walls of a Kenosha high school earlier that same day. It was "his city" as much as anyone else's.
> (and he was white in case you're wondering)
What's been most shocking about the media coverage over this matter, and the incessant, unfounded claims of "white supremacy" on the part of Mr. Rittenhouse, is that without actually saying it, the media has strongly implied to the average normie that Kyle killed black people.
For one example, see https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825
What's been most shocking about the media coverage over this matter, and the incessant, unfounded claims of "white supremacy" on the part of Mr. Rittenhouse, is that without actually saying it, the media has strongly implied to the average normie that Kyle killed black people.
For one example, see https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825
d1sxeyes(1)
To preface this, I think Kyle is a wannabe cop and I still think he shouldn't have been there. But the narrative that he's a white supremacist is probably false. The bar incident occurred because it was arranged by Lin Wood who he fired afterward. Also the FBI investigated him and found no connection to white supremacists iirc.
Does defending yourself turn you into a “wannabe cop” when he was there mostly giving first aid and cleaning graffiti? Are people with first aid kits wannabe medics who have no business unless a doctor is present?
He was definitely a wannabe medic. He told people an EMT which he was not, and when it might actually have been useful for him to kick into gear (after he shot Rosenbaum), he instead just stood there and called a friend.
>“After I shoot Mr Rosenbaum, he tried to grab my gun. I was running away. There was a gunshot behind me. After I shot him, I run around the car because I was going to go render first-aid to him,” the teenager said in a recorded TV interview on Monday.
>He added: “I wasn’t able to, because then there was a mob forming and calling for my execution to get him and kill him.”
What did you expect him to do? EMTs are not gods that reverse death, nor was he wrong getting away from a violent crowd. He offered first aid, where did he say he was an EMT?
Did you actually watch the video or read the interview?
>He added: “I wasn’t able to, because then there was a mob forming and calling for my execution to get him and kill him.”
What did you expect him to do? EMTs are not gods that reverse death, nor was he wrong getting away from a violent crowd. He offered first aid, where did he say he was an EMT?
Did you actually watch the video or read the interview?
> 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.
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.
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.
"Facebook did the right thing" is the most un-HN thing I have read on HN in years. So while I may not agree or disagree with things you said. It is always good to have some balance on HN.
> Given the weird nature of this case, and how only one viewpoint about it was allowed on social media, I wonder if that constitutes defamation on the part of the social media companies, since they were in practice making an editorial decision that he was bad.
You yourself acknowledge that it is a "viewpoint", or the term more common in law an "opinion". Opinions are protected speech by the first amendment (not section 230) and as such Facebook cannot be liable in any way for promoting one or silencing another.
To be liable for defamation, you would need to be stating false facts with reckless disregard for the truth (or malice, if Rittenhouse counts as a public figure), not just promoting an opinion. This is regardless of section 230 (which might or might not provide them further protection).
You yourself acknowledge that it is a "viewpoint", or the term more common in law an "opinion". Opinions are protected speech by the first amendment (not section 230) and as such Facebook cannot be liable in any way for promoting one or silencing another.
To be liable for defamation, you would need to be stating false facts with reckless disregard for the truth (or malice, if Rittenhouse counts as a public figure), not just promoting an opinion. This is regardless of section 230 (which might or might not provide them further protection).
is there case law that shows defamation for omitting facts? It sounds like such a precedent could make anyone guilty of defamation if they only cover news when it’s first announced and not when more info comes out about the news.
The policy that the facts must be omitted might be an act of defamation, or, because it was published, libel.
The policy was suposedly that "we will [...] remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", that's not a policy of removing or omitting facts, that's a policy of removing opinions. Facts are neither praise nor support.
Facebook is entitled to only repeat whatever opinions it wants to repeat, by virtue of the first amendment.
Facebook is entitled to only repeat whatever opinions it wants to repeat, by virtue of the first amendment.
Sure, and once it's making it's own opinion dominant, it should no longer be treated as a platform, but a publisher.
I mean, that "distinction" doesn't exist under current law - you can be both, or neither. Facebook is both. Even if you amended the law to create such a distinction though, attempting to place companies under it based on whether or not they moderated based on viewpoint would be a content based restriction on speech, and violate the constitution. The government isn't allowed to punish people (including groups of people such as companies), or remove privileges, based on the content of speech, with very narrow exceptions.
I'd agree with you, but we hold publishers liable to whatever they publish.
My understanding is as follows. As a platform, the rationale for section 230 protections is that you are not the one making the comments, and are thus just a platform for the speech of others. The speaker, and not the platform, is thus the one liable for the speech. Conversely, a publisher, while not the one writing (contributors write, and the publisher publishes), still bears the brunt of the liability.
I thus think it is intuitive (to me at least), that after a degree of control is exercised, this flips into being more like a publisher than a platform, and should be treated as such. The question then becomes where to draw that line.
My understanding is as follows. As a platform, the rationale for section 230 protections is that you are not the one making the comments, and are thus just a platform for the speech of others. The speaker, and not the platform, is thus the one liable for the speech. Conversely, a publisher, while not the one writing (contributors write, and the publisher publishes), still bears the brunt of the liability.
I thus think it is intuitive (to me at least), that after a degree of control is exercised, this flips into being more like a publisher than a platform, and should be treated as such. The question then becomes where to draw that line.
the only thing 230 does is make it so “platforms” CAN moderate speech and exercise control, without having to take on the legal liability like a newspaper publisher.
Before 230, there was already effectively a distinction in that, if you ran a forum and did absolutely no moderation, you were never liable for the content - but then you also couldn’t remove any content that was vulgar, racist, hateful to other users, etc. which is why section 230 is part of the “Communications Decency Act”. Without it, social media just choose between not moderating anything, and vetting every post (and probably only allowing posts from a small group of verified people and businesses).
LegalEagle has a good rundown: https://youtu.be/eUWIi-Ppe5k?t=4m18s
Before 230, there was already effectively a distinction in that, if you ran a forum and did absolutely no moderation, you were never liable for the content - but then you also couldn’t remove any content that was vulgar, racist, hateful to other users, etc. which is why section 230 is part of the “Communications Decency Act”. Without it, social media just choose between not moderating anything, and vetting every post (and probably only allowing posts from a small group of verified people and businesses).
LegalEagle has a good rundown: https://youtu.be/eUWIi-Ppe5k?t=4m18s
Are "moderate" and "editorialize" treated equally in 230? I take moderate to mean, delete entirely, silence, ban. I have always assumed maybe incorrectly? that editorializing something such as adding or removing content or context is publishing content?
My understanding is that you could draw a legal distinction under current law with those words, but only if this part falls under the word moderation not the word editorializing:
> that editorializing something such as [...] removing content or context
I suppose it would be permissible to draw a line where you could delete all or none of a users content, but not some, since that does sound content neutral. I don't believe anyone has drawn such a line though in law (and it would be quite the strange line to draw).
> that editorializing something such as [...] removing content or context
I suppose it would be permissible to draw a line where you could delete all or none of a users content, but not some, since that does sound content neutral. I don't believe anyone has drawn such a line though in law (and it would be quite the strange line to draw).
I think the argument would be (and I'm not sure how they could prove such a thing) that they were not omitting facts, but actively suppressing facts and allowing the spread of (what ended up to be) misinformation. I'm not a lawyer, of course, and playing Monday morning QB of sorts.
EDIT: Though, I think this only applies to news sources, which they've been ruled to be not as. Though that ruling may be overturned if they actively suppress certain information.
EDIT: Though, I think this only applies to news sources, which they've been ruled to be not as. Though that ruling may be overturned if they actively suppress certain information.
It appears he has a great case against CNN and perhaps even the POTUS. Expect CNN to lose yet another court case for defamation and misinformation with a huge payout.
Social media and corporate news outlets should let the courts do their job. They are constantly wrong and can't even get basic facts right.
It's all about the narrative and the party line backing up the benefactors.
How did they become arbitraters of truth?
Social media and corporate news outlets should let the courts do their job. They are constantly wrong and can't even get basic facts right.
It's all about the narrative and the party line backing up the benefactors.
How did they become arbitraters of truth?
This is an interesting conclusion, because as I understand it this is only really true in some states.
Wisconsin's self defense law is more permissive than many, and so Rittenhouse probably couldn't have used the same defense as easily in many states.
In other words, it's not "plainly obvious", and this comes down to the context beyond the moments before he shot people. Wisconsin law says you can ignore that context, and that self defense is self defense even if you create the situation that requires deadly force or are the aggressor.
Wisconsin law has exceptions to this, that allowed Rittenhouse to use self defense despite having himself escalated.
This is a bad thing for a few reasons (two people who both shoot each other can legitimately claim self defense, taken not much further and Ahmaud Arbery's killers could claim self defense after he reached for their gun to defend himself), and anything but "obvious".
In other words, it's not "plainly obvious", and this comes down to the context beyond the moments before he shot people. Wisconsin law says you can ignore that context, and that self defense is self defense even if you create the situation that requires deadly force or are the aggressor.
Wisconsin law has exceptions to this, that allowed Rittenhouse to use self defense despite having himself escalated.
This is a bad thing for a few reasons (two people who both shoot each other can legitimately claim self defense, taken not much further and Ahmaud Arbery's killers could claim self defense after he reached for their gun to defend himself), and anything but "obvious".
> This is an interesting conclusion, because as I understand it this is only really true in some states. Wisconsin's self defense law is more permissive than many, and so Rittenhouse probably couldn't have used the same defense as easily in many states.
Let's look at the five rules of self defense as they apply pretty much everywhere in the US. The last one is the big difference in Wisconsin.
* Innocence (was he there to commit a crime or hurt someone) -- Rittenhouse was generally there to help people. The altercation was started because he put out a fire.
* Imminence (was the use of force against him about to be used) -- The video shows Rosenbaum cornering him and lunging. The gunpowder stippling pattern shows that Rosenbaum's hand was on the barrel of the gun too. He shot at Maurice Freedman (jump kick man -- his identity was known to the prosecutors, but they hid his identity) who was in the process of trying to kick his face in with heavy boots. He shot at a guy assaulting him with a skateboard. Finally, he shot someone pointing a gun at his face.
* Proportionality (not excessive force -- in this case, only deadly force can be stopped by deadly force). I don't know of any state where grabbing a gun, pointing a gun, hitting someone with a skateboard (they weigh around 11 pounds -- a baseball bat weights around 2 pounds), or trying to crush someone's face aren't considered deadly force.
* Reasonableness (would any other reasonable person in that situation fear for their life) -- If you were a naive teenager (or even an adult) and an adult said they'd kill you and then waited until you were alone to chase you into a corner, would you be afraid? Would you wonder if you were about to die?
* Avoidance -- this is the different one. Some states have clear stand your ground law. You never have to retreat from a fight if you are defending yourself. Some states have castle doctrine which says you have to retreat on the street, but not in your home or it's curtilage (the frequently used area around the house). Some states say you must retreat first in all situation up until you are completely cornered. 38 states are stand your ground. A few more like California, Illinois, or Oregon have castle doctrine. only a handful in the Northeast have duty to retreat everywhere.
Now, even if there were a duty to retreat, Rittenhouse did this too. He ran away until he was cornered and only then (and with Rosenbaum mid-charge) did he shoot the gun. Likewise, he did not shoot his gun at the others until he'd been hit in the head with a rock and collapsed to the ground a few steps later in the middle of retreating to the safety of the police line.
TL;DR -- This shooting would have been justified even in states with the most strict self-defense laws.
Let's look at the five rules of self defense as they apply pretty much everywhere in the US. The last one is the big difference in Wisconsin.
* Innocence (was he there to commit a crime or hurt someone) -- Rittenhouse was generally there to help people. The altercation was started because he put out a fire.
* Imminence (was the use of force against him about to be used) -- The video shows Rosenbaum cornering him and lunging. The gunpowder stippling pattern shows that Rosenbaum's hand was on the barrel of the gun too. He shot at Maurice Freedman (jump kick man -- his identity was known to the prosecutors, but they hid his identity) who was in the process of trying to kick his face in with heavy boots. He shot at a guy assaulting him with a skateboard. Finally, he shot someone pointing a gun at his face.
* Proportionality (not excessive force -- in this case, only deadly force can be stopped by deadly force). I don't know of any state where grabbing a gun, pointing a gun, hitting someone with a skateboard (they weigh around 11 pounds -- a baseball bat weights around 2 pounds), or trying to crush someone's face aren't considered deadly force.
* Reasonableness (would any other reasonable person in that situation fear for their life) -- If you were a naive teenager (or even an adult) and an adult said they'd kill you and then waited until you were alone to chase you into a corner, would you be afraid? Would you wonder if you were about to die?
* Avoidance -- this is the different one. Some states have clear stand your ground law. You never have to retreat from a fight if you are defending yourself. Some states have castle doctrine which says you have to retreat on the street, but not in your home or it's curtilage (the frequently used area around the house). Some states say you must retreat first in all situation up until you are completely cornered. 38 states are stand your ground. A few more like California, Illinois, or Oregon have castle doctrine. only a handful in the Northeast have duty to retreat everywhere.
Now, even if there were a duty to retreat, Rittenhouse did this too. He ran away until he was cornered and only then (and with Rosenbaum mid-charge) did he shoot the gun. Likewise, he did not shoot his gun at the others until he'd been hit in the head with a rock and collapsed to the ground a few steps later in the middle of retreating to the safety of the police line.
TL;DR -- This shooting would have been justified even in states with the most strict self-defense laws.
I’m really susprised if they didn’t watch the videos and read about the case. Most people watch video now so is it possible they avoided all videos or they just didn’t believe the videos? Nobody I know didn’t watch the videos.
I linked my friends a youtube video of someone doing a legal analysis after the verdict. After watching, they expressed surprise that the incidents were recorded.
They claimed Rittenhouse shot someone who had their hands up and showed a picture. This was wrong for at least two reasons. First, they deceptively cropped the gun out of the image. Second, the video they refused to play clearly shows (contrary to the implication) that Grosskreutz wasn't shot until later when he pointed his gun.
Likewise, the videos shown on most media networks were very selectively edited to remove any bits that might hint at self defense.
Very few of the "Kyle is a murderer" crowd have seen the actual full-length, unedited videos of what happened.
Likewise, the videos shown on most media networks were very selectively edited to remove any bits that might hint at self defense.
Very few of the "Kyle is a murderer" crowd have seen the actual full-length, unedited videos of what happened.
> Very few of the "Kyle is a murderer" crowd have seen the actual full-length, unedited videos of what happened.
If I can translate, your claim is that they are uninformed, which is plainly a fallacious argument. Just how could you know this? This is kind of an unrelated rant, but it reminds me just a little of Justice Scalia pulling a random and made up statistic out of his hat, something he couldn't possibly know about what most Americans believe that, oh yeah, was patently false, and used it to desecrate the 2nd Amendment, without 2/3rds majority of both houses of congress nor state legislatures, i.e. not the proper self-described way literally writ in the Constitution itself, and in fact beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's domain, effectively turning what Founders intended as a selfless right to fight tyranny into something the Founders debated and explicitly decided against including within the 2nd, a selfish, unimpressive and frankly mostly expressed cowardly, right of defense of self and/or property. It was far better before becoming redundant, as the right of self-defense predates the Constitution by some time, and the decision very uncharacteristic of Scalia, a life-long literal Constitutionalist, raising questions of senility and competence, especially because he died soon after. And it is merely one right among many that had been eroded around that time, including habeas corpus, the 5th and 6th Amendments, at least.
I've watched all the videos. I still think these deaths were felony murders. I think Rittenhouse is a coward like George Zimmerman. I know this is unrelated, but there were several accidental shooting deaths recently, little kids, babies, and the list of mass gun killings is astoundingly deep and still grows. The list of uncontested gun victims is massive. Where are their rights? Does a bunch of people's vane fascination with deadly weapons supersede an innocent person's right to exist? It is a fact that less guns leads to less gun deaths, and we will be much better off as society with what would be far smaller lists of mass punchings, kickings, pokings, stabbings and axings. It'd be more interesting to read about a malcontent that had punched 14 people before being subdued by authorities. We can, actually, outlaw guns, and it would cause less gun deaths and less gun crime, but we can never outlaw fists, and everyone knows you shouldn't hit people.
If I can translate, your claim is that they are uninformed, which is plainly a fallacious argument. Just how could you know this? This is kind of an unrelated rant, but it reminds me just a little of Justice Scalia pulling a random and made up statistic out of his hat, something he couldn't possibly know about what most Americans believe that, oh yeah, was patently false, and used it to desecrate the 2nd Amendment, without 2/3rds majority of both houses of congress nor state legislatures, i.e. not the proper self-described way literally writ in the Constitution itself, and in fact beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's domain, effectively turning what Founders intended as a selfless right to fight tyranny into something the Founders debated and explicitly decided against including within the 2nd, a selfish, unimpressive and frankly mostly expressed cowardly, right of defense of self and/or property. It was far better before becoming redundant, as the right of self-defense predates the Constitution by some time, and the decision very uncharacteristic of Scalia, a life-long literal Constitutionalist, raising questions of senility and competence, especially because he died soon after. And it is merely one right among many that had been eroded around that time, including habeas corpus, the 5th and 6th Amendments, at least.
I've watched all the videos. I still think these deaths were felony murders. I think Rittenhouse is a coward like George Zimmerman. I know this is unrelated, but there were several accidental shooting deaths recently, little kids, babies, and the list of mass gun killings is astoundingly deep and still grows. The list of uncontested gun victims is massive. Where are their rights? Does a bunch of people's vane fascination with deadly weapons supersede an innocent person's right to exist? It is a fact that less guns leads to less gun deaths, and we will be much better off as society with what would be far smaller lists of mass punchings, kickings, pokings, stabbings and axings. It'd be more interesting to read about a malcontent that had punched 14 people before being subdued by authorities. We can, actually, outlaw guns, and it would cause less gun deaths and less gun crime, but we can never outlaw fists, and everyone knows you shouldn't hit people.
> We can, actually, outlaw guns, and it would cause less gun deaths and less gun crime
This is a fallacious argument, criminals don’t follow gun laws.
This is a fallacious argument, criminals don’t follow gun laws.
The bias in self-defense cases is very high.
Sure, if a stranger was breaking into your house in the middle of the night and gets shot, there's probably no charges.
Outside of a pretty narrow window, it's likely to go to trial. From there, conviction is extremely likely no matter what. Juries have a definite bias to favor the prosecutor which in my opinion is why so many innocent people have been convicted over the years.
Sure, if a stranger was breaking into your house in the middle of the night and gets shot, there's probably no charges.
Outside of a pretty narrow window, it's likely to go to trial. From there, conviction is extremely likely no matter what. Juries have a definite bias to favor the prosecutor which in my opinion is why so many innocent people have been convicted over the years.
So the massive list of uncontested gun victims is caused by a bunch of people with a vain fascination with deadly weapons? Either: a) this is the same type of fallacy you started out criticizing, or b) it's hyperbole, because "massive" and "bunch" could mean anything and you haven't substantiated it
>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 wielding moron away. Unfortunately that aspect seems to have been totally overlooked.
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 wielding moron away. Unfortunately that aspect seems to have been totally overlooked.
>Threatening unarmed people with a gun
a) he never threatened anyone. In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety than, say, a Hollywood actor/producer 3 times his age.
b) how can you claim the crowd was unarmed? Of the 3 people that stuck around to be searched, 2 of them had weapons. A skateboard used as a bludgeon. And a Glock pistol that was drawn from concealment and pointed at his head.
a) he never threatened anyone. In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety than, say, a Hollywood actor/producer 3 times his age.
b) how can you claim the crowd was unarmed? Of the 3 people that stuck around to be searched, 2 of them had weapons. A skateboard used as a bludgeon. And a Glock pistol that was drawn from concealment and pointed at his head.
trhway(2)
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?
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?
if you're an active shooter in a populated place i think you're extremely lucky to get only slightly bashed in the head as normally much worse things would happen to you.
Again, cause and effect backwards here. He was attacked previous to any trigger pulling.
>Again, cause and effect backwards here.
cause - the guy shoots an unarmed man and just coldly walks away from it. No victim check, no attempt to render first aid, no reporting to and waiting for police and emergency services... nothing what is reasonably expected in the situation of self-defense.
effect - reasonable perception that it is a killer on the lose, a threat to defend from.
cause - the guy shoots an unarmed man and just coldly walks away from it. No victim check, no attempt to render first aid, no reporting to and waiting for police and emergency services... nothing what is reasonably expected in the situation of self-defense.
effect - reasonable perception that it is a killer on the lose, a threat to defend from.
This is an argument for justifying the following attacks on Kyle. Kyle acting in self defence does not imply that Huber was not acting in self defence.
Using police are a bad example, because they aren't held to the same standard as non-police. Whether that should be or not is debatable, but it's not debatable that there are clearly different standards. Police are routinely determined justified in killing people based on the possibility of a weapon, those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.
i'm not talking about standards. I'm talking about human perception of gun danger and use as an example well established perception of gun danger by the people known to be well accustomed to guns and associated dangers.
>those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.
these people were defending themselves and others around from Rittenhouse after he shot an unarmed man and just walked away not checking on the victim, nor waiting for police like one would do in a bona fide self-defense, and that made him to be reasonably perceived as an active shooter that is a threat to anybody around. Thus he created that violent situation of him being a threat and necessitating a defense against him, and he shot the people who were defending themselves and others from him. One shouldn't be able to claim self-defense in such situation.
>those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.
these people were defending themselves and others around from Rittenhouse after he shot an unarmed man and just walked away not checking on the victim, nor waiting for police like one would do in a bona fide self-defense, and that made him to be reasonably perceived as an active shooter that is a threat to anybody around. Thus he created that violent situation of him being a threat and necessitating a defense against him, and he shot the people who were defending themselves and others from him. One shouldn't be able to claim self-defense in such situation.
There doesn't need to be a clear "bad guy" in every situation. Situations can escalate and get out of hand without any individual actors with bad intentions. So it's entirely plausible that the people charging Rittenhouse thought he was a terrorist and wanted to disarm him, and it's entirely plausible that Rittenhouse feared for his life when he shot them. To illustrate my point:
Suppose there are two people at two corners of a dark alleyway. They both hear a gunshot towards the center of the alley and draw their pistols in self-defence. They take a few steps and now see each other holding a gun. Each one raises his gun at the other, thinking that's the shooter. One fires and kills the other. AFAIK it would be justified self-defense
Suppose there are two people at two corners of a dark alleyway. They both hear a gunshot towards the center of the alley and draw their pistols in self-defence. They take a few steps and now see each other holding a gun. Each one raises his gun at the other, thinking that's the shooter. One fires and kills the other. AFAIK it would be justified self-defense
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".
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.
If you're targeted personally i suppose. When the violence isn't targeted your running away wouldn't change the situation if there are other people around who can be shot. That reminds about that veteran who attacked the shooter several years ago at the Oregon college - he could have fled i guess, yet he didn't. Did he had an obligation to flee? I don't think anybody there entertained even for a moment such nonsense idea as the shooter's self-defense against the veteran who attacked him and got wounded in that fight. In Kenosha though the shooter shot the guys who tried to stop him (and from any point of view he was the active shooter to be stopped as he didn't stay with his first victim calling/waiting for police and rendering help to the victim as one would do in a true self-defense situation, and as an active shooter he was a threat to everybody, a threat that the people have the right to defend themselves from), and it somehow got successfully sold as self-defense on his part.
If you're targeted personally i suppose. When the violence isn't targeted your running away wouldn't change the situation if there are other people around who can be shot. That reminds about that veteran who attacked the shooter several years ago at the Oregon college - he could have fled i guess, yet he didn't. Did he had an obligation to flee? I don't think anybody there entertained even for a moment such nonsense idea as the shooter's self-defense against the veteran who attacked him and got wounded in that fight. In Kenosha though the shooter shot the guys who tried to stop him (and from any point of view he was the active shooter to be stopped as he didn't stay with his first victim calling/waiting for police and rendering help to the victim as one would do in a true self-defense situation, and as an active shooter he was a threat to everybody, a threat that the people have the right to defend themselves from), and it somehow got successfully sold as self-defense on his part.
Oregon does NOT have a stand your ground law. If that were the only statute, he'd be guilty of murder (showing that such a law is not well thought out). My guess is they have another law (like most states do) that allows coming to the defense of someone else.
"a true self-defense situation", according to who?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
> Legal Eagle on YT did a great breakdown of it all.
I strongly disagree. He left out some very important details from the video. Whether by accident or not, doesn't really matter in this case, IMO. (I know he issued corrections/clarifications in the comments, but most people are not gonna read those)
I strongly disagree. He left out some very important details from the video. Whether by accident or not, doesn't really matter in this case, IMO. (I know he issued corrections/clarifications in the comments, but most people are not gonna read those)
A very curious part of this is the president of the US calling him a white supremacist before the verdict is reached and the press secretary defending that portrayal [he shot three white guys]. A president who promised to 'bring normality back to the whitehouse'. That cavalier attitude toward justice creates unnecessary tensions in the community ['if the president says so, it must be true, and if the accused is acquitted then justice is broken and we can take it into our hands']
Also the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process
Also the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process
I don't think that's quite true. Biden's initial comment was "Look, I stand by what the jury has concluded," he said. "The jury system works, and we have to abide by it."
His handlers went on to later change the narrative.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/politics/joe-biden-kyle-ritte...
I don't think that's quite true. Biden's initial comment was "Look, I stand by what the jury has concluded," he said. "The jury system works, and we have to abide by it."
His handlers went on to later change the narrative.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/politics/joe-biden-kyle-ritte...
If you've followed politics for more than the last 5 years, it's very weird having an entire administration constantly running around contradicting whatever comes out of the President's mouth.
"Handlers" is quite the term.
Do we believe the President or not? If we can't believe what they say and other people have to speak and do for them, why don't we elect one of those people? instead?
"Handlers" is quite the term.
Do we believe the President or not? If we can't believe what they say and other people have to speak and do for them, why don't we elect one of those people? instead?
I think you are right actually. At the time though I don't think I ever saw that initial statement. I seem to remember only seeing stories about the second statement - Biden being "concerned and angry" about the verdict!
>> His handlers went on to later change the narrative
If only the Tsar knew!
If only the Tsar knew!
jacquesm(6)
[deleted]
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 he not posed with an assault rifle in the first place two people would not be dead today, he is still morally responsible for that to me. So in the end I surprisingly understand Facebook choice.
The path from protecting property to protecting lives might be shorter than one wants to believe. People usually are not destroying property of others because its moral compared to taking lives, they do so because they left the morals of our society behind in the first place. Wanna take a bet that the guy running at you and screaming just want to tear your shirt?
>Had he not posed with an assault rifle in the first place two people would not be dead today
Had the victim not defended himself the offender could still offend today. I don't understand this victim-blaming, I really don't. If I see a guy with a rifle protecting his property, somehow its his fault I get shot after I charge at him?
>Had he not posed with an assault rifle in the first place two people would not be dead today
Had the victim not defended himself the offender could still offend today. I don't understand this victim-blaming, I really don't. If I see a guy with a rifle protecting his property, somehow its his fault I get shot after I charge at him?
I think you miss my point. I’m not questioning the self-defense, it’s pretty clear in the video, but the moral responsibility of someone protecting a property by being in the street with a rifle in the first place (I’m not talking about personal home invasion here).
Agree 100%. Many riots / burning of buildings / lootings were allowed while media spurred them on and called them peaceful protests. Police in many cities gave up on enforcement.
In those scenarios the state no longer has a monopoly on violence.
In those scenarios the state no longer has a monopoly on violence.
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.
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.
Also assault rifle isn’t a thing. The term is a made up classification of a weapon.
Chiming in at the end here. Assault Rifle IS a thing, being "Select Fire" weapons typically at or above a certain minimum.
The ISSUE in this microcosm of the discussion is the CONFLATION of the terms Assault Rifle" with "Assault Weapon", which a a made up term by people trying to vilify firearms, especially scary black ones.
The ISSUE in this microcosm of the discussion is the CONFLATION of the terms Assault Rifle" with "Assault Weapon", which a a made up term by people trying to vilify firearms, especially scary black ones.
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.
As a veteran of the US Marine Corps, I want to clarify this a bit for people.
Yes, caliber does not make an Assault Rifle.
No, it's not a, "made up term."
Shotguns, hunting rifles and pistols are optimized for specific activities and generally become less effective as the circumstances diverge from that optimized range or shooting position.
This makes them less ideal for killing humans everywhere we are found.
Assault rifles are optimized for human to human combat.
They are optimized to deliver a large number effective rounds down range, from a variety of positions at a variety of distances.
These tools are far more effective and efficient at killing human beings over an extended duration firefight in arbitrary circumstances.
It's the shape, flexibility and effectiveness of the platform that we're referring to when we say, "Assault Rifle."
Please don't muddy the waters here simply because the US legal system isn't able to overcome NRA bullshit.
Yes, caliber does not make an Assault Rifle.
No, it's not a, "made up term."
Shotguns, hunting rifles and pistols are optimized for specific activities and generally become less effective as the circumstances diverge from that optimized range or shooting position.
This makes them less ideal for killing humans everywhere we are found.
Assault rifles are optimized for human to human combat.
They are optimized to deliver a large number effective rounds down range, from a variety of positions at a variety of distances.
These tools are far more effective and efficient at killing human beings over an extended duration firefight in arbitrary circumstances.
It's the shape, flexibility and effectiveness of the platform that we're referring to when we say, "Assault Rifle."
Please don't muddy the waters here simply because the US legal system isn't able to overcome NRA bullshit.
The far left is using “assault rifle” as a scare tactic to get their foot in the door. They absolutely want to ban all guns from civilian hands. That's why I push back. I would be what most people call a liberal (socially and economically), but I also support the Second Amendment, so I know why the NRA pushes back on this non-legal definition. Plain old pistols, rifles, and shotguns kill FAR more people in a given year than assault rifles, so why isn't there push back on those? Because the anti-gun left wants a precedent to take guns and “assault rifle” demonization is one prong of that attack. So I will continue to "muddy" the waters. I guarantee you I have as much experience with guns as you as I have been around them and used them and studied them since I was a youth, so I guess there's that appeal to authority as well much like your own.
There are hunting rifles, and there are sport rifles.
>They are optimized to deliver a large number effective rounds down range, from a variety of positions at a variety of distances.
This is precisely where a blanket term like “assault rifle” becomes pretty impossible to specifically define, and consequently regulate.
>large number effective rounds down range
Based on this comment, you’re referring caliber? And capacity? And perhaps action? So what about a semi-auto 5.56 with a pencil barrel and a 5 round magazine? Still an “assault weapon?”
>from a variety of positions at a variety of distances
How would you interpret this into characteristics of a rifle? Does this mean it has to have a folding bipod? It has to be under a certain weight? *Any* rifle can be more or less effective at a variety of ranges. The cartridge and shooter have more influence over that criteria than the rifle.
>It's the shape, flexibility and effectiveness of the platform
This is feels territory. Because none of these are concrete characteristics inherit to this claim. Define “effective”, or define “ineffective”. Tell me how the “shape” would designate or exclude one specific rifle over another…
>They are optimized to deliver a large number effective rounds down range, from a variety of positions at a variety of distances.
This is precisely where a blanket term like “assault rifle” becomes pretty impossible to specifically define, and consequently regulate.
>large number effective rounds down range
Based on this comment, you’re referring caliber? And capacity? And perhaps action? So what about a semi-auto 5.56 with a pencil barrel and a 5 round magazine? Still an “assault weapon?”
>from a variety of positions at a variety of distances
How would you interpret this into characteristics of a rifle? Does this mean it has to have a folding bipod? It has to be under a certain weight? *Any* rifle can be more or less effective at a variety of ranges. The cartridge and shooter have more influence over that criteria than the rifle.
>It's the shape, flexibility and effectiveness of the platform
This is feels territory. Because none of these are concrete characteristics inherit to this claim. Define “effective”, or define “ineffective”. Tell me how the “shape” would designate or exclude one specific rifle over another…
This isn't a compelling argument. Those "hunting rifles" are the designs that killed millions from 1910-1950 (probably more than any small arm before or after).
In the US, there are something like 3-400 rifle shootings compared to 40-50,000 pistol shootings. When you look up mass shootings, you'll see pistols used all the time because 20-30 rounds in a tiny pistol are about as lethal as 20-30 rounds in a rifle at close range against unarmored targets while being TONS more maneuverable.
Tavor x95 is 26.4" with a 15.5" barrel. The M1 carbine (already cut down from the M16) is 7.5" longer despite having a shorter 14.5" barrel and although the weight is technically the same, the Tavor seems 2-3x lighter because the weight is right next to the body rather than a foot away.
Tavor x95 Carbine (22.5" long) is almost a foot shorter and 3/4 lb lighter than the M4 carbine. The M4 CQRB blinds the shooter in dark rooms and loses tons of stopping power with the 10" barrel, but is still a quarter-pound heavier and 3.5" longer. Those inches have a huge impact on time to target which is critical indoors.
Despite this, countries like Canada which ban the "assault rifles" like the AR-15 still allow the Tavor. It's not about the style of rifle.
I'd also put forward that if efficiency were the goal, 6.5 Grendel would be used instead of 5.56 as it has almost 2x the momentum, 20% more kinetic energy, and 4x lower ballistic coefficient while only increasing weight 10-15% (still half the weight of 7.62).
The US has tried to move away from the AR-15 platform numerous times (and a ton of special forces who have the option already have). Each time, they run into the issue where the training costs (hundreds of hours for millions of people), rifle costs, and cost to replace billions of rounds of ammo are just too high despite the efficiency increases.
AR isn't the best. It's just the most pragmatic at the moment.
In the US, there are something like 3-400 rifle shootings compared to 40-50,000 pistol shootings. When you look up mass shootings, you'll see pistols used all the time because 20-30 rounds in a tiny pistol are about as lethal as 20-30 rounds in a rifle at close range against unarmored targets while being TONS more maneuverable.
Tavor x95 is 26.4" with a 15.5" barrel. The M1 carbine (already cut down from the M16) is 7.5" longer despite having a shorter 14.5" barrel and although the weight is technically the same, the Tavor seems 2-3x lighter because the weight is right next to the body rather than a foot away.
Tavor x95 Carbine (22.5" long) is almost a foot shorter and 3/4 lb lighter than the M4 carbine. The M4 CQRB blinds the shooter in dark rooms and loses tons of stopping power with the 10" barrel, but is still a quarter-pound heavier and 3.5" longer. Those inches have a huge impact on time to target which is critical indoors.
Despite this, countries like Canada which ban the "assault rifles" like the AR-15 still allow the Tavor. It's not about the style of rifle.
I'd also put forward that if efficiency were the goal, 6.5 Grendel would be used instead of 5.56 as it has almost 2x the momentum, 20% more kinetic energy, and 4x lower ballistic coefficient while only increasing weight 10-15% (still half the weight of 7.62).
The US has tried to move away from the AR-15 platform numerous times (and a ton of special forces who have the option already have). Each time, they run into the issue where the training costs (hundreds of hours for millions of people), rifle costs, and cost to replace billions of rounds of ammo are just too high despite the efficiency increases.
AR isn't the best. It's just the most pragmatic at the moment.
Given the reactions I’m not sure Americans are uniform on this, also it’s especially puzzling that in a country with Christian roots people would say that (I’m not talking about defending your life, children or home of course).
IMO the attackers value their own life less than the acts they tried to do.
> Had he not posed with an assault rifle in the first place two people would not be dead today, he is still morally responsible for that to me.
So basically Rittenhouse 'morally accountable' for not foreseeing the unforseeable. How silly.
Rittenhouse attended a protest while legally carrying a firearm. 2020 had seen tens of thousands of people do the same. How many people were forced to fire their guns in self-defense at a protest? I can't think of a single one. Any risk he was incurring would have been remote and purely hypothetical. For that you hold him morally responsible for these men's deaths?
What about the actions of those men who he killed? Unlike Rittenhouse's attendance at the protest, their decision to attack Kyle Rittenhouse was decidedly not legal. Unlike Rittenhouse's choice to attend the protest, which carried only hypothetical danger, his attackers would have had no doubt that attacking a man with a gun carried risks that were neither remote nor hypothetical.
Remember, when conflict seemed imminent, Rittenhouse ran away, attempting to avoid conflict. His attackers chased him down and forced the issue.
So basically Rittenhouse 'morally accountable' for not foreseeing the unforseeable. How silly.
Rittenhouse attended a protest while legally carrying a firearm. 2020 had seen tens of thousands of people do the same. How many people were forced to fire their guns in self-defense at a protest? I can't think of a single one. Any risk he was incurring would have been remote and purely hypothetical. For that you hold him morally responsible for these men's deaths?
What about the actions of those men who he killed? Unlike Rittenhouse's attendance at the protest, their decision to attack Kyle Rittenhouse was decidedly not legal. Unlike Rittenhouse's choice to attend the protest, which carried only hypothetical danger, his attackers would have had no doubt that attacking a man with a gun carried risks that were neither remote nor hypothetical.
Remember, when conflict seemed imminent, Rittenhouse ran away, attempting to avoid conflict. His attackers chased him down and forced the issue.
Also being not an American, I'm puzzled as to how there is apparently no requirement to report self-defense killings to the police. I guess when they find dead bodies in the street, they just assume it was self defense?
Rittenhouse did turn himself in to the police. He was running towards them to do so, and when the Kenosha police wouldn't listen to him, he went to the police station in another nearby town.
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.
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.
The situation is more involved than that.
The protests were about perceived police brutality.
Cop's view:
A guy had a knife in the seat that they'd seen previously. He was wanted for raping his a woman and was in the process of stealing her van and kidnapping her kids. Even if there were no knife, you don't allow the rapist to get into the deadly weapon and take kids as hostages.
To them, the riots were unjust and a lot of them probably wanted to stop the city burning, but they were told to cordon off the area and basically forbidden from doing anything. At the same time, if they had to use force against a violent rioter, it would be all over the press and that officer would probably be fired. This leaves the armed citizens as the only line of defense (and a line without the police politics). This seems like the reason why they praise them in their interactions.
Politician's view:
The city is run by one family of Democrat politicians. Their party officially supported the riots with the now current Vise-President actually raising funds for the rioters. Going against the mob would not only go against the party, but it would cause the mob to show up at their houses (this happened in other cities) and might even throw their family's dynasty out of power. They didn't care about the part that was burning because it was the poorer parts of the city.
Citizen's view:
The politicians ordered the police to abandon them. They had signs like "we have little children here" in an attempt to keep their families safe (it seems that even having BLM support signs wasn't enough). The businesses were generally either not insured or under-insured. Lots of people worked at those places and were looking at not having a job. Everyone's cars were being demolished or burned. For many of them, everything they spent their entire life working on was ruined in a few hours.
Amed Citizen's view:
We've been hiding in fear for two days now as the police do nothing. If they won't, we will. Today, we're putting a stop to this.
Rioter's view:
I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hmmm? You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds. Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!”
The protests were about perceived police brutality.
Cop's view:
A guy had a knife in the seat that they'd seen previously. He was wanted for raping his a woman and was in the process of stealing her van and kidnapping her kids. Even if there were no knife, you don't allow the rapist to get into the deadly weapon and take kids as hostages.
To them, the riots were unjust and a lot of them probably wanted to stop the city burning, but they were told to cordon off the area and basically forbidden from doing anything. At the same time, if they had to use force against a violent rioter, it would be all over the press and that officer would probably be fired. This leaves the armed citizens as the only line of defense (and a line without the police politics). This seems like the reason why they praise them in their interactions.
Politician's view:
The city is run by one family of Democrat politicians. Their party officially supported the riots with the now current Vise-President actually raising funds for the rioters. Going against the mob would not only go against the party, but it would cause the mob to show up at their houses (this happened in other cities) and might even throw their family's dynasty out of power. They didn't care about the part that was burning because it was the poorer parts of the city.
Citizen's view:
The politicians ordered the police to abandon them. They had signs like "we have little children here" in an attempt to keep their families safe (it seems that even having BLM support signs wasn't enough). The businesses were generally either not insured or under-insured. Lots of people worked at those places and were looking at not having a job. Everyone's cars were being demolished or burned. For many of them, everything they spent their entire life working on was ruined in a few hours.
Amed Citizen's view:
We've been hiding in fear for two days now as the police do nothing. If they won't, we will. Today, we're putting a stop to this.
Rioter's view:
I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hmmm? You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds. Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!”
Wow, America is far more messed up than I had realized previously. Not sure I know of any developed country where armed citizens can simply chose to do that.
Let your cops leave you alone in that situation and you'll see people with bows, bats, slings, staffs, hammers, knives, shields and whatever else.
Humanity is the same everywhere and looking at history shows this to happen every time a local power vacuum is created and mobs begin to rule.
Humanity is the same everywhere and looking at history shows this to happen every time a local power vacuum is created and mobs begin to rule.
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.
He tried to talk to them and they told him to go away. (I know, that seems strange to me too.) He went to the other police station at 1:30 am, about 2 hours after the incident.
He literally did report it, though. He walked straight down the street to the police and told them he'd just shot people.
Is there any police record? Or any evidence at all that the police heard that?
There is video evidence.
The two police in the vehicle testified during the trial.
The two police in the vehicle testified during the trial.
So no police report. Got it.
Video evidence and the sworn testimony of two seems like a pretty strong case here.
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
[deleted]
Which content is that? Saying "Rittenhouse acted in self defense" didn't violate the FB policy, so what, specifically, could you say that is consistent with the jury that Facebook would remove?
The jury didn't conclude that Rittenhouse is a good person, or that his victims deserved to die, or that they were bad people or looters. The jury didn't conclude that America needs more people like Rittenhouse, or that we should celebrate his actions.
The jury concluded that he wasn't guilty of murder. That's all. You're a lawyer, you know that.
The jury didn't conclude that Rittenhouse is a good person, or that his victims deserved to die, or that they were bad people or looters. The jury didn't conclude that America needs more people like Rittenhouse, or that we should celebrate his actions.
The jury concluded that he wasn't guilty of murder. That's all. You're a lawyer, you know that.
This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.
The German definition of self-defense (“Notwehr”) sounds quite comprehensive to me:
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__32.html
What makes you think the case would’ve been adjudicated differently in Germany?
Edit: to be clear, certainly bringing a gun to a protest at all is illegal in Germany, so he could presumably be prosecuted for that, but it's not at all clear why he'd have been guilty of murder.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__32.html
What makes you think the case would’ve been adjudicated differently in Germany?
Edit: to be clear, certainly bringing a gun to a protest at all is illegal in Germany, so he could presumably be prosecuted for that, but it's not at all clear why he'd have been guilty of murder.
In the UK, aside from guns being highly regulated, taking the gun to a protest would be taken as a sign of intent to use it and the rest of the events would be interpreted in that light.
Of course in the UK he'd be looking at multiple years in prison just for the gun offence, and it's also less likely someone else would be waving a gun around in his direction.
Of course in the UK he'd be looking at multiple years in prison just for the gun offence, and it's also less likely someone else would be waving a gun around in his direction.
I'm no expert on law, but it seems likely that in a country where publicly carrying a gun at all is illegal, that both Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse would have been able to legitimately claim self-defense had they shot and killed the other, because either could have reasonably assumed (even if incorrectly) that the other was some sort of terrorist or mass shooter.
I don't think so. I think the fact that they had taken a gun along to an event like this in the first place would be taken as pre-meditation, regardless of whether they believed themselves to be in immediate mortal danger when they actually fired the shot.
Although perhaps it would be enough to get it downgraded to manslaughter.
I'd love to hear from a lawyer on this TBH.
Although perhaps it would be enough to get it downgraded to manslaughter.
I'd love to hear from a lawyer on this TBH.
> I'd love to hear from a lawyer on this TBH.
Me too! I'm not at all sure I'm right -- but then again, neither are (or should be) the people with hot takes shot from the hip about how obviously he would have been found guilty of murder in enlightened Europe. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Me too! I'm not at all sure I'm right -- but then again, neither are (or should be) the people with hot takes shot from the hip about how obviously he would have been found guilty of murder in enlightened Europe. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
In the UK I assume that taking a gun anywhere would be illegal. So let's use a different analogy. If there was a protest in the UK and someone brought pepper spray, would that be interpreted as a sign to use it? If during that hypothetical protest, there were people jump kicking him and swinging skateboards at him, and he used the pepper spray, would he be charged with battery for bringing the pepper spray in the first place?
> If there was a protest in the UK and someone brought pepper spray, would that be interpreted as a sign to use it?
Pepper spray is also illegal in the UK.
> If during that hypothetical protest, there were people jump kicking him and swinging skateboards at him, and he used the pepper spray, would he be charged with battery for bringing the pepper spray in the first place?
Basically, going prepared with any form of weapon in the UK is illegal.
If you picked up something off the street, a piece of 2x4 that was lying around, that sort of thing, then you're likely to be OK if it's clear you were under attack. But if you're packing weapons ahead of time to go out to an event then you should either not go or expect that you will be charged with a criminal offence if you get involved in any trouble.
Pepper spray is also illegal in the UK.
> If during that hypothetical protest, there were people jump kicking him and swinging skateboards at him, and he used the pepper spray, would he be charged with battery for bringing the pepper spray in the first place?
Basically, going prepared with any form of weapon in the UK is illegal.
If you picked up something off the street, a piece of 2x4 that was lying around, that sort of thing, then you're likely to be OK if it's clear you were under attack. But if you're packing weapons ahead of time to go out to an event then you should either not go or expect that you will be charged with a criminal offence if you get involved in any trouble.
Bringing anything anywhere public with the intent of using it as a weapon, even the skateboard, is an offense in the UK. The discourse and social environment is just completely different; despite our own endemic violence issues the UK is simply a less deadly country.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offensive-weapons-kniv...
“any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person”.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offensive-weapons-kniv...
“any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person”.
This case is also weird if you reimagine all of the participants as penguins in Antarctica. Since that didn't happen, it would be a waste of time to speculate what would happen in a completely different scenario.
As far as I can tell that’s not because of a real difference in self defense law, but because of a difference in gun laws. But the gun laws in America are what they are. Many people at this riot were armed: https://vimeo.com/461063053. Listen to all the gun fire at the end of the video.
Judging Rittenhouse as if he was in Germany makes no sense. Watch the video—this wasn’t Germany, it was Iraq. In Germany, the police would never have allowed armed rioters to burn down multiple city blocks over two days.
Judging Rittenhouse as if he was in Germany makes no sense. Watch the video—this wasn’t Germany, it was Iraq. In Germany, the police would never have allowed armed rioters to burn down multiple city blocks over two days.
I'm pretty sure German law would find Rittenhouse acted in self defense, given the facts of the case. The people he killed were attacking him with weapons, one had threatened to kill him, he had a gun pointed at him, he was in reasonable fear for his own life, and he attempted to retreat before resorting to his gun. Remove all the media hoopla and it's not even a little bit unclear - put most people in that situation and they'd find it reasonable to use deadly force to defend yourself.
Meh. Not if you take into account the US constitution and the right to self-defence and bear arms (which makes sense if you think about it). You can't really compare to a European country where you'd get prosecuted simply for carrying a firearm.
Well the laws are different here. The jury decided what they thought given the laws of the state, not what they wanted to rule. That's the way jury trials work. It's not a morality trial, it's a "did he break the law" trial
So if you get assaulted in Germany you're supposed to just let them beat you up without making a move?
Aren't there any acceptable scenarios were lethal self defense can be applied?
Aren't there any acceptable scenarios were lethal self defense can be applied?
I'm not european, but I'm not American either, and the case is weird. In isolation the outcome is correct but take a step back and do you not see what is happening to your country? Weird is an understatement. The entire set and setting for it shouldn't be happening in the first place. But it is.
I am european, but no longer living in Europe (or America) and I can't help but agree.
Kyle Rittenhouse isn't guilty of murder under US law, and the killings have been determined to be self defence. OK then.
But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent, picking up a firearm on the way, ostensibly to use the threat of deadly force to help prevent property damage to some businesses as part of some sort of vigilante militia. There is just so much wrong with this picture before we even get to the (inevitable IMHO) tragedy.
Kyle Rittenhouse isn't guilty of murder under US law, and the killings have been determined to be self defence. OK then.
But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent, picking up a firearm on the way, ostensibly to use the threat of deadly force to help prevent property damage to some businesses as part of some sort of vigilante militia. There is just so much wrong with this picture before we even get to the (inevitable IMHO) tragedy.
>But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent
This is where I stopped reading, because you're incorrect about basic facts of the case:
https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-1838...
This is where I stopped reading, because you're incorrect about basic facts of the case:
https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-1838...
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.
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?
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.
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.
But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community. Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage. Take away the 1st, everything would be fine.
> But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community.
I disagree. It's all a huge mess. Armed citizens setting themselves up as effective vigilante defence forces is terrible both for the circumstances that lead there, and the action itself. It really looks like a broken society, and is something I'd expect in far less developed countries.
> Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage
Maybe, but maybe there would be more people alive.
I disagree. It's all a huge mess. Armed citizens setting themselves up as effective vigilante defence forces is terrible both for the circumstances that lead there, and the action itself. It really looks like a broken society, and is something I'd expect in far less developed countries.
> Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage
Maybe, but maybe there would be more people alive.
Why is that what’s wrong with the picture, and not the larger issue that rioters were allowed to burn parts of a city to the ground for days? This case is also far from the only violence that took place there.
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, we should expect mayhem and death, no matter what their individual politics are. We have a serious problem in this country and it isn't Kyle Rittenhouse.
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?
lol he didn't go to render first aid. He was there to be a tough guy. I agree with the outcome of the trial but let's not actually be naive enought to believe that made up garbage.
There’s video of him doing both
Yes, we are aware. There is more ideology behind this case than just guns, for most people. My perspective: There has been an increase in violent rioting and looting across the country. The city governments are largely complicit in this and refuse to stop it from happening. The police are restricted by the city governments from performing their duty as public defenders. This unlawful behavior — and I don't just mean rioting, but also simple crimes like shoplifting distinct from any protest; cities such as Seattle have declined to prosecute all such crimes for a long while now — has become so ubiquitous as to be obviously trending toward ruination of communities. In brief, small business has already started to leave these areas, and large businesses are shuttering as well. They simply cannot remain open in the face of unchecked crime.
Now, when the state fails to uphold its obligations and the social contract is broken, what happens is that people either flee the area, or they turn to vigilantism. Doing nothing is a privilege few can afford. The people living in these communities do not want to flee. They have tried calling the police, but the police do not come. They have tried voting, but it doesn't work. They hear of another impending riot. They decide to defend their community. This is the setting of the Rittenhouse saga, and many other such sagas soon to come. Yes, it is a 'weird' situation in a first world country, but it is not weird at all in the annals of history. The case resonates emotionally about more than guns — he is either a hero who stood up when no one else would to stop this madness and defended himself from the violent hordes, or he is an instigator who inserted himself into a lawful anti-racism event and joyfully gunned down the peaceful protesters.
Now, when the state fails to uphold its obligations and the social contract is broken, what happens is that people either flee the area, or they turn to vigilantism. Doing nothing is a privilege few can afford. The people living in these communities do not want to flee. They have tried calling the police, but the police do not come. They have tried voting, but it doesn't work. They hear of another impending riot. They decide to defend their community. This is the setting of the Rittenhouse saga, and many other such sagas soon to come. Yes, it is a 'weird' situation in a first world country, but it is not weird at all in the annals of history. The case resonates emotionally about more than guns — he is either a hero who stood up when no one else would to stop this madness and defended himself from the violent hordes, or he is an instigator who inserted himself into a lawful anti-racism event and joyfully gunned down the peaceful protesters.
Well yes, people shouldn’t have been allowed to burn down a city, loot, and commit violent acts for days on end. Of course that’s weird, this case is really just a small part of it.
Would anyone laugh at anyone attacking someone with a semi automatic gun with a skateboard?
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?
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.
> 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.
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 is simply false in most states. In short, you can shoot someone dead if you "reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself / herself or another". This does in fact include a guy punching you or trying to punch 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.
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
[deleted]
Not so if the shot down people can also make the case that they feared for their lives because you were carrying a weapon and that is why they pointed a weapon at you in the first place. There is a good reason why only highly trained government forces are allowed to carry a weapon let alone some teenager.
> Not so if the shot down people can also make the case that they feared for their lives
Can you cite the specific German statute or case history that says this? Or is it just what you intuitively expect to be true?
> There is a good reason why only highly trained government forces are allowed to carry a weapon let alone some teenager.
For what it's worth, I wish that were the case in the US too. But whether carrying a gun is illegal is a different question from whether using it in this specific situation makes you also guilty of the additional crime of murder.
Can you cite the specific German statute or case history that says this? Or is it just what you intuitively expect to be true?
> There is a good reason why only highly trained government forces are allowed to carry a weapon let alone some teenager.
For what it's worth, I wish that were the case in the US too. But whether carrying a gun is illegal is a different question from whether using it in this specific situation makes you also guilty of the additional crime of murder.
If you can read German, then search for the term Putativnotwehr - or Erlaubnistatbestandsirrtum which looks so much more German. It refers to an understandable, but wrong belief to be in a situation that justifies self defense.
It is a valid excuse in penal law, yet it does not apply to civil liabilities. You can still be sued for damages. An official prosecutor told me that you can use it once in your life to beat somebody up. After that, they will not believe you anymore.
However, I completely agree that it does not make sense to judge the Rittenhouse case by German law.
It is a valid excuse in penal law, yet it does not apply to civil liabilities. You can still be sued for damages. An official prosecutor told me that you can use it once in your life to beat somebody up. After that, they will not believe you anymore.
However, I completely agree that it does not make sense to judge the Rittenhouse case by German law.
Thanks!
Somehow I watched 1 or 2 videos on twitter right at the time, and got a good sense of what happened, that ended up being consistent with the jury ruling. These weren't even political posts, just some OSINT people I follow. I was not aware of any "misleading media narrative," since I don't consume any mainstream media outside of occasional twitter posts. Once the trial started I was actually very surprised how many people had zero clue what really happened, yet had strong opinions one way or the other.
This decision by Facebook probably does reverse something that was a mistake in some vague, ethical sense, but I disagree with the characterization that Facebook should be responsible for people's personal worldviews. You can't just give up all personal responsibility to Facebook and then complain when they do bad things with that power. They made a decision for business and legal reasons and we can criticize them from a business or legal perspective, but the narrative that "Facebook should have known better and it's their fault that people were misinformed" is just odd to me. It feels like a "have your cake and eat it too" situation with personal responsibility for being informed about the world.
This decision by Facebook probably does reverse something that was a mistake in some vague, ethical sense, but I disagree with the characterization that Facebook should be responsible for people's personal worldviews. You can't just give up all personal responsibility to Facebook and then complain when they do bad things with that power. They made a decision for business and legal reasons and we can criticize them from a business or legal perspective, but the narrative that "Facebook should have known better and it's their fault that people were misinformed" is just odd to me. It feels like a "have your cake and eat it too" situation with personal responsibility for being informed about the world.
Imagine you were wrongfully accused of a heinous crime, and were being dragged through the mud in the court of the press. You may have an option to present your side of the story, one which is highly persuasive. Yet this is actively suppressed on the town square of today, Facebook and Twitter. You aren't even allowed to raise funds on platforms like GoFundMe.
As a result, the general public's first impression of your story is never challenged, and it becomes accepted as truth, despite being blatantly false.
Does Facebook have no obligation, even if only a moral one, to let you at least defend your own reputation when it allows literal defamation about you to be published unmolested?
As a result, the general public's first impression of your story is never challenged, and it becomes accepted as truth, despite being blatantly false.
Does Facebook have no obligation, even if only a moral one, to let you at least defend your own reputation when it allows literal defamation about you to be published unmolested?
Was this suppressed on Twitter? What about the NYT publishing an objective analysis of the situation? Aren't we discussing Facebook, specifically, here?
In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?
In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?
Facebook is orders of magnitude larger.
To be political, this has more implications on the censorship in general. So what if one censors/distorts more than the other
One is supposed to be a news agency, the other is supposed to be an information sharing platform for private individuals. There is some conflict here whenever you decide to pump a specific narrative.
One is supposed to be a news agency, the other is supposed to be an information sharing platform for private individuals. There is some conflict here whenever you decide to pump a specific narrative.
There have been reports of people banned from Twitter for tweeting e.g. "Rittenhouse did nothing wrong." [0][1]
> In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?
I guess you could go with alternative college newspapers? The town crier method? Creating a blog?
My point isn't necessarily that you have zero way to attempt to give your side of the story –after all, Rittenhouse's attorneys, people who saw the videos & defended Rittenhouse in public and even the NYT all produced content and were able to spread it among themselves–, but that your enemies have a tech-amplified bullhorn to distribute false claims about you (most of which are "opinion"), which you have been deprived of.
In my opinion, it's not hard to see that in the absence of additional rebuttal context, especially the kind that disrupts the original framing, people's first impression will become hardened into "their truth."
[0] https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/twitter-suspended-me-fo...
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-libertarian-party-kyle...
> In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?
I guess you could go with alternative college newspapers? The town crier method? Creating a blog?
My point isn't necessarily that you have zero way to attempt to give your side of the story –after all, Rittenhouse's attorneys, people who saw the videos & defended Rittenhouse in public and even the NYT all produced content and were able to spread it among themselves–, but that your enemies have a tech-amplified bullhorn to distribute false claims about you (most of which are "opinion"), which you have been deprived of.
In my opinion, it's not hard to see that in the absence of additional rebuttal context, especially the kind that disrupts the original framing, people's first impression will become hardened into "their truth."
[0] https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/twitter-suspended-me-fo...
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-libertarian-party-kyle...
Having a strong opinion based on zero knowledge is like American politics 101.
I mean, yeah. Doesn't make it reasonable. You can either argue it's unreasonable or argue that Facebook should behave "ethically" here, I don't think you can have both. It seems like people want Facebook to help everyone to have a strong opinion based on zero knowledge, but they want everyone to have the "correct" opinion.
I think social media doesn't give people "the wrong opinion," I think it gives people opinions in general when they shouldn't have any.
I think social media doesn't give people "the wrong opinion," I think it gives people opinions in general when they shouldn't have any.
I remember a professor with a book he was going to publish in the 1950s and the dock worker who was doing immigration saw it and said “Nobody is gonna read that”. He thought it was very funny that all Americans have an opinion on everything. People also did read it.
On the flip side facebook absolutely should be able to control what's on their platform as a private company. You can't have it both ways. They have freedom of speech as well as to the right to control their property and do business with whom they choose. I can't stop someone from spouting nonsense on the public sidewalk in front of my store, but if they try it inside my store then I can absolutely kick them out.
Facebook is very damaging to the fabric of society and this is just further evidence of it all. If Facebook employed an even remotely accurate sample of the population based on political leanings and backgrounds for their content policy team this would have never happened. I think the amount of blame the left and media placed on Facebook for the 2016 election of President Trump are to majorly to blame for the whole situation.
So are tiktok, twitter, instagram, reddit, fox news, and a host of lesser knowns. Are you going to make social media/"news services" illegal?
> Facebook is very damaging to the fabric of society
If you had left it at that, you’d have had a lot of agreement.
If you had left it at that, you’d have had a lot of agreement.
[deleted]
I mean I agree with you on the technicality, but the uniquely American view that someone can take a gun to a protest and not be looking for trouble is a very interesting one.
"Protest" is an incomplete characterization. The night he was there was the second night of wanton destruction. It was something between a riot and a protest. I have a hard time grasping the racial justice achieved by destroying property owned by people of color.
Even so, J Random Citizen getting tooled up and travelling to do something about it... it's very alien.
That's a law enforcement role in most of the rest of the western world.
That's a law enforcement role in most of the rest of the western world.
Agreed.
The problem is that when the government is derelict in it's duty (or, if critical mass of people believe so), this is the expected outcome. If people lose faith in the government to protect them, they're not going to roll over and die, they'll take whatever measures they deem fit to defend themselves and their property.
Law Enforcement exists for a reason. Maintenance of a degree of order keeps the populace happy while professionalism and codification of enforcement moderates the response (at least in the general case). Ideally, it's the "win-win" scenario where the perpetrators get to be treated well enough, while the populace is confident that violations of their safety and rights will be addressed.
The problem is that when the government is derelict in it's duty (or, if critical mass of people believe so), this is the expected outcome. If people lose faith in the government to protect them, they're not going to roll over and die, they'll take whatever measures they deem fit to defend themselves and their property.
Law Enforcement exists for a reason. Maintenance of a degree of order keeps the populace happy while professionalism and codification of enforcement moderates the response (at least in the general case). Ideally, it's the "win-win" scenario where the perpetrators get to be treated well enough, while the populace is confident that violations of their safety and rights will be addressed.
I agree, as do many of the level-headed takes I saw in threads following the live trial. It's been rumored that the police department pulled out of a large part of the community based on instructions from the mayor's office [0]. Hence, if the rumors are true, the real fault here lies with the local administration.
[0] I have no source, but it seems consistent with the police behavior observable in the videos.
[0] I have no source, but it seems consistent with the police behavior observable in the videos.
I see you have missed the 5th Amendment rationale memo.
>That's a law enforcement role in most of the rest of the western world.
Might want to take a step back and realize what they were protesting.
>That's a law enforcement role in most of the rest of the western world.
Might want to take a step back and realize what they were protesting.
> It was something between a riot and a protest.
When the destruction starts, it stops being a protest, and there is no between.
When the destruction starts, it stops being a protest, and there is no between.
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.
He is studying nursing. He was making sure people stayed safe and had first aid with 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.
It’s fine, you can say out loud that you don’t value the lives of people you disagree with.
He took a gun to a protest because he had the right to do so. He can take a gun to home depot if he wants to. Doesn't matter if he was "looking for trouble", he had the constitutional right to do that.
I didn’t know that Home Depot allows guns, but I just checked, and apparently Home Depot allows even open carry in jurisdictions where it’s legal. Nice, I like Home Depot even more now.
That is clearly fucked up.
Clearly not since it saved his life.
Bit of a chicken and egg there, to be fair.
Laws against guns don’t affect criminals that show no regard for following the law.
... view that someone can keep a guard dog on a property and not be looking for trouble is a very interesting one.
That's IMO essentially the same statement. Why shouldn't you have deterrence?
That's IMO essentially the same statement. Why shouldn't you have deterrence?
0fuchs(1)
jacquesm(4)
I really think we should bring back a version of fairness doctrine [1] or right of reply [2] targeted at platforms like Facebook or Twitter. This is not really my area of expertise, but I suspect that might be more effective and practical than repealing Section 230 for addressing blatant censorship like this.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply
Remember when Twitter promised it was the free speech sms of the Internet? I forgot until recently.
Good old days of the yore, when Twitter's general manager quoted the CEO saying "We are the free speech wing of the free speech party" [1], and the ACLU would rigorously defend free expression.
[1]: Guardian (2012) https://archive.ph/0HnBB#selection-2031.1-2031.153
[1]: Guardian (2012) https://archive.ph/0HnBB#selection-2031.1-2031.153
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..
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.
The funny thing about social media companies censoring is how they keep making the case for free speech over and over again without realizing it.
Mill:
> First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.
The last point is the least obvious. Pro-Rittenhouse views were "held in the manner of a prejudice" by those who had them because they were censored. When those views aren't censored and there's a healthy back-and-forth, moderacy tends to prevail.
Mill:
> First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.
The last point is the least obvious. Pro-Rittenhouse views were "held in the manner of a prejudice" by those who had them because they were censored. When those views aren't censored and there's a healthy back-and-forth, moderacy tends to prevail.
Facebook can choose to host whatever opinions they like as they own the platform. Obviously as long as those "opinions" are legal and not such things as terroristic threats, etc. That also is free speech and the right to with your property as you like.
Everyone is well aware that the first amendment does not apply to Facebook. The question is whether Facebook should censor not whether they legally can. The passage I quoted from Mill is an argument for free speech in general, not only with respect to the government.
I hadn’t heard of this policy. It makes sense to me how people were so uninformed about what happened that night if Facebook was banning videos supporting Kyle and most of the media wasn’t being impartial. Anyone who spent time watching the videos wouldn’t be surprised by the verdict.
Considering Kyle killed people, at a very contentious and politically sensitive time, its understandable that the story was banned.
I've heard some very bad hot takes that basically amount to "he should have killed those people". Advocating for killing people is way less controversial than whatever "nuance" people want to assign to the case regarding legal standing of guns and various self defense laws.
Its not crazy to imagine someone thinking to just ban that whole discourse from a platform, even if takes some "genuine" and not-murderous conversations with it - simply to avoid people advocating death.
I've heard some very bad hot takes that basically amount to "he should have killed those people". Advocating for killing people is way less controversial than whatever "nuance" people want to assign to the case regarding legal standing of guns and various self defense laws.
Its not crazy to imagine someone thinking to just ban that whole discourse from a platform, even if takes some "genuine" and not-murderous conversations with it - simply to avoid people advocating death.
Individual right don't disappear because some groups have created a very contentious and politically sensitive time.
The story wasn't banned. His name was banned from searches, as one does for mass murderers. And statements of support for Rittenhouse were banned, as one does for mass murderers - but anything you wanted to say about "the events in Kenosha" which was against Rittenhouse were allowed.
Mass murderers aren’t banned in search, and he is not a mass murderer, being attacked by several people and defending himself does not make him a murderer.
I understand that. My point was that fb was treating him as a mass murderer even though he wasn't. And the names of mass murderers are frequently banned shortly after the event...I'm sure it is eventually lifted but that is how they operate.
Did Facebook ban statements of support for Darrell Brooks, of the Waukesha Christmas parade massacre? Legit question, I don't know the answer but if they want to be consistent they should (I'm guessing they don't, and they did not).
Gofundme did the same thing. They killed the gofundme for Kyle's legal defense and then after it didn't matter anymore they "reversed the decision".
this article talks about a post the family of a recent school shooter made praising/defending him on facebook - so obviously facebook is applying this rule very selectively. I think it would help their credibility if they had examples of other times they apply these rules - but it seems more like they make up the rules on the spot and apply them based on their internal politics.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/arlington/article25...
this article talks about a post the family of a recent school shooter made praising/defending him on facebook - so obviously facebook is applying this rule very selectively. I think it would help their credibility if they had examples of other times they apply these rules - but it seems more like they make up the rules on the spot and apply them based on their internal politics.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/arlington/article25...
Definitely gives me pause to hear things like Facebook disallowing support of an individual embroiled in a hostile media environment and dubious criminal charges. Where would figures like Amanda Knox be if a similar wave of thought-crime style censorship were deployed at scale?
Of course large companies setting narratives is not a new problem for us - large media conglomerates have done similar things for decades. But the scale at which Facebook operates and the reach it has, to say that support of Rittenhouse was disallowed as an opinion on the entire platform - just gives me serious pause.
Of course large companies setting narratives is not a new problem for us - large media conglomerates have done similar things for decades. But the scale at which Facebook operates and the reach it has, to say that support of Rittenhouse was disallowed as an opinion on the entire platform - just gives me serious pause.
I think the big question that we have to ask ourselves is, in the contest between the right of speech of the individual and that of private corporations; Where, if ever, do we draw the line when the latter erodes that of the former.
The whole self-appointed "fact checker empowered to cancel" movement has to stop. Far too much fair disagreement, and objective truths, have been maliciously "cancelled" for not adhering to a given narrative on public forums.
I get that "freedom of the press" does not include freedom to use someone else's press, and the owner has the absolute right to decide who may use his press. That said, we have a legal differentiation between "publisher" and "common carrier", and by culling §230-protected content in a clearly biased manner Facebook etc is establishing themselves as "publisher" culpable for libelous & criminal content.
I get that "freedom of the press" does not include freedom to use someone else's press, and the owner has the absolute right to decide who may use his press. That said, we have a legal differentiation between "publisher" and "common carrier", and by culling §230-protected content in a clearly biased manner Facebook etc is establishing themselves as "publisher" culpable for libelous & criminal content.
Facebook fact checked a friend's locket that her mother gave her. It was bizarre. She posted a photo of the locket, Facebook blurred the photo and added a 'Independent fact checkers have determined this is false information' warning. The problem? The locket has a quote on it by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Apparently independent fact checkers are unable to verify that Emerson ever said the quote so it had to be blurred for our protection. Whether the quote is accurate or not, it's strange that Facebook is now policing gifts people give their children.
> by culling §230-protected content in a clearly biased manner Facebook etc is establishing themselves as "publisher" culpable for libelous & criminal content.
No, they aren't. True, if it were not online, Facebook's involvement with selection of which provided content to promote might make them a publisher (it's kind of hard, because both bookstores and other distributors and publishers, offline, actively select content in very biased ways, but face very different liability regimes). But while you reference “§230-protected content”, you fail to understand the operative language of § 230: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Note that there is no “unless, as a provider, they choose to promote that content in a ‘clearly biased’ manner” caveat. Just a bar against the provider being treated as a publisher of content that originates from someone else.
No, they aren't. True, if it were not online, Facebook's involvement with selection of which provided content to promote might make them a publisher (it's kind of hard, because both bookstores and other distributors and publishers, offline, actively select content in very biased ways, but face very different liability regimes). But while you reference “§230-protected content”, you fail to understand the operative language of § 230: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Note that there is no “unless, as a provider, they choose to promote that content in a ‘clearly biased’ manner” caveat. Just a bar against the provider being treated as a publisher of content that originates from someone else.
You omit the qualifications for that exemption, which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact, which FB/T/etc are going way beyond and will likely have to defend in court with difficulty.
> You omit the qualifications for that exemption
No, I don't, because there aren't any that are relevant here.
> which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact
No, 230 has an additional immunity for good faith effort by a provider or user to restrict access to material “the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected” [47 USC § 230(c)(2)], which is in addition to the blanket protection from being treated as a publisher [42 USC § 230(c)(1)]. But note that since this is for material the provider feels is objectionable, the “good faith” involved is nothing like neutrality. There is no “good faith” caveat of any kind on the immunity in § 230(c)(1).
“Minimal impact” doesn't figure into it at all; neither the phrase nor any condition or restriction accurately summarized by it appears anywhere in § 230. That's complete fabrication.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230#
No, I don't, because there aren't any that are relevant here.
> which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact
No, 230 has an additional immunity for good faith effort by a provider or user to restrict access to material “the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected” [47 USC § 230(c)(2)], which is in addition to the blanket protection from being treated as a publisher [42 USC § 230(c)(1)]. But note that since this is for material the provider feels is objectionable, the “good faith” involved is nothing like neutrality. There is no “good faith” caveat of any kind on the immunity in § 230(c)(1).
“Minimal impact” doesn't figure into it at all; neither the phrase nor any condition or restriction accurately summarized by it appears anywhere in § 230. That's complete fabrication.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230#
Mountain_Skies' anecdote above certainly does not meet any form of "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable", nor does (say) any of the objective reporting & fair discussion of the Kyle Rittenhouse incident, or other commonplace views normalized among fully half the population.
Arbitrary culling of content which does not constitute "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" is exactly what "publisher" applies to, and which is the point of this thread.
We can agree to disagree, while watching Kyle Rittenhouse sue Facebook (maybe not quite into oblivion, but the number of digits in the settlement check should be striking) and the court clarify exactly which of us is right to what degree. Popcorn?
Arbitrary culling of content which does not constitute "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" is exactly what "publisher" applies to, and which is the point of this thread.
We can agree to disagree, while watching Kyle Rittenhouse sue Facebook (maybe not quite into oblivion, but the number of digits in the settlement check should be striking) and the court clarify exactly which of us is right to what degree. Popcorn?
The quote that got Facebook's independent fact checker's wrath: “Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”
There might be some extra context here. When I searched for Ralph Waldo Emerson censor Facebook, older articles about James Woods and Donald Trump using a very different Emerson quote popped up. Tech companies censored those so it may have made them overly sensitive to anything involving Emerson, perhaps even using automated systems that are still running (the locket photo that was sanitized for our protection was posted earlier this week).
There might be some extra context here. When I searched for Ralph Waldo Emerson censor Facebook, older articles about James Woods and Donald Trump using a very different Emerson quote popped up. Tech companies censored those so it may have made them overly sensitive to anything involving Emerson, perhaps even using automated systems that are still running (the locket photo that was sanitized for our protection was posted earlier this week).
I really don't think Facebook should be in charge of making speech moderation at this level of specificity.
Social media platforms have become the public squares of the 21st century, and as such we need to treat the right for free speech on those platforms as important.
That doesn't mean we can't change these platforms to favour desirable engagement. If our physical public square were very small, everyone might be reduced to yelling to hear each other. So we make our physical public squares large and open! Maybe if we put a tree in the middle, it will calm us down and help us engage with each other.
But we will never appoint a public square moderator who arbitrarily decides what can and cannot be said. Neither should Facebook.
Social media platforms have become the public squares of the 21st century, and as such we need to treat the right for free speech on those platforms as important.
That doesn't mean we can't change these platforms to favour desirable engagement. If our physical public square were very small, everyone might be reduced to yelling to hear each other. So we make our physical public squares large and open! Maybe if we put a tree in the middle, it will calm us down and help us engage with each other.
But we will never appoint a public square moderator who arbitrarily decides what can and cannot be said. Neither should Facebook.
I fully accept that FB is free to run itself how it pleases.
That said, it's clear they are not in a position to act as a neutral platform for civic discourse.
I try to support technologies and platforms that provide a voice to all. Decentralized over centralized.
I try to curate my own list of sources, rather than rely on third-party curation.
How else can I ensure a healthy and diverse information perspective?
That said, it's clear they are not in a position to act as a neutral platform for civic discourse.
I try to support technologies and platforms that provide a voice to all. Decentralized over centralized.
I try to curate my own list of sources, rather than rely on third-party curation.
How else can I ensure a healthy and diverse information perspective?
The problem isn't you, but others who do not try to curate their own diverse sources. When time comes to make democratic decisions, if those who are influenced outnumbered people like you, there'd be no way for you to make your case and convince the others of your correctness.
I suspect many, perhaps even most, are aware of the bias they are exposed to.
I don't expect I'm particularly resistant to it.
I am keen to learn more about what I can do.
An alternative might be to focus on local community matters. I think this is common in practice.
I don't expect I'm particularly resistant to it.
I am keen to learn more about what I can do.
An alternative might be to focus on local community matters. I think this is common in practice.
Is it really a healthy democracy if the flows of information are controlled from the top down? If I provide you with a tuned set of information in which everything says what I cant, I can get you to believe whatever I want.
This is just changing the source of said influence, not removing it.
This is just changing the source of said influence, not removing it.
> controlled from the top down?
but the facebook/social media isn't "controlled from the top down" - it's people deliberately choosing to _only_ consume them (thus giving those media companies defacto control over people's tuned set of information sources).
I'm saying that most people don't care enough to look for separate sources and do their own critical thinking.
but the facebook/social media isn't "controlled from the top down" - it's people deliberately choosing to _only_ consume them (thus giving those media companies defacto control over people's tuned set of information sources).
I'm saying that most people don't care enough to look for separate sources and do their own critical thinking.
I'm not sure if we're talking past each other here. Going to clarify my opinion on this a bit.
- Facebook is generally considered in colloquial terms, a "platform".
- Expectations by the users are thus that Facebook (the entity) does not dictate opinion, but instead provides an avenue for hosting and discovery of individual opinion.
- Thus, to the userbase, Facebook is not a Single source, but is instead a aggregation of multiple sources of "information" (or opinion; Scare quotes were intentional)
- One-sided enforcement of opinions on topics breaks the above assumption, converting it from "platform", to "publisher".
- This represents far more centralization of information control than the previous "platform" state. I think "centralization" captures my intention here more than the previous "top down" descriptor.
One of the assumptions of a free democracy is that people, as individuals, are permitted to discover their own opinion from available information. It's imperfect, but it's pretty important. If we severely restrict the pool of available information to just the slice amenable to whoever is in power, that's in effect the same as forcing their opinion. After all, you can't form the opposing opinion on something if everything you can find supports it.
Addendum:
On the gotcha of "Facebook's right to free speech". I'm of the opinion that this must be taken in light of scale and the subsequent threats to the individual right to free speech. Here, I declare (unilaterally, agreement may vary) that the individual right to free speech should be held above that of the corporate right, especially when scale is considered. I very much consider the largest digital spaces the closest analogue to the modern public square (some would disagree here) due to their scale and ubiquity.
- Facebook is generally considered in colloquial terms, a "platform".
- Expectations by the users are thus that Facebook (the entity) does not dictate opinion, but instead provides an avenue for hosting and discovery of individual opinion.
- Thus, to the userbase, Facebook is not a Single source, but is instead a aggregation of multiple sources of "information" (or opinion; Scare quotes were intentional)
- One-sided enforcement of opinions on topics breaks the above assumption, converting it from "platform", to "publisher".
- This represents far more centralization of information control than the previous "platform" state. I think "centralization" captures my intention here more than the previous "top down" descriptor.
One of the assumptions of a free democracy is that people, as individuals, are permitted to discover their own opinion from available information. It's imperfect, but it's pretty important. If we severely restrict the pool of available information to just the slice amenable to whoever is in power, that's in effect the same as forcing their opinion. After all, you can't form the opposing opinion on something if everything you can find supports it.
Addendum:
On the gotcha of "Facebook's right to free speech". I'm of the opinion that this must be taken in light of scale and the subsequent threats to the individual right to free speech. Here, I declare (unilaterally, agreement may vary) that the individual right to free speech should be held above that of the corporate right, especially when scale is considered. I very much consider the largest digital spaces the closest analogue to the modern public square (some would disagree here) due to their scale and ubiquity.
Has it ever been different?
Orgs like Facebook who use "Independent Fact Checkers" need to reveal their sources otherwise there's no reason to believe the "Independent Fact Checkers" aren't Facebook employees making arbitrary or even ideological rulings on what is true and what is false.
Don't think they are facebook employees but fact checking orgs are pretty much all political activists.
Might be downvoted but there was a fact checker website that denied at the time President Trump’s claim that Kyle had acted in self defense. This was a year ago and I saw it for myself as still being up a few weeks ago. I am not an American and I really see both sides here. The jury system worked as per the law defined in the US (and I am not a pro 2A person ) but I also agree that most likely increase vigilantism which will be good for no one.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/01/donald-tru...
It is still up.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/01/donald-tru...
It is still up.
> I also agree that most likely increase vigilantism which will be good for no one.
If the alternative to vigilantism is mob rule I'll choose vigilantism. The real issue here is that this should not be an issue for those living in a western-style representational republic or democracy to deal with, this being the task of the police.
If the monopoly on violence - i.e. the police - is not used to keep the violent at bay others will have to take up that task or the violent will rule - there are plenty of examples in the world where this has been and /or still is the case. That those "others" can end up resembling those they were formed to keep in check is an unfortunate aspect of that type of society and one of the reasons why the monopoly on violence was created. The solution to this conundrum is therefore to refrain from unilateral pacification when confronted with violent opponents. It also means that those politicians who acted upon and/or instigated the "de-fund the police" sloganeering have a lot to answer for, this being as stupid as de-funding the fire brigade when the city just caught fire (which it, incidentally, did in a number of cases).
If the alternative to vigilantism is mob rule I'll choose vigilantism. The real issue here is that this should not be an issue for those living in a western-style representational republic or democracy to deal with, this being the task of the police.
If the monopoly on violence - i.e. the police - is not used to keep the violent at bay others will have to take up that task or the violent will rule - there are plenty of examples in the world where this has been and /or still is the case. That those "others" can end up resembling those they were formed to keep in check is an unfortunate aspect of that type of society and one of the reasons why the monopoly on violence was created. The solution to this conundrum is therefore to refrain from unilateral pacification when confronted with violent opponents. It also means that those politicians who acted upon and/or instigated the "de-fund the police" sloganeering have a lot to answer for, this being as stupid as de-funding the fire brigade when the city just caught fire (which it, incidentally, did in a number of cases).
I agree "defunding the police" is such a vague term and is pure political poison.And that is why almost no one apart from a small vocal minority consider it as a policy worth pursuing.
Vigilantism is not good. Sure, if you are under threat or the ones you care about are under threat, you have every right to protect yourself.But you can read about Ahmaud Arbery's shooting to consider where vigilantism was at play and he was shot to death.
I fear if more people are emboldened by the court's decision to acquit Kyle to take the law into their own hands especially in cases where the self defense angle is not justified, it is a slippery slope to be on. Ahmaud Arbery's case is one such example also.
Vigilantism is not good. Sure, if you are under threat or the ones you care about are under threat, you have every right to protect yourself.But you can read about Ahmaud Arbery's shooting to consider where vigilantism was at play and he was shot to death.
I fear if more people are emboldened by the court's decision to acquit Kyle to take the law into their own hands especially in cases where the self defense angle is not justified, it is a slippery slope to be on. Ahmaud Arbery's case is one such example also.
The increased vigilantism is directly related to the media demonizing the police and misrepresenting facts. If the police are demonized and told to stand down by mayors during times of riots then someone will fill that vacuum. If you don't want vigilantism then you need police and politicians to do their jobs.
In my opinion, this and many other issues in the past few years are due, almost exclusively, to reporters viewing themselves as activists instead of reporters of fact. This specific case has too many examples of this to be coincidence, from the way the Jacob Blake story was reported initially( failing to report on the knife), to the intentional misrepresentation of the facts in the Rittenhouse case.
In my opinion, this and many other issues in the past few years are due, almost exclusively, to reporters viewing themselves as activists instead of reporters of fact. This specific case has too many examples of this to be coincidence, from the way the Jacob Blake story was reported initially( failing to report on the knife), to the intentional misrepresentation of the facts in the Rittenhouse case.
Add the tendency of the press to fail to report on anything which doesn't fit the required narrative, e.g. the recent example of multiple vehicular homicide in Waukesha where a casual reader would conclude that a self-driving SUV went rampant, the way the school shooting in Timberview and the subsequent release of the shooter (including a festive reception by his family) was buried [1] and far too many other examples of what is clearly an agenda. What those media seem to fail to realise is that they have lost nearly all trust among the general population - i.e. they are preaching to their own activist choir.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/did-media-bury-mass-shooting-becaus...
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/did-media-bury-mass-shooting-becaus...
It is still up as of now.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/01/donald-tru...
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/01/donald-tru...
[deleted]
Wow. This is one of the most chilling things I've seen in a long time. So divorced from reality (suffering from TDS) that they're on the "war is peace, ignorance is strength"-level of delusion. They're the ones who have elected themselves as the arbiters of what is "fact", what is "truthful". Orwellian is underselling how insane this is.
Between Facebook banning any support, President Biden labeling him a white supremacist, and the Democrat head of the judiciary committee Rep. Jerry Nadler suggesting a unanimous jury verdict was a “miscarriage of justice” which needs to be investigated, Rittenhouse is going to a busy man.
Most likely not. As was pointed out by a lot of lawyers who followed the case (that I watched on YouTube), defamation lawsuits after a criminal prosecution are very hard to pursue. Also public officials enjoy anti-diffamation protections generally, especially the president and member of congress and members of the senate.
At the very least, Biden was not an elected official when he made his first remark, merely running for office I think. Several highly public figures have also made comments after the trial, continuing to call him a murderer (and white supremacist) even though he was found not guilty.
I am fairly certain that he isn't considered a public figure, aside from the trial itself, so the bar for libel and slander is much lower than if he were a celebrity.
Nick Sandmann got absolutely massive settlements; I am curious as to the extent that the situations are similar or different.
I am fairly certain that he isn't considered a public figure, aside from the trial itself, so the bar for libel and slander is much lower than if he were a celebrity.
Nick Sandmann got absolutely massive settlements; I am curious as to the extent that the situations are similar or different.
Fair point about Biden not being a president at the time. Although good luck having a judge willing to be the one putting a president on trial.
Also, being accused of a criminal offense and making the news is pretty much the definition of being a public figure.
> Nick Sandmann got absolutely massive settlements
Nick Sandmann had no public presence before.
Also, being accused of a criminal offense and making the news is pretty much the definition of being a public figure.
> Nick Sandmann got absolutely massive settlements
Nick Sandmann had no public presence before.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Something that blew my mind. https://www.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-says-andrew-yang...
Rittenhouse stayed out of the politics for the trial(very smart) and later he revealed that he was in the "Yang Gang"
"I'm going to get a lot of hate for this but I was a pretty big Andrew Yang supporter before all this,"
He was far left and the left wing are who attacked him as white supremacist and all that.
Just goes to show how the media is just completely full of shit.
Rittenhouse stayed out of the politics for the trial(very smart) and later he revealed that he was in the "Yang Gang"
"I'm going to get a lot of hate for this but I was a pretty big Andrew Yang supporter before all this,"
He was far left and the left wing are who attacked him as white supremacist and all that.
Just goes to show how the media is just completely full of shit.
He also supports BLM.
I praise all censorship and all inconsistency by Facebook. Poison discourse to the point that it stops happening. Facebook is a platform for manipulation not for communication.
Fail-fast attitude can be attractive until you realize that the failing is not happening in the way you imagined. What if Facebook censors very inconsistently, AND people end up being indifferent toward it? Then Facebook will be a successful platform for manipulation, the polar opposite of what the fail-fast fantasy would project.
That would make sense if people weren’t easily fooled by Facebook.
Meta will have a new young owner before this is done.
No one is safe in meta: https://youtu.be/-XWedbTIcV4
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 the situation.
The NYT has a good video of what happened with Rittenhouse: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007409660/kyle-ritten.... Apart from the voice overs, it’s nearly identical to the pro-Rittenhouse videos circulating back in 2020. If you watched these videos, the jury verdict would have been totally unsurprising to you.