Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha(buzzfeednews.com)
buzzfeednews.com
Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-employees-slam-zuckerberg-kenosha-militia-shooting
115 comments
ArkVark(9)
Could we stop trying to make Facebook responsible for every damn thing that happens?
Can we try to make Facebook responsible for every damn thing that happens on their platform?
The problem is that excessive blaming will foster high levels of risk aversion, as seen in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24304275
This is a case of advocating to suppress one kind of speech because it will lead to the suppression of another kind of speech. So maybe there isn't a problem here?
If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?
If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?
>"This is a case of advocating to suppress one kind of speech because it will lead to the suppression of another kind of speech. So maybe there isn't a problem here?"
>"If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?"
I don't understand what you're trying to say; perhaps you could clarify what you mean by adding some punctuation to your second paragraph.
>"If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?"
I don't understand what you're trying to say; perhaps you could clarify what you mean by adding some punctuation to your second paragraph.
"Excessive blaming" is just another kind of speech.
If people observe bad things happening because of stuff going on on the Facebook platform and engage is excessive blaming that's just speech.
If Facebook becomes averse to risks with respect to what is on their platform, that is just Facebook being responsive to customer concerns.
You're just not going to have a platform where this relationship doesn't exist, there's always mods.. we need 'em.
If people observe bad things happening because of stuff going on on the Facebook platform and engage is excessive blaming that's just speech.
If Facebook becomes averse to risks with respect to what is on their platform, that is just Facebook being responsive to customer concerns.
You're just not going to have a platform where this relationship doesn't exist, there's always mods.. we need 'em.
Telephone companies and email providers as well. Full transparency, no encryption, proactive censorship for the purpose of safety and protection. They shouldnt be letting anything dangerous over their tubes ever, and we shouldnt be tolerating their facilitation of violence.
The accusations are not "facilitation" so much as "promotion". Allowing Militia and QAnon groups/accounts/pages to exist might be one kind of bad, actively promoting them to improve engagement and ad sales is a different level.
I know you are posting an unpopular opinion, but I agree. Facebook has become a straw man for a lot of issues that we as a society are just too lazy to grapple with. So we just use outlets like Twitter, Facebook, etc as outlets. Meanwhile we seem to let traditional media completely off the hook. When in some cases (imo) they are quietly cheering for unrest because it makes for great TV/news.
It seems to me that traditional media has not been algorithmically promoting QAnon or Militia groups to their viewers and that difference is extremely important.
Holding broadcasters accountable is easier than holding "narrowcasters" like Facebook accountable because you don't see what narrowcasters are promoting. But when you do find out you see that it is things that broadcasters would never push both for ethical and commercial reasons. This is important to consider.
Holding broadcasters accountable is easier than holding "narrowcasters" like Facebook accountable because you don't see what narrowcasters are promoting. But when you do find out you see that it is things that broadcasters would never push both for ethical and commercial reasons. This is important to consider.
They've been promoting other ills to their readers instead, e.g. conspiracy theories about Russia. And they do it non-algorithmically, i.e. knowingly, and isn't that worse? At least with an algorithm the creator can claim any independent decision it makes wasn't an intended outcome. Journalists don't get to say that.
If you are implying that coverage of Russian election interference is promoting conspiracy theories, then you would need to contend with the actual facts of the Russian efforts to influence US electoral politics to make that case.
Even if you held that coverage of Russia's role in the 2016 election was promotion of a conspiracy theory it would still be an obvious false equivalence to compare that to the promotion of groups like Bugaloo (that has killed multiple federal officers) or QAnon (which has resulted in multiple kidnappings, many other crimes, and promotes the worst antisemetic conspiracies invented, and more far more absurd things).
Even if you held that coverage of Russia's role in the 2016 election was promotion of a conspiracy theory it would still be an obvious false equivalence to compare that to the promotion of groups like Bugaloo (that has killed multiple federal officers) or QAnon (which has resulted in multiple kidnappings, many other crimes, and promotes the worst antisemetic conspiracies invented, and more far more absurd things).
> both for ethical and commercial reasons
But primarily commercial reasons related to having a completely different distribution model.
But primarily commercial reasons related to having a completely different distribution model.
Leaders need to take responsibility of what they have the power to change. Inaction on this is damning.
You do not see the forest for the trees.
Yea haven't they suffered enough?
> “At what point do we take responsibility for enabling hate filled bile to spread across our services?”
As long as there's so much money to be made, Facebook has no incentive to. As long as they know they can give you and other developers the generous salary/options/perks and you will complain at an all hands but not actually leave, they have even less incentive to. Talk is cheap, even from employees, and the executives at Facebook know that.
As long as there's so much money to be made, Facebook has no incentive to. As long as they know they can give you and other developers the generous salary/options/perks and you will complain at an all hands but not actually leave, they have even less incentive to. Talk is cheap, even from employees, and the executives at Facebook know that.
This.
I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but hate filled bile is profitable. Hate filled bile can earn you money. It can earn you votes. It can earn you power.
While FB may not care about votes or power, they are in business to earn money. They have expenses, as HN User gavman alluded to. Until better ways to make money present themselves, we can expect most social media firms to flirt with controversy. Because things haven't changed much from the newspaper era with respect to the bleeding doing the majority of the lede-ing.
I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but hate filled bile is profitable. Hate filled bile can earn you money. It can earn you votes. It can earn you power.
While FB may not care about votes or power, they are in business to earn money. They have expenses, as HN User gavman alluded to. Until better ways to make money present themselves, we can expect most social media firms to flirt with controversy. Because things haven't changed much from the newspaper era with respect to the bleeding doing the majority of the lede-ing.
Facebook employees seem to be very confused about what people want from Facebook. When I go to Facebook, I want to see what the people I follow have to say or share. I don't want any editorial interference from Facebook in that whatsoever.
What is "slam" even supposed to mean? Sounds like a handful of employees just left some disapproving remarks on a company live stream, but that's it. There's only two quotes in the entire article.
Yeah, typically when I see "slam" or "destroy" in the title like this I know it's not going to meet the expectations of that word.
These words are so overused these days in headlines.
These words are so overused these days in headlines.
They only differ in magnitude from "criticize", but they're all the same thing. They seem overused because everyone is deconstructing everything these days.
In the context of expectations, journalism uses critique. It's plain, simple, and neutral, if not objective.
On the other hand, slam and destroy are judgemental. They're inflammatory hyperbole that shamelessly intended to bias the reader. That is, these are not words journalists use as BF does.
I'm not suggesting BF is wrong. We all know what their biz model is, as well as the tactics they use to achieve those end. What it is, it is. It's simply not jouralism.
On the other hand, slam and destroy are judgemental. They're inflammatory hyperbole that shamelessly intended to bias the reader. That is, these are not words journalists use as BF does.
I'm not suggesting BF is wrong. We all know what their biz model is, as well as the tactics they use to achieve those end. What it is, it is. It's simply not jouralism.
It’s a buzzfeed article - which HN should seriously consider banning. For whatever reason it’s a source that seems to come up here often, but they lack even the most basic journalistic integrity.
> "Sunday Sunday Sunday, Come on down to the Slam-a-torium and watch Zuckerberg cage-fight his own employees!"
Sorry, these sort of headlines remind me of WWE wrestling ads.
Sorry, these sort of headlines remind me of WWE wrestling ads.
[deleted]
I’ve argued about flagging policy a couple times over at HN, but the comments in this thread during the first 5 minutes should provide a stellar example why to flag any political content.
Yeah, this happens every time Facebook is involved in a murder or genocide (which is shockingly often), and so far it has resulted in basically no change at all. If they employees really cared about it they'd do more than complain.
Banning militia groups or similar groups or speech has upfront benefits but hidden costs.
Facebook taking responsibility for such activity will inevitably to other very difficult decisions down the road.
One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. There are many such conflicts all over the world, and at a certain point no objective criteria can be used to censure.
Facebook taking responsibility for such activity will inevitably to other very difficult decisions down the road.
One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. There are many such conflicts all over the world, and at a certain point no objective criteria can be used to censure.
So what happened in Kenosha was tragic, and I don't think the issue is as cut and dry as either side would have you believe.
But my concern is I felt like this was inevitable, and will continue. I know the BLM protests are politically charged, but the problem is that there are many people's whose livelihoods and business are being permanently put out of commission and communities that are being devastated by the the looting, rioting, and protesting.
Sure people use the "they have insurance" but imagine for a minute that your entire house burnt down, does your life just magically resume because you have homeowners insurance.
Ultimately I feel like this will become more and more common because individuals are feeling as though the government is failing to portect them and as a result are willing to take matters into their own hands.
Again I'm not trying to say I disagree with the movement or the concept of police reform but I am concerned about the fact we have been letting the rioting and looting continue unchecked for months now. The fundamental reason for the government to exist is to protect the life, liberty and property of an individual, if a government fails to do that then citizens will look to doing it themselves.
But my concern is I felt like this was inevitable, and will continue. I know the BLM protests are politically charged, but the problem is that there are many people's whose livelihoods and business are being permanently put out of commission and communities that are being devastated by the the looting, rioting, and protesting.
Sure people use the "they have insurance" but imagine for a minute that your entire house burnt down, does your life just magically resume because you have homeowners insurance.
Ultimately I feel like this will become more and more common because individuals are feeling as though the government is failing to portect them and as a result are willing to take matters into their own hands.
Again I'm not trying to say I disagree with the movement or the concept of police reform but I am concerned about the fact we have been letting the rioting and looting continue unchecked for months now. The fundamental reason for the government to exist is to protect the life, liberty and property of an individual, if a government fails to do that then citizens will look to doing it themselves.
There's a simple solution here- stop the police from murdering black people. If a house burns down it can be rebuilt, but you can't rebuild the lives ended by white supremacy in our police departments.
I agree police reform is needed, but the rioting doesn't seem like a good way to deliver this message and will instead make enemies of those who could otherwise be allies.
I mean what does some guy who owns a furniture shop in Seattle have to do with a police officer shooting someone in Chicago?
At this point I fear that the good that could come from this is being drowned out by the violence and the destruction and if it continues it will be counter-productive to the movement.
I mean what does some guy who owns a furniture shop in Seattle have to do with a police officer shooting someone in Chicago?
At this point I fear that the good that could come from this is being drowned out by the violence and the destruction and if it continues it will be counter-productive to the movement.
So maybe do something less violent, like kneel during a football game. People will definitely unilaterally support that, right?
> So maybe do something less violent, like kneel during a football game. People will definitely unilaterally support that, right?
Yeah, get one of those famous players like Roger Federer. Or maybe the whole Detroit Redskins team.
Yeah, get one of those famous players like Roger Federer. Or maybe the whole Detroit Redskins team.
You're right, but calling it a 'simple solution' is disingenuous. We have decades of structural racism, policing legislation, ill-considered training regimes, and cultural bias to correct for in a federated system whose stakeholders are notoriously contemptuous of top-down approaches, and who's legislative actors avoid being responsible for any decisions with consequences like the plague.
You might as well say solving conflict in the middle-east is as simple as turning every government there into a functioning liberal democracy.
You might as well say solving conflict in the middle-east is as simple as turning every government there into a functioning liberal democracy.
You start by removing qualified immunity for people who murder. Not all police killings are murder but the ones we've seen show a systemic corruption that requires a systemic response.
Shouldn't you be arguing for fewer police killings, period? Last I checked more white people were being killed by police than black people.
Not as a percentage, which I'm sure you're aware of.
Indeed. Have you adjusted for police interactions though? How about poverty level and criminal history?
We can play statistics all day, which is kinda my point. It's pretty obvious there is a bias, but not so obvious (to me) what the root causes are. Racism and second degree soci-economic factors are definitely on the table. Labeling every single police event as racially motivated makes no sense though.
We can play statistics all day, which is kinda my point. It's pretty obvious there is a bias, but not so obvious (to me) what the root causes are. Racism and second degree soci-economic factors are definitely on the table. Labeling every single police event as racially motivated makes no sense though.
You're misinterpreting the facts. Black people are more likely to be killed by police - they're not more in number because they're only 13% of the population [1]. The problem is the power of police unions and qualified immunity which is a legal construct made to be abused.
https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-cle...
https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-cle...
I misinterpreted nothing: more white people are being killed by police than black people [1][2]. Which part are you challenging?
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/
Again, adjust for population.
> Results: Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/
> Results: Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/
This is the kind of more controversial comment Id like to see upvoted to spur good discussion.
The Second Amendment says well regulated militia. Should a group of people be able to organize, with guns, to protect businesses from riots and looters?
This one is looking like a very complicated situation as it unfolds. Someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, probably doesn't fall into well regulated. (Furthermore, what happens if someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, crossed a boarder, is attacked and defends themself? It's food for thought. Is every party, protester, militia, police, simultaneously victim and perpetrator?) That in and of itself doesn't negate the constitutional right of others to do the same thing legally. Just like everything else, a small group of people breaking the law, shouldn't take away everyone elses rights. That goes for rioters not destroying peoples rights to protest. That goes for kids/murderers destroying peoples rights to a militia. If you want to say "protesters arent rioters" thats fine, then protesters and militia shouldnt clash, should both be free to exercise their rights, and if they do, that illegal clash should be prosecuted.
The other comments here are saying "cops should stop..." but that is irrelevant to the fact that it is legal (and the cops were encouraging it at the scene) for people to stand outside a building and protect it. Taking that a step further, and back to the point of the initial article, where does Facebook draw the line in allowing people to self organize to protect their property? Is defensive violence different than offensive violence? And then theres the idea that a militia is designed as a check and balance against an oppressive police/military force. Does suppressing the formation of militia play into the strengthening of unchecked government power?
The Second Amendment says well regulated militia. Should a group of people be able to organize, with guns, to protect businesses from riots and looters?
This one is looking like a very complicated situation as it unfolds. Someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, probably doesn't fall into well regulated. (Furthermore, what happens if someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, crossed a boarder, is attacked and defends themself? It's food for thought. Is every party, protester, militia, police, simultaneously victim and perpetrator?) That in and of itself doesn't negate the constitutional right of others to do the same thing legally. Just like everything else, a small group of people breaking the law, shouldn't take away everyone elses rights. That goes for rioters not destroying peoples rights to protest. That goes for kids/murderers destroying peoples rights to a militia. If you want to say "protesters arent rioters" thats fine, then protesters and militia shouldnt clash, should both be free to exercise their rights, and if they do, that illegal clash should be prosecuted.
The other comments here are saying "cops should stop..." but that is irrelevant to the fact that it is legal (and the cops were encouraging it at the scene) for people to stand outside a building and protect it. Taking that a step further, and back to the point of the initial article, where does Facebook draw the line in allowing people to self organize to protect their property? Is defensive violence different than offensive violence? And then theres the idea that a militia is designed as a check and balance against an oppressive police/military force. Does suppressing the formation of militia play into the strengthening of unchecked government power?
I think the crux is well regulated and you nailed that well. If there are random people showing up with guns is that well regulated even if they have similar aims and might work together? One of the clear things from this incident is that the shooter was alone. Basically a cardinal sin from a military standpoint. Add to that AFAIK it’s not necessarily legal for random people to show up and stake a claim to defend property. Even if sanctioned implicitly by the police.
In general though I think it’s far more likely and borne out by history that if militias are allowed to form they do so in protection of the state far earlier than they do in opposition. The really interesting thing to me is that the anti-authority militias seem to have been entirely coopted into state support. Primarily though state supporting militias will arise earlier and stronger because it’s significantly easier to organise in support of extant power structures than it is to organise against them. Part of the current problem IMO is that the police no longer see themselves as neutral. White men dressed a certain way with guns are given a free pass as “one of us” in the heat of the moment.
In general though I think it’s far more likely and borne out by history that if militias are allowed to form they do so in protection of the state far earlier than they do in opposition. The really interesting thing to me is that the anti-authority militias seem to have been entirely coopted into state support. Primarily though state supporting militias will arise earlier and stronger because it’s significantly easier to organise in support of extant power structures than it is to organise against them. Part of the current problem IMO is that the police no longer see themselves as neutral. White men dressed a certain way with guns are given a free pass as “one of us” in the heat of the moment.
>the shooter was alone.
I havent watched much of it, but the one I did see starts with him being chased. I'm not sure what kind of conclusion I can draw from that.
>anti-authority militias seem to have been entirely coopted into state support
It is, almost an enemy of my enemy situation.
I havent watched much of it, but the one I did see starts with him being chased. I'm not sure what kind of conclusion I can draw from that.
>anti-authority militias seem to have been entirely coopted into state support
It is, almost an enemy of my enemy situation.
If he wasn’t alone where were his militia buddies whilst all this happened? Watching from a safe distance?
And I don’t think it’s an enemy of my enemy thing. I think these groups genuinely think Trump supports them.
And I don’t think it’s an enemy of my enemy thing. I think these groups genuinely think Trump supports them.
His militia buddies were back at the original car dealership they were protecting. The shooter left there to provide medical assistance, which required crossing a police line - the police didn't allow him to return to his group after that.
This is from the following twitter thread by a NYTimes reporter: https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809
This is from the following twitter thread by a NYTimes reporter: https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809
Your link does not give evidence for what you assert.
Yeah, I'll try and track down the "to provide medical assistance" bit. Though that thread does show the rest:
> Rittenhouse eventually leaves the dealership (https://t.co/udrONTtQEY?amp=1) and is barred by the police from returning, as seen @Ruptly footage, six minutes before the shooting: https://youtu.be/EEY5aBPNvIg?t=7147.
> Rittenhouse eventually leaves the dealership (https://t.co/udrONTtQEY?amp=1) and is barred by the police from returning, as seen @Ruptly footage, six minutes before the shooting: https://youtu.be/EEY5aBPNvIg?t=7147.
>well regulated
You need to make sure you use the term in the way it was when it was written, and properly translate it to modern parlance.
All well regulated meant back then was "working as intended" or "fit for the task at hand". Not "activity specifically organized and constrained by formal procedures established by a governing body or authority".
Back then, you could use the phrase to apply to a person, their work, a machine, a system, etc...
There is absolutely no stipulation that the bearing of arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is dependent on the condition of being part of an established militia. The entire militia clause exists as an explanation or justifying reason for the subsequent clause's command.
The concept of someone being "underage" to enjoy a Constitutionally guaranteed right without an explicit carve out in in the Constitution (I.e prescriptive age limits for holding office, delegation to States for implementation details of the choosing of Electors for Presidential voting) is a further farce, made only more extreme by the clear and unambiguous phrasing of the second amendment, namely that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
I mean, if you haven't dismissed me as impossible to reconcile with your worldview, it's quite a bit less complicated than it appears. It is only complicated if you're looking for a way to try to twist the clear and unambiguously constructed writing to mean something substantially different than it does.
You need to make sure you use the term in the way it was when it was written, and properly translate it to modern parlance.
All well regulated meant back then was "working as intended" or "fit for the task at hand". Not "activity specifically organized and constrained by formal procedures established by a governing body or authority".
Back then, you could use the phrase to apply to a person, their work, a machine, a system, etc...
There is absolutely no stipulation that the bearing of arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is dependent on the condition of being part of an established militia. The entire militia clause exists as an explanation or justifying reason for the subsequent clause's command.
The concept of someone being "underage" to enjoy a Constitutionally guaranteed right without an explicit carve out in in the Constitution (I.e prescriptive age limits for holding office, delegation to States for implementation details of the choosing of Electors for Presidential voting) is a further farce, made only more extreme by the clear and unambiguous phrasing of the second amendment, namely that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
I mean, if you haven't dismissed me as impossible to reconcile with your worldview, it's quite a bit less complicated than it appears. It is only complicated if you're looking for a way to try to twist the clear and unambiguously constructed writing to mean something substantially different than it does.
I don't disagree with what you have to say. I'm sure at the time, 17 was more than old enough.
Besides a traditionalist and literalist, there are other ways to interpret what the constitution means now. As a living document, it's interpretation has changed over time, and can continue to change.
Besides a traditionalist and literalist, there are other ways to interpret what the constitution means now. As a living document, it's interpretation has changed over time, and can continue to change.
> Someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, probably doesn't fall into well regulated.
Except AFAICT open carry of long guns by minors 16-17 is legal in Wisconsin, as long as if you're hunting you have the appropriate license. And the gun itself is very definitely legal - IIRC it's the most popular "modern sporting rifle" in existence, and millions exist in similar configurations.
Except AFAICT open carry of long guns by minors 16-17 is legal in Wisconsin, as long as if you're hunting you have the appropriate license. And the gun itself is very definitely legal - IIRC it's the most popular "modern sporting rifle" in existence, and millions exist in similar configurations.
https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/suspected-kenosha-shoot...
I was under the impression it was illegal for a minor to be open carrying. By illegal gun I meant not registered to him, correct me if I'm wrong. Was it legal for him to own the gun in Illinois? He was also breaking curfew.
I was under the impression it was illegal for a minor to be open carrying. By illegal gun I meant not registered to him, correct me if I'm wrong. Was it legal for him to own the gun in Illinois? He was also breaking curfew.
1. It appears to be legal for minors 16+ to open carry long guns in Wisconsin. The law is convoluted, though, and there is quite some debate around this - it is certainly allowed for hunting, and may also be allowed for other purposes. (Concealed carry would be illegal, though)
2. Guns do not have to be registered to an individual in most states. (As in, other than the ones like CA, NY and NJ)
3. It appears to be legal for minors 16+ to possess long guns in Illinois, if you jump through the appropriate hoops - see https://www.ichv.org/legislation/illinois-state-gun-laws/
Yes, he was breaking curfew.
2. Guns do not have to be registered to an individual in most states. (As in, other than the ones like CA, NY and NJ)
3. It appears to be legal for minors 16+ to possess long guns in Illinois, if you jump through the appropriate hoops - see https://www.ichv.org/legislation/illinois-state-gun-laws/
Yes, he was breaking curfew.
I am curious what facebook would look like or represent if it were up to the employees?
Typical IANAL:
W.r.t the Kenosha shooter.
1. He was 17. It was illegal for him to possess that rifle. In his home state you have to be 21, in Wisconsin you have to be 18. This was crime 1
2. Crossing the State line with an illegally possessed weapon is a pretty big deal and a big fat #2 on crime list
3. Wisconsin totally allows for the use of deadly force in self defense, but the caveat is that you can't be committing a crime by possessing that rifle.
4. Wisconsin has a Castle Doctrine, but you can only deadly force if the perpetrators are in your dwelling or place of business. For a place of business, you have to owner be in charge of operations of said business. You can't just post up to protect a random business, also you can't chase people if they decide to retreat like this 17yo did. Wisconsin V. Charles L Chew is the case law if you want to have a look.
5. It is not self defense when you get in a car with a rifle and drive 15 miles to another town and walk the streets with a rifle.
He had every option to stay home, but he chose to get involved in this situation with the plan to be involved with the confrontation (hence the rifle). Also in Wisconsin self defense law, you can't be the instigator and claim self defense. He became the instigator once he pursued.
6. Wearing gloves but no mask is also gonna be hard to explain. He is not concerned about covid-19 infection because his respiratory system is exposed. The blue gloves were on to hide fingerprints and any gun powder residue often used to convict shooters. He had intent to murder.
No lawyer can defend these blatantly dumb mistakes. This wanna be future cop probably can't pass a psychological test to become one.
Wisconsin 948.60
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183
W.r.t the Kenosha shooter.
1. He was 17. It was illegal for him to possess that rifle. In his home state you have to be 21, in Wisconsin you have to be 18. This was crime 1
2. Crossing the State line with an illegally possessed weapon is a pretty big deal and a big fat #2 on crime list
3. Wisconsin totally allows for the use of deadly force in self defense, but the caveat is that you can't be committing a crime by possessing that rifle.
4. Wisconsin has a Castle Doctrine, but you can only deadly force if the perpetrators are in your dwelling or place of business. For a place of business, you have to owner be in charge of operations of said business. You can't just post up to protect a random business, also you can't chase people if they decide to retreat like this 17yo did. Wisconsin V. Charles L Chew is the case law if you want to have a look.
5. It is not self defense when you get in a car with a rifle and drive 15 miles to another town and walk the streets with a rifle.
He had every option to stay home, but he chose to get involved in this situation with the plan to be involved with the confrontation (hence the rifle). Also in Wisconsin self defense law, you can't be the instigator and claim self defense. He became the instigator once he pursued.
6. Wearing gloves but no mask is also gonna be hard to explain. He is not concerned about covid-19 infection because his respiratory system is exposed. The blue gloves were on to hide fingerprints and any gun powder residue often used to convict shooters. He had intent to murder.
No lawyer can defend these blatantly dumb mistakes. This wanna be future cop probably can't pass a psychological test to become one.
Wisconsin 948.60
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183
Section 3 of 948.60 means that 948.60 does not apply to him because he is in possession of a long barrelled rifle. More information here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1299046068089430018.html
A lot of people have come out and confidently said he was in possession of an illegal rifle. But I have a feeling none of them have actually read the statute.
A lot of people have come out and confidently said he was in possession of an illegal rifle. But I have a feeling none of them have actually read the statute.
Ah my mistake, you're right. It was illegal for him to own a long barrelled rifle in his state of residence Illinois [0]. He then drove across state lines into Wisconsin with that illegal firearm.
[0] https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...
[0] https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...
Do you have a quote as to what section says people under 18 or 21 cannot own/carry rifles? A search for '18' and '21' came up with a few 'illegal to transfer a weapon that can be concealed to someone under 18' and the like, but also a section saying:
> (c) Nothing in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Section prohibits a person under 18 years of age from participating in any lawful recreational activity with a firearm such as, but not limited to, practice shooting at targets upon established public or private target ranges or hunting, trapping, or fishing in accordance with the Wildlife Code or the Fish and Aquatic Life Code.
which implies there are at least some situations in which it is legal for a 17 year old to possess and possibly transport a rifle.
EDIT: Here's a summary I just found:
> Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess in Illinois
> Illinois prohibits any person under age 18 from possessing a handgun. State law also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a handgun to any person under age 18. However, Illinois also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a firearm to any person who does not hold a FOID card. To obtain a FOID card, an individual must be over 21 years of age or have the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire any firearms and ammunition. Further, the parent or legal guardian must not be prohibited from obtaining a FOID card. Persons under age 21 also do not qualify for a FOID card if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor (other than a traffic offense) or adjudged delinquent.
from https://www.ichv.org/legislation/illinois-state-gun-laws/
Which says Illinois prohibits minors from owning pistols, but also says if they have the appropriate FOID card then they can own things-other-than-pistols.
> (c) Nothing in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Section prohibits a person under 18 years of age from participating in any lawful recreational activity with a firearm such as, but not limited to, practice shooting at targets upon established public or private target ranges or hunting, trapping, or fishing in accordance with the Wildlife Code or the Fish and Aquatic Life Code.
which implies there are at least some situations in which it is legal for a 17 year old to possess and possibly transport a rifle.
EDIT: Here's a summary I just found:
> Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess in Illinois
> Illinois prohibits any person under age 18 from possessing a handgun. State law also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a handgun to any person under age 18. However, Illinois also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a firearm to any person who does not hold a FOID card. To obtain a FOID card, an individual must be over 21 years of age or have the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire any firearms and ammunition. Further, the parent or legal guardian must not be prohibited from obtaining a FOID card. Persons under age 21 also do not qualify for a FOID card if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor (other than a traffic offense) or adjudged delinquent.
from https://www.ichv.org/legislation/illinois-state-gun-laws/
Which says Illinois prohibits minors from owning pistols, but also says if they have the appropriate FOID card then they can own things-other-than-pistols.
It being illegal in Illinois might not be relevant because his lawyer is claiming Kyle was not in possession of the rifle in Illinois and it was transferred to his possession in Wisconsin.