Facebook is blocking searches for “Kyle Rittenhouse”
facebook.com
facebook.com
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."
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.
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.
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.
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 :(
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.
After Rittenhouse had already shot two people, right?
Lucky for us, we got to see the videos and witnesses testify about those instances.
A concrete and sad example: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
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.
He didn't go looking for the active shooter or chase after him.
You're conflating two separate events with different contexts.
That fits every definition of “active shooter” I’ve ever seen.
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 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.
No it's not: The United States Department of Homeland Security defines an active shooter as "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims."[0]
Even if it was, I'm glad that definition excludes the events that transpired when Rittenhouse was attacked.
>Self-defense comes into play at charging time and in the courtroom, as it is now.
Self-defense came into play when he defended himself against assailants.
>The cops role during the shooting incident is to stop the shooting and detain whoever's doing it.
Non sequitur.
>Until they do, it's an active shooter incident.
That is not what an active shooter scenario is.
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?
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?
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...
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.
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.
Don't forget you don't know all the circumstamces in the moment, all you know is two people are dead.
Yes, you do.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Do you think the DA would have pursued charges against Grosskreutz for first degree murder?
@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.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-revea...
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.
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 two sides are armed each side sees the other as a threat. So both can claim self defense and both are wrong.
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-...
> 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".
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 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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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
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.
I never suggested that, I'm just pointing out that the status quo is terrible.
Some context:
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?
"... 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://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=News
Does that search (for "News") work for anyone?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
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.