Facebook is blocking searches for “Kyle Rittenhouse”(facebook.com)
facebook.com
Facebook is blocking searches for “Kyle Rittenhouse”
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=Kyle%20Rittenhouse
136 comments
Because the prosecutors have no case. The photographer witness was damning against them.
Kyle will walk, we all knew he would. It was a clear case of self defense.
When the narrative isn't supported, the powers at be pretend it doesn't exist.
Kyle will walk, we all knew he would. It was a clear case of self defense.
When the narrative isn't supported, the powers at be pretend it doesn't exist.
I think everybody knew he would walk on the murder charges before the trial even started. One of the charges against him is a weapons charge that he is most certainly going to be found guilty of.
You can read the law yourself and make your own conclusion, but even that's pretty unlikely:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
Section (3)(c): 948.60(3)(c) (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
941.28 relates to NFA controlled SBRs. 29.304 and 29.593 are specific to those involved in hunting.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
Section (3)(c): 948.60(3)(c) (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
941.28 relates to NFA controlled SBRs. 29.304 and 29.593 are specific to those involved in hunting.
You can have a rifle at 17 in his state I believe
I doubt he'll get a weapon charge either. The curfew charge was already dropped too.
@ceejayoz, @croes, and others conveniently leave out that the two other people Kyle shot were the aggressors as well.
I doubt he'll get a weapon charge either. The curfew charge was already dropped too.
@ceejayoz, @croes, and others conveniently leave out that the two other people Kyle shot were the aggressors as well.
Oh no, I have seen a lot of people on social media who have completely fallen for the misinformation around this case who are completely convinced he is guilty of murder and being found not guilty would be due entirely to white supremacists on the jury or the bench or some other conspiracy theory about the police or prosecutors involved in the case.
They have become completely divorced from reality and not even linking and quoting statutes and case law or footage and transcripts from this trial or photo and video evidence from this case changes their mind. They've been literally brainwashed into not believing their lying eyes, it's like flat earthers and anti vaxers. It's really scary how effective this branwashing is and how so many gullible people fall for it :(
They have become completely divorced from reality and not even linking and quoting statutes and case law or footage and transcripts from this trial or photo and video evidence from this case changes their mind. They've been literally brainwashed into not believing their lying eyes, it's like flat earthers and anti vaxers. It's really scary how effective this branwashing is and how so many gullible people fall for it :(
Do you believe Grosskreutz would have been in his right to kill Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse shot him? If not, why not?
No, because Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first.
If I point my gun at someone in a context that is easily interpreted as threatening, and then they shoot me in response to me doing that, I don't get to shoot them. It was my fault for pointing the gun at them in the first place.
If I point my gun at someone in a context that is easily interpreted as threatening, and then they shoot me in response to me doing that, I don't get to shoot them. It was my fault for pointing the gun at them in the first place.
> No, because Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first.
After Rittenhouse had already shot two people, right?
After Rittenhouse had already shot two people, right?
After those two people chased and attacked him, right? You conveniently left that part out.
Lucky for us, we got to see the videos and witnesses testify about those instances.
Lucky for us, we got to see the videos and witnesses testify about those instances.
Assuming everyone on the scene possesses full situational awareness of the nature you can slowly and meticulously tease out in a courtroom is insanely silly.
A concrete and sad example: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
A concrete and sad example: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
Yeah that's why you can't chase after someone and self defense is the only reason you can kill/harm someone.
You have to be in immediate danger, you can't guess that a man shot someone else unjustly and use that to chase someone down.
What you linked is irrelevant and tragic, the cop should have been charged, nothing to do with this case though.
The good samaritan who ended the mass shooting was in immediate danger himself when he killed the shooter with his pistol.
You have to be in immediate danger, you can't guess that a man shot someone else unjustly and use that to chase someone down.
What you linked is irrelevant and tragic, the cop should have been charged, nothing to do with this case though.
The good samaritan who ended the mass shooting was in immediate danger himself when he killed the shooter with his pistol.
Sorry, you're saying detaining an active shooter at gunpoint is not self defense until they shoot specifically at you?
No I'm saying being at the scene means the person was in immediate danger.
He didn't go looking for the active shooter or chase after him.
You're conflating two separate events with different contexts.
He didn't go looking for the active shooter or chase after him.
You're conflating two separate events with different contexts.
He was not an active shooter, he was a victim fleeing, so, no.
He had just shot two people, was still armed, and proceeded to shoot a third shortly after.
That fits every definition of “active shooter” I’ve ever seen.
That fits every definition of “active shooter” I’ve ever seen.
>He had just shot two people
He had just defended himself against two assailants.
>was still armed
But not threatening or brandishing.
>and proceeded to shoot a third shortly after.
And proceeded to defend himself against a third assailant.
>That fits every definition of “active shooter” I’ve ever seen.
Fits practically no definition of "active shooter".
He had just defended himself against two assailants.
>was still armed
But not threatening or brandishing.
>and proceeded to shoot a third shortly after.
And proceeded to defend himself against a third assailant.
>That fits every definition of “active shooter” I’ve ever seen.
Fits practically no definition of "active shooter".
The definition of "active shooter" is "there's someone running around shooting people". Self-defense comes into play at charging time and in the courtroom, as it is now.
The cops role during the shooting incident is to stop the shooting and detain whoever's doing it. Until they do, it's an active shooter incident.
The cops role during the shooting incident is to stop the shooting and detain whoever's doing it. Until they do, it's an active shooter incident.
He admitted on the stand that he didn't have any reason at the time to believe Rittenhouse had shot anyone. He even had a short conversation with Rittenhouse while he was going toward the police line. Furthermore, he testified that he was worried about Rittenhouse being hurt by the skateboard.
To his knowledge at the time (according to his testimony -- and I firmly believe he was lying a LOT), he was worried about Rittenhouse being attacked. Rittenhouse then (by his own perception) shoots in self-defense. Where does he then see a need to attack or point a gun at Rittenhouse?
To his knowledge at the time (according to his testimony -- and I firmly believe he was lying a LOT), he was worried about Rittenhouse being attacked. Rittenhouse then (by his own perception) shoots in self-defense. Where does he then see a need to attack or point a gun at Rittenhouse?
Rittenhouse first shot others.
Would you wait until a shooter points his gun at you?
Do you think a guy with a M&P15 who already shot two people is a threatening context?
Would you wait until a shooter points his gun at you?
Do you think a guy with a M&P15 who already shot two people is a threatening context?
You've used the word "shooter" in order to cast Rittenhouse as the aggressor in the situation. If he really was defending himself in the first two shootings, that definitely doesn't give a third person the right to execute him, no.
> If he really was defending himself in the first two shootings, that definitely doesn't give a third person the right to execute him, no.
It'd probably be legitimate to hold him at gunpoint, though, especially if the details of the first shootings weren't quite clear.
Of course, if a fourth person comes along and executes you for that, they might get off scot-free. (If they're a cop.)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
It'd probably be legitimate to hold him at gunpoint, though, especially if the details of the first shootings weren't quite clear.
Of course, if a fourth person comes along and executes you for that, they might get off scot-free. (If they're a cop.)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
Be very careful there.
In lots of places you make a citizen's arrest without having probable cause to believe they committed a felony, or witnessing a crime, or various other legal requirements. If as you say the details were not "quite clear" to you when you attempted to make the arrest, that could already be a very serious problem for you if it came to court.
Even if you think you have probable cause, chances are quite good that the court will see it differently. Being part of a frenzied rioting mob chasing someone down and you hear people shout "get him, he murdered someone" will not necessarily cut the mustard. And even if you did have probable cause, and whether or not they had committed a crime, your actions might give them a reasonable fear for their life, or otherwise that may cause them to respond to you.
I'm not a lawyer but I have heard more than one say that citizens arrests are just a bad idea all around. You can easily open yourself up to injury, death, or being convicted on charges of falsely making the arrest or the injuries or deaths that result in the escalation. The correct advice is to never escalate a potentially violent situation. Never try to detain anybody, never threaten anybody with a gun, never attack anybody. If you fear that you or someone else is in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured then you should do what you think is necessary to prevent that. But of course that is not escalation.
In lots of places you make a citizen's arrest without having probable cause to believe they committed a felony, or witnessing a crime, or various other legal requirements. If as you say the details were not "quite clear" to you when you attempted to make the arrest, that could already be a very serious problem for you if it came to court.
Even if you think you have probable cause, chances are quite good that the court will see it differently. Being part of a frenzied rioting mob chasing someone down and you hear people shout "get him, he murdered someone" will not necessarily cut the mustard. And even if you did have probable cause, and whether or not they had committed a crime, your actions might give them a reasonable fear for their life, or otherwise that may cause them to respond to you.
I'm not a lawyer but I have heard more than one say that citizens arrests are just a bad idea all around. You can easily open yourself up to injury, death, or being convicted on charges of falsely making the arrest or the injuries or deaths that result in the escalation. The correct advice is to never escalate a potentially violent situation. Never try to detain anybody, never threaten anybody with a gun, never attack anybody. If you fear that you or someone else is in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured then you should do what you think is necessary to prevent that. But of course that is not escalation.
You've used the word "execute" to cast Grosskreutz as the aggressor. He didn't even shoot, did he.
Imagine being in Grosskreutz position. From his point if view there was a guy who already shot two people.
What would you have done? Would you have waited until he targeted you too?
I would have not chased a kid down the street and I definitely wouldn't have pointed a gun at him.
If I was in his situation at the end I wouldn't have lunged at Kyle after I put my hands up and he lowered his weapon.
If I was in his situation at the end I wouldn't have lunged at Kyle after I put my hands up and he lowered his weapon.
So in a school shooting you would do nothing if you would've the chance to stop the shooter?
Don't forget you don't know all the circumstamces in the moment, all you know is two people are dead.
Don't forget you don't know all the circumstamces in the moment, all you know is two people are dead.
The difference here is context. In a school, if you hear shots, that can only be bad. The night in question had many people with guns and it was open mayhem. Shots going off could mean anything. You don't get to aggressively approach someone and aim a gun at them in such a context unless you actually know what's going on.
> You don't get to aggressively approach someone and aim a gun at them in such a context unless you actually know what's going on.
Yes, you do.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
Yes, you do.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
And that's why laugh in disbelief when people evoke the good Samaritan bullcrap, that all that's needed to stop gun violence is more guns, and good people will step in to stop agressors. I don't see how that doesn't end in a bloodbath by misunderstanding like 9 times out of 10.
If he was really self defending against two people, and a third person saw him kill them, that third person now sees a bad guy that needs to be stopped. Who's guilty if he shoots and kills?
If he was really self defending against two people, and a third person saw him kill them, that third person now sees a bad guy that needs to be stopped. Who's guilty if he shoots and kills?
> I don't see how that doesn't end in a bloodbath by misunderstanding like 9 times out of 10.
Gun safety training and lots of range practice.
Many shootings are ended by good Samaritans with no friendly fire involved.
Generally you don't want to shoot anyone if you weren't in the immediate vicinity of the conflict.
Gun safety training and lots of range practice.
Many shootings are ended by good Samaritans with no friendly fire involved.
Generally you don't want to shoot anyone if you weren't in the immediate vicinity of the conflict.
> Generally you don't want to shoot anyone if you weren't in the immediate vicinity of the conflict.
You hear noise, and see someone(A) shoot another person(B) 50 meters away from you. You're a good person(C), you take out your personal gun and approach. A sees a new threat approaching with a weapon, prepares to defend themselves, and turns their gun towards C. C sees a gunman who just shot B, turn their weapon on them. What does C do? Point their gun to avoid getting shot seems like a common scenario in the heat of the moment, adrenaline and all that.
It really doesn't seem to me that there's anything even close to some sort of standard for minimum training to own a gun in the US (unlike in probably all other developed countries). So it will all depend on the will of the owner to train themselves. What could possibly go wrong?
Heck, isn't it similar to what happened with that Kyle guy?
You hear noise, and see someone(A) shoot another person(B) 50 meters away from you. You're a good person(C), you take out your personal gun and approach. A sees a new threat approaching with a weapon, prepares to defend themselves, and turns their gun towards C. C sees a gunman who just shot B, turn their weapon on them. What does C do? Point their gun to avoid getting shot seems like a common scenario in the heat of the moment, adrenaline and all that.
It really doesn't seem to me that there's anything even close to some sort of standard for minimum training to own a gun in the US (unlike in probably all other developed countries). So it will all depend on the will of the owner to train themselves. What could possibly go wrong?
Heck, isn't it similar to what happened with that Kyle guy?
> and see someone(A) shoot another person(B)
Noone that attacked Kyle saw Kyle shoot another person, they were going on hearsay.
When in doubt, hide. Unless you see someone pull out a gun and start spraying down innocent people, fucking hide. Don't chase people down. Really fucking simple.
Noone that attacked Kyle saw Kyle shoot another person, they were going on hearsay.
When in doubt, hide. Unless you see someone pull out a gun and start spraying down innocent people, fucking hide. Don't chase people down. Really fucking simple.
Context matters in self-defense situations.
Yep, and the context here is complex.
Couldn't Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz also claim self-defense?
Simply speaking hypothetically: Rosenbaum tried to disarm an armed a teenager. Huber tried to stop someone who already shot someone. Grosskreutz tried to hold someone at gunpoint who already shot two people.
Could it simply be that both sides saw the other as threat?
Couldn't Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz also claim self-defense?
Simply speaking hypothetically: Rosenbaum tried to disarm an armed a teenager. Huber tried to stop someone who already shot someone. Grosskreutz tried to hold someone at gunpoint who already shot two people.
Could it simply be that both sides saw the other as threat?
Rosembaum chased down and tried to disarm an armed teenager, being armed by itself is not a crime, it's an open carry state.
Huber chased down and attacked Rittenhouse who was running away to the police line. Huber was not at the initial altercation nor would he have been in the right even if he was.
Grosskreutz chased down and pointed a gun at Rittenhouse after previously holding his hands up and Rittenhouse lowered his gun beforehand.
Pro tip: you can't claim self defense if you are chasing someone as your life isn't in immediate danger.
You can't chase down someone on others behalf and claim self defense.
Now if Kyle ran at one of these individuals the story would be different, but they ran after him.
Huber chased down and attacked Rittenhouse who was running away to the police line. Huber was not at the initial altercation nor would he have been in the right even if he was.
Grosskreutz chased down and pointed a gun at Rittenhouse after previously holding his hands up and Rittenhouse lowered his gun beforehand.
Pro tip: you can't claim self defense if you are chasing someone as your life isn't in immediate danger.
You can't chase down someone on others behalf and claim self defense.
Now if Kyle ran at one of these individuals the story would be different, but they ran after him.
Exactly. All of those shot, were not fleeing Rittenhouse. It would be different if the GSW's entered their backs and whatnot, but that's not the case. Clear cut self-defense in this case.
So if I shoot someone and you chase me to stopp me and prevent more victims I'm allowed to shoot you in self-defense?
Don't forget this happenend in the moment, all you know is someone was shot dead by him. In hindsight with lots of time it's easy to say you would have act differently.
Don't forget this happenend in the moment, all you know is someone was shot dead by him. In hindsight with lots of time it's easy to say you would have act differently.
I wouldn't go chasing somebody with a rifle in the first place. Leave that to law enforcement.
The mob didn't try to stop him, they tried to kill him.
> Rosembaum chased down and tried to disarm an armed teenager, being armed by itself is not a crime, it's an open carry state.
How do you know Rosenbaum didn't feal threatened?
You can claim self-defense if the life of others is in danger. Self-defense includes third parties.
If a someone chases and shoots a school shooter to prevent more victims he can claim self-defense.
You can claim self-defense if the life of others is in danger. Self-defense includes third parties.
If a someone chases and shoots a school shooter to prevent more victims he can claim self-defense.
Because he was the source of danger. The test is really simple here (in many cases it isn't, but this is not one of them). To know whether person A is justified in defending himself, ask yourself - if A would do nothing (except maybe run away), would they be in danger? If Grosskreutz did nothing or run away, he'd be in no danger. Rittenhouse was running away, and if he didn't shoot he'd likely be either in a hospital or dead. Maybe shot by the same Grosskreutz - pointing a gun at a person is rarely for just showing him what a cool new gun you have.
No. Whatever the state of mind of both parties, Grosskreutz and Huber were responsible for engaging Rittenhouse in combat (in the second encounter). Even if the initial encounter were the fault of Rittenhouse (I don't believe that it was), he was running toward police in a non-threatening manner. You aren't allowed to attack a fleeing person, much less one clearly attempting to turn himself in, which is what Huber and Grosskreutz did. When you do so, you are responsible for the encounter and can't claim self-defense. The only scenario in which they could is if they then attempted to flee and Rittenhouse continued the attack, which didn't happen (and in which case all parties would be guilty).
Maybe, he'd certainly have a claim to it. Probably a harder one to defend since he chose to pursue instead of retreat and that Kyle chose not to fire despite having the opportunity to do so until after Grosskreutz had pointed his weapon at him. This all being on video.
Do you think the DA would have pursued charges against Grosskreutz for first degree murder?
Do you think the DA would have pursued charges against Grosskreutz for first degree murder?
He’ll walk for the self defense, but he still showed up to a protest with an illegally-acquired weapon. This was also following him shooting two other people at the protest. It’s not like Rittenhouse is innocent.
Those people attacked him prior. His weapon was not illegally acquired.
@jachee: You don't have to "transfer" a gun to carry it across state lines, only when you first buy it through the FFL.
@croes: being armed by itself is not a threat, if you point a gun at someone you are the aggressor and that person can defend themselves.
just because you "see" someone with a gun doesn't mean you can shoot them, if they aim it at you that's another story. the first aggressor matters.
@happytoexplain: no you would be wrong to try to restrain the man who is simply armed. if that state had a open carry law you would be in the wrong trying to confront him if he was not pointing it at you or others. there are plenty examples of both sides openly carrying at protests.
@jachee: You don't have to "transfer" a gun to carry it across state lines, only when you first buy it through the FFL.
@croes: being armed by itself is not a threat, if you point a gun at someone you are the aggressor and that person can defend themselves.
just because you "see" someone with a gun doesn't mean you can shoot them, if they aim it at you that's another story. the first aggressor matters.
@happytoexplain: no you would be wrong to try to restrain the man who is simply armed. if that state had a open carry law you would be in the wrong trying to confront him if he was not pointing it at you or others. there are plenty examples of both sides openly carrying at protests.
The man who sold him the gun was charged for selling it.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-revea...
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-revea...
First, Black didn't sell the gun to Rittenhouse. He bought it with Rittenhouse's money and allowed Rittenhouse to use it.
Second, Black has been charged but not convicted, and I don't think the charge will stick: the argument is that while this was technically legal according to the letter of the law, the law in question was written with only underage hunters in mind, and should not apply in this case. Since the law itself makes no such distinctions, I don't see this as anything more than an empty gesture. Maybe I'm wrong.
Second, Black has been charged but not convicted, and I don't think the charge will stick: the argument is that while this was technically legal according to the letter of the law, the law in question was written with only underage hunters in mind, and should not apply in this case. Since the law itself makes no such distinctions, I don't see this as anything more than an empty gesture. Maybe I'm wrong.
It wasn’t legally acquired in or transferred to the state in which it was fired.
I am not quite sure what you are referring to for the transfer. You only have to transfer a fire arm if you are selling it across state lines. In that case you basically ship it to an FFL dealer in that state and the person who is buying it goes and picks it up from that FFL. Usually the buyer will direct you to the FFL of their choice.
If you buy a firearm in your home state and then take it to another state you don't have to transfer or register it.
If you buy a firearm in your home state and then take it to another state you don't have to transfer or register it.
What would you do if you see a man with a M&P15?
If two sides are armed each side sees the other as a threat. So both can claim self defense and both are wrong.
If two sides are armed each side sees the other as a threat. So both can claim self defense and both are wrong.
Rittenhouse doesn't face any charges for illegally acquiring the weapon.
He does face a possession charge, but according to NBC, that charge, "possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18", is only a misdemeanor.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kyle-rittenhouse-s-...
He does face a possession charge, but according to NBC, that charge, "possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18", is only a misdemeanor.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kyle-rittenhouse-s-...
I'm frankly surprised that the misdemeanor charge isn't being used to counter the self-defense argument. From Wisconsin state law:
> A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
> In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
> The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/4...
Maybe it was justified in the case where Rosenbaum chased down the kid, but certainly not in the other two cases. Either way, I'm skeptical that there was "adequate notice".
> A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
> In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
> The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/4...
Maybe it was justified in the case where Rosenbaum chased down the kid, but certainly not in the other two cases. Either way, I'm skeptical that there was "adequate notice".
Open carrying isn't "conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack". If you see someone simply walking down the street with a rifle in Wisconsin, you can't just whip out your own gun and start blasting. Even if they turn out to be a felon or underage, the conduct itself isn't a provocation, and generally it's perfectly legal.
Open carrying with a gun strapped to your back or at your side is a very different situation than carrying the gun in your hands, ready to fire, especially if you've just fired it.
I agree that people probably wouldn't jump on a dude walking down the street with a holstered pistol at his hip, but if that guy had said pistol out, they might try to defuse an active shooter situation.
I agree that people probably wouldn't jump on a dude walking down the street with a holstered pistol at his hip, but if that guy had said pistol out, they might try to defuse an active shooter situation.
From what I saw, Rittenhouse was using a pretty standard open carry configuration, with the rifle held in front of him, pointed down, and secured with a sling. Generally that is safer than slinging it across your back, because you are better able to control the muzzle direction and maintain control of the firearm if someone tries to grab it, like the video and physical evidence shows Rosenbaum doing.
I get your point about the situation after shots had been fired though, and that's where it starts getting sort of weird from a self-defense perspective. It's entirely possible that both Rittenhouse and his latter assailants could successfully claim self-defense. In the case of Rittenhouse, it would be because his previous actions were lawful self-defense, and then he was attacked again, with an imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. For Grosskreutz and Huber, they could argue that they thought Rittenhouse was an imminent danger to the people nearby. That would be a tougher sell I think though, given how Rittenhouse was retreating towards the police line, and neither of them actually witnessed the first incident.
I get your point about the situation after shots had been fired though, and that's where it starts getting sort of weird from a self-defense perspective. It's entirely possible that both Rittenhouse and his latter assailants could successfully claim self-defense. In the case of Rittenhouse, it would be because his previous actions were lawful self-defense, and then he was attacked again, with an imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. For Grosskreutz and Huber, they could argue that they thought Rittenhouse was an imminent danger to the people nearby. That would be a tougher sell I think though, given how Rittenhouse was retreating towards the police line, and neither of them actually witnessed the first incident.
See my link below. He acquired the weapon from someone else because he couldn’t buy it himself. The seller was charged.
I assume Facebook is blocking searches for the name to prevent people from sending angry messages to random men with the same name as Kyle Rittenhouse.
At this point, I think everybody here knows someone who shares the same name with a criminal and has been mistreated for it. What Facebook is doing isn't ideal, but I don't think they are acting in malice.
At this point, I think everybody here knows someone who shares the same name with a criminal and has been mistreated for it. What Facebook is doing isn't ideal, but I don't think they are acting in malice.
> At this point, I think everybody here knows someone who shares the same name with a criminal and has been mistreated for it.
If I'm not mistaken, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is ongoing and he hasn't been convicted of any crime at this time.
Also, if Facebook really wants to be the best dystopian force it can be, perhaps instead of censoring searches for "Kyle Rittenhouse", it should just ban users who are so stupid that they send angry messages to any user with the name "Kyle Rittenhouse".
If I'm not mistaken, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is ongoing and he hasn't been convicted of any crime at this time.
Also, if Facebook really wants to be the best dystopian force it can be, perhaps instead of censoring searches for "Kyle Rittenhouse", it should just ban users who are so stupid that they send angry messages to any user with the name "Kyle Rittenhouse".
You place too much faith in Facebook acting sensibly. It turns out that most of the tech giants censor a lot of words for very little reason.
Try typing 'nazi' or 'hitler' anywhere in Facebook. It is flagged and will get zero results. Would hate to be a WW2 enthusiast.... oh wait I am one.
But 'stalin' or 'mao' is fine.
The solution for big tech to stop something is just to force zero results where there may be thousands. They love controlling thought.
Try typing 'nazi' or 'hitler' anywhere in Facebook. It is flagged and will get zero results. Would hate to be a WW2 enthusiast.... oh wait I am one.
But 'stalin' or 'mao' is fine.
The solution for big tech to stop something is just to force zero results where there may be thousands. They love controlling thought.
Nah, don't think so. I don't know any other case of a name of an alleged criminal being blocked. I think it's because it is highly politicized case related to violence, and there would be some people praising what he did. So they just block it to be able to say "see, we fight promoting violence!"
If that's the case, why did they wait until now to block searching for him? What other controversial people have been blocked from search in the past?
They block trends that they don't like. Curiosity and/or vulgarity is outlawed on most big tech sites.
Neither of those things are outlawed, based on my (obviously anecdotal) experience of highly prominent people and posts on twitter and facebook over the past few years.
What is outlawed is anything that damages the narrative that the company (and by extension, generally, the ruling class) wants to push.
Very interesting curiosity, questions, facts are allowed and extremely common. So is horrible vulgarity, including bullying, lies, misinformation. When they are disallowed it is because they share the common property that they go against the narrative.
What is outlawed is anything that damages the narrative that the company (and by extension, generally, the ruling class) wants to push.
Very interesting curiosity, questions, facts are allowed and extremely common. So is horrible vulgarity, including bullying, lies, misinformation. When they are disallowed it is because they share the common property that they go against the narrative.
The narrative they don't want to push is curiosity though. They don't want you learning/viewing anything they didn't push for you to learn.
>So is horrible vulgarity
Nope. Not even remotely. Even things that aren't vulgar to 99% and only vulgar to the 1% are considered vulgar and are outlawed.
>So is horrible vulgarity
Nope. Not even remotely. Even things that aren't vulgar to 99% and only vulgar to the 1% are considered vulgar and are outlawed.
> The narrative they don't want to push is curiosity though. They don't want you learning/viewing anything they didn't push for you to learn.
Yes I suppose you are right really, they clearly discourage true open-minded curiosity. They allow a more mundane type of curiosity though, "Did <bad person> do a bad thing? Let's investigate..." totally allowed, for the correct values of bad person.
> Nope. Not even remotely. Even things that aren't vulgar to 99% and only vulgar to the 1% are considered vulgar and are outlawed.
Yes, entirely. I'm not sure what definition of vulgar you are working on, but they absolutely allow it when the target of it is a designated undesirable.
Yes I suppose you are right really, they clearly discourage true open-minded curiosity. They allow a more mundane type of curiosity though, "Did <bad person> do a bad thing? Let's investigate..." totally allowed, for the correct values of bad person.
> Nope. Not even remotely. Even things that aren't vulgar to 99% and only vulgar to the 1% are considered vulgar and are outlawed.
Yes, entirely. I'm not sure what definition of vulgar you are working on, but they absolutely allow it when the target of it is a designated undesirable.
Is it true that this is a recent change?
Do you really think that's the reason? Or do you hope it is?
Is that to block awareness around what came out in the news recently, where the prosecution's key witness basically made the case for Kyle acting in self-defense? I did see that news headlines were whitewashing what was said (https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/09/media-desperately-white...) but if this is some kind of information curation/narrative shaping from Facebook, then that's pretty dark. On the other hand, maybe this is to address abuse pointed at Kyle Rittenhouse or other people sharing that name?
Here's that part of the testimony: https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1457774701673996298
It's an open and shut case of self defense between that testimony and a timestamped walkthrough of the event. Yet the media is still trying to spin it. Though there is at least one journalist who admitted they made a mistake, which was great to see. Ana Kasparian of the Young Turks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRPsXhErQA8
It's an open and shut case of self defense between that testimony and a timestamped walkthrough of the event. Yet the media is still trying to spin it. Though there is at least one journalist who admitted they made a mistake, which was great to see. Ana Kasparian of the Young Turks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRPsXhErQA8
I don't trust The Federalist any more than Huffington Post to give unbiased coverage of this trial. Don't judge a case on the headlines you read, and especially don't cherrypick from overtly biased sources.
I'm not a regular reader of The Federalist but some of their articles can be good. This particular one lists out the different headlines other newspapers ran about the testimony from Gaige Grosskreutz, highlighting their bias. To me it seems like The Federalist made a good case for how those headlines misled readers, because they played up Gaige's fear for his life over the bombshell admittance that he pointed a gun at Kyle before being shot.
I have been watching the trial live, and The Federalist's perspective seems quite accurate. Just like with the Zimmerman case, people watching live are seeing the prosecution's case fall apart in real time, while most media outlets are presenting it as a fait accompli. I guess they'll get lots of clicks when the jury returns a "shock" not guilty verdict?
Taking a step back from this specific extremely charged topic. I really hate the control that these companies have on public discourse. Not even a week ago there were articles about how facebook was used as a propaganda tool for the Vietnamese government? We really need to come up with a framework for how these communications platforms should be expected to moderate content and hold them to it.
So governments should fine them if they don't block enough of the wrong opinions, and maybe also fine them if they block too many of the right opinions?
But what happens if the staffing level needed to implement this is so high, and the costs so great, that only the biggest platforms (with the most eyeballs) can afford it? Or what if even they can't afford it?
Either the government needs to ban online communications platforms altogether, or it needs to pay for its own moderators to implement its own censorship system, paid for out of general taxation. The government would find out at the next election how popular such policies are.
But what happens if the staffing level needed to implement this is so high, and the costs so great, that only the biggest platforms (with the most eyeballs) can afford it? Or what if even they can't afford it?
Either the government needs to ban online communications platforms altogether, or it needs to pay for its own moderators to implement its own censorship system, paid for out of general taxation. The government would find out at the next election how popular such policies are.
>So governments should fine them if they don't block enough of the wrong opinions, and maybe also fine them if they block too many of the right opinions?
I never suggested that, I'm just pointing out that the status quo is terrible.
I never suggested that, I'm just pointing out that the status quo is terrible.
I think the status quo was far better when everything was left up, yes even propaganda (you are still subject to that too anyway). The new approach to ban anything controversial is ridiculously bad. Not a facebook user, but I would like that for the platforms I visit. Tiktok hides ugly people, Facebook hides ugly opinions. There is an argument that the former is less worse.
Not being in the US I hadn’t heard of him.
Some context:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59216106
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53934109
Some context:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59216106
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53934109
Thank you!
As a non American, the most wild part of that article to me is that a protestor who was volunteering as a medic was carrying a gun. Does that not strike anyone else as insane?
As a non American, the most wild part of that article to me is that a protestor who was volunteering as a medic was carrying a gun. Does that not strike anyone else as insane?
A comment by an ex-facebooker with a few suggested workarounds for this sort of block:
"... the the situation presents an educational opportunity to explore simple means to bypass to such mechanisms; ... reverse search terms, add extra search terms, mis-spell names so that the system “helpfully” fixes your typo for you after the block would have been applied in the pipeline."
https://alecmuffett.com/article/15333
"... the the situation presents an educational opportunity to explore simple means to bypass to such mechanisms; ... reverse search terms, add extra search terms, mis-spell names so that the system “helpfully” fixes your typo for you after the block would have been applied in the pipeline."
https://alecmuffett.com/article/15333
What is this post being flagged? Can some please look at this possibly unflag it?
I think you need to reach out to dang for that.
That URL says "This page isn't available" for me with any query, perhaps only because
I'm not logged in. For example:
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=News
Does that search (for "News") work for anyone?
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=News
Does that search (for "News") work for anyone?
I also get the same "This page isn't available" page for all queries. I think it could be because we are not logged in. The Verge also reported this: https://archive.ph/rBSUH
It would be nice if all social media companies made your profile unlisted by default, with the option of turning it on if you really want to be found.
That would be nice indeed. But such a social network would have weaker network effects, and would probably be overtaken by a larger network that had growth-oriented defaults. This is the kind of tragedy of the commons that could probably be fixed through legislation or regulation -- I don't think a privacy focused social network could take on Facebook or Twitter in this day and age.
That has been happening since the event I think. At least I noticed it back then. Funny thing is if you look up "Kyle Rittenhose" instead (or any other typo), FB would helpfully auto-correct to the right thing and show the results. They clearly didn't spend much time thinking about it.
Can confirm it's not returning anything for me in the US
There are a lot of conspiracy theorists here already (for good reason). Claiming that there is a pattern of censorship isn’t going to fly unless there’s somewhere that these blocked strings are recorded, however.
Is there some page that tracks these censored strings? Just the strings and nothing else. A far-right blog that spritzes in articles about Obama being a Muslim isn’t accessible enough to raise awareness of this censorship to the general public.
Is there some page that tracks these censored strings? Just the strings and nothing else. A far-right blog that spritzes in articles about Obama being a Muslim isn’t accessible enough to raise awareness of this censorship to the general public.
I don't have a Facebook account, but it might be possible adult-oriented searches are prohibited. Certainly at one time Instagram was blacklisting hash tags that had large amounts of adult-oriented content.
idk why people had such strong feelings with so little evidence.
it's difficult because when people make up their minds too fast people don't want to be wrong and it becomes difficult, I guess.
it's difficult because when people make up their minds too fast people don't want to be wrong and it becomes difficult, I guess.
Of all cases to lament the lack of evidence for, why this one? We have video from multiple angles covering the entire event, dozens of witnesses, forensic evidence. Lack of evidence isn't the reason this case is polarizing.
I’m talking about when the story first broke out, not now.
We had all these videos when it first broke.
Pretty much the week of we had 3 different angles of every altercation.
Also, Rittenhouse's lawyer released a breakdown of the different angles more than a year ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4dhPM99i4I
All of this was suppressed until now for emotional outrage.
Pretty much the week of we had 3 different angles of every altercation.
Also, Rittenhouse's lawyer released a breakdown of the different angles more than a year ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4dhPM99i4I
All of this was suppressed until now for emotional outrage.
People pretty reasonably have strong feelings about the situation, and those feelings continue to be reasonable regardless of legal consequences. Legality, as always, does not imply morality - that's a critical concept that's frequently ignored in favor of scoring political points. For an example from another context: The fact that it is legal for private companies to censor users arbitrarily does not excuse them from criticism.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The Covington Catholic incident is calling....
[deleted]
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=bacon
the above link returns a 404 but I don't think Facebook is censoring bacon. I am afraid that this is not what it looks like.
Edit: It's 404 only if you are not signed in, otherwise it does return results. I don't have an account so I couldn't check.
the above link returns a 404 but I don't think Facebook is censoring bacon. I am afraid that this is not what it looks like.
Edit: It's 404 only if you are not signed in, otherwise it does return results. I don't have an account so I couldn't check.
I get tons of bacon. Including people named Bacon Bacon (I am sure it's a totally real name) and groups named BACON BACON BACON. For people form whom mere "Bacon Lovers" is just not enough, I presume.
Apparently it only does that if you have a FB account and you're signed in, I don't have an account so I can't verify.
[deleted]
Wow i saw this thread drop from the top 2 on page one to the bottom of the page. In less then a minute. Wonder why???
Users flagged it. It set off the flamewar detector. A moderator downweighted it. I don't know in which order.
All of that is not just standard on HN, it's routine enough to be in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
p.s. Since your account has been primarily posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait, I've banned it. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
All of that is not just standard on HN, it's routine enough to be in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
p.s. Since your account has been primarily posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait, I've banned it. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If folks were having curious conversation, and not just kneejerk partisan drivel, the story would stay up. When a large proportion of comments are flagged and downvoted, the story tanks, and gets rightfully flagged as flamebait.
For example, this article is about corporate censorship, one might like to discuss that here. Instead, most comments appear to be about the case itself. The internet has plenty of room for armchair juries to bicker over how they'd rule on the case without seeing all of the evidence. HN isn't losing much here.
For example, this article is about corporate censorship, one might like to discuss that here. Instead, most comments appear to be about the case itself. The internet has plenty of room for armchair juries to bicker over how they'd rule on the case without seeing all of the evidence. HN isn't losing much here.
When the votes/comments ratio is low, the default ranking assumes a flame war and downranks. I think moderators can override it.
I don't mean this in a snarky way, but my read is that this isn't exactly an interesting discussion. These kind of angry but shallow topics seem to get downweighted fast. On one hand, it does sort of sensor important information. On the other, it keeps the site more civil overall, and probably contributes to the overall better level of discourse, even if it means its sometimes hard to discuss some of the things you want to
h2odragon(2)
Based on the brigading and bad faith arguing in this thread alone, I don't blame FB for doing whatever they can to make it a less toxic place, however ham-handedly they do it.
The year is 2021. For much less noble reasons, the world must conclude about centralized social networks and software companies: "No one company should have that much power."