What about deplatforming BLM, which seems to be the major driver for this unrest and criminal activity? As can be seen clearly in the video, the 17 year old was running away and defending himself against multiple attackers, some of whom were themselves armed.
BLM isn't the driver for unrest. On-going (For decades) criminal behaviour by police forces is the driver for unrest.
People don't go out to protest, to get shot by less-lethal bullets, to get gassed, to have flashbangs thrown at them because they are bored. They do it because they are tired and angry, and because their cause is just.
This is blatantly wrong propaganda. The number of police murders of all races over the last 40 years doesn't sum up to the number of black on black murders committed in just one year.
Most crime in the US is committed by 6% of the population, black males. More cops are killed by black men per year then they kill but no one cries for them even when the cop is black, the hypocrisy and stupidity of BLM is staggering.
Personally, I think "X people are Y characteristic" is racist whether X is Black, White, Asian, Jewish, American Indian or anything else, and whether Y is good or bad. The definition should be symmetric.
> "white people suck" is a cut and dried racist comment, regardless of context.
With something that seemed like "no, I don't think 'white people suck' is racist". Bashing white supremacists is great! But bashing an entire race isn't.
Apology to HN for the troll comment. I don't know how to respond to people who intentionally distort my words.
Misreading is one thing, but flat out telling me that their misinterpretation of my intentions trumps mine is unacceptable.
Agreed they turn a blind eye to the real problem and blame others. BLM has killed more innocent people then all police combined this year, which is sad as the entire premise of their platform is that police are brutalizing the black communities. When there were all of 9 shootings last year, oppsies looks like they upped the number to 14 recently, of which only one was unarmed and not a known and wanted criminal. Yet over 6000 black on black murders occur every year. The stupidity of it all is nearly overwhelming.
The media inverts everything, it's how they make money right now and it's awful. CNN anchors are literally one Baghdad Bob after another. The most hilarious memes right now are those with "mostly peaceful" protests where behind the anchor huge fires are raging.
When I hear people say "mostly peaceful" when referring to the protests and "a few bad apples" when referring to police I like to remind them of the fact that the peaceful majority are irrelevant when there are radicals in their ranks.
The difference between the two groups is that one is organized, and its leadership has an obligation to control the behaviour of its members.
There's no chief-of-a-protest who can take administrative action against some anonymous drunk idiot throwing a brick into a window. There is, however, a chief-of-police who can theoretically do the same about the, ah, bad apples.
Practically, the various chiefs of police seem to be doing everything they can to protect those bad apples from the consequences of their behaviour.
Also, between civilians and police, the police should know better. We give them guns and a mandate to uphold the law, and pay them lots of money to do so. But instead of zero tolerance for criminal behaviour in their ranks, it's all coverups, collusion, the thin blue line, punishing whistleblowers, and lobbying for legislature that grants them them immunity to the consequences.
Are you talking about the armed teenager who drove 12 miles across state lines and put his armed self in a dangerous situation willingly? Not sure you get to call it self-defense at that time
He's not living on scene defending his property. A lot of places in the US privilege that scenario for self-defence when otherwise your actions would be prosecuted. If you take a rifle and drive to a trouble spot you could be construed as looking for trouble.
He was, however, defending his workplace. Supposedly he worked at one of the car dealerships in the area. (and then left to try to provide medical assistance and was unable to regroup with his group at that dealership)
The US is infamous for police not policing the communities they live in. “A crowd” and “the police” say nothing about whether either belong to the local community.
Also if the police are celebrating illegal acts that should tell you something about the state of justice.
Id argue that defining community as where you live isnt the only way community can be used. Community could also be the place you work, the place you protect, the place you participate, the place you consume in, the place you interact with. Property, ownership, are only some of what make someone a community member.
Yes you can have your own local definition I suspect you will face an uphill battle for it to be accepted though. I suppose that means the protestors could be called the community too and since they outnumber both the militia types and the police they are the majority?
Ultimately it’s the transitory nature of the participation that marks it out as not part of the community. For example a landlord might not be considered part of the community despite owning property.
I don't see a suburb as inconsistent with my previous reply. A suburb, by definition, is going to be economically dependent on its metro. That interlinking blurs the definition of community.
I don't think it's black and white whether you can say his communitiee were or weren't a part of the larger communities.
Where is the evidence that he illegally transported a gun over state lines? He was legally in possession of a rifle in WI. I'm not sure of the law in Illinois but we don't know if he was in possession of the weapon in Illinois or if someone transferred possession to him when he reached WI where it is legal for him to possess.
I am not sure either, but it actually diminishes the significance of the drive in my eyes, as 12 miles doesn't seem very far. I would assume that 'across state lines' was more than '12 miles'.
There was a protest/riot (depending on who you ask) that night. 12mi is probably below the median travel distance of all people from all sides who partook and everyone who partook was also putting themselves in a dangerous situation willingly. Nobody there should have that held against them.
His actions prior to getting chased by and shooting the first guy are what I have serious questions about.
Do I still get to call it rape if the victim was dressed provocatively though?
You can disagree with his motivation all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that he was being attacked while retreating, and there's a reasonable case to be made for his life being in danger (taking hits to the head while on the ground).
Why does a 17 year old have an illegal fire arm? Do criminals who have shot someone get to use self defense as an excuse for shooting more people that are trying to stop them?
Firearms are not illegal in Wisconsin. It is open carry. As for Rittenhouse being underage, there are exceptions for guns and rifles for 16 and 17 year olds.
Someone answered your first question. I'll answer your second.
In many US-states, if a convicted felon (barred from owning a gun) uses a gun in self-defense (say defending against an intruder) they can still be charged with illegal possession. In fact, even more stringent, say their spouse used the gun, and the felon had access to it, they can be charged with what's called constructive possession of a firearm.
I'd like to see some evidence that BLM is the major driver for any criminal activities or "unrest." Instead it seems to be the continued extrajudicial killings and woundings of American citizens that always seems to proceed these protests and the frankly appalling reaction of American law enforcement to some criticism and democratic attempts to reform what is supposed to be a constructive and positive institution in American society.
This most recent incident in Kenosha was not "extrajudicial". The man had a knife and a fireman and was not complying with the officers. And in either case, that is not a situation that justifies burning buildings and destroying properties. Anarchy is not a solution to any problem.
The knife was in his car and they found it afterwords, it wasn't on him at the time.
Not complying with officers should not mean a death sentence. This isn't Judge Dread. Other countries besides the US manage to not regularly murder black people- in fact most countries don't have anywhere near the level of police murder that the US has.
What a pretentious comment. I'm not in favour of deplatforming either BLM or QAnon, even though I do agree with the GP in this case. Maybe you should consider the fact that other people have valid opinions, just because you don't think they're correct.
If you think that BLM is starting the riots, then you are not aware of the Boogaloo 2 movement. These "militias" want to start a race war and they are the ones fanning the flames of violence.
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?
>"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.
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.
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).
> “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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
117 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 169 ms ] threadPeople don't go out to protest, to get shot by less-lethal bullets, to get gassed, to have flashbangs thrown at them because they are bored. They do it because they are tired and angry, and because their cause is just.
Most crime in the US is committed by 6% of the population, black males. More cops are killed by black men per year then they kill but no one cries for them even when the cop is black, the hypocrisy and stupidity of BLM is staggering.
I was called a racist on HN because I said "white people suck" in the context of White Nationalism.
If one doesn't think that systemic racism is real or a problem, then that individual is either ignorant or racist.
I don't think so, and your opinion doesn't change things.
That is the context and the intent, so if you're interpreting it as hate for all white people then you're sadly mistaken.
> "white people suck" is a cut and dried racist comment, regardless of context.
With something that seemed like "no, I don't think 'white people suck' is racist". Bashing white supremacists is great! But bashing an entire race isn't.
Just look back at the lesson of history. https://youtu.be/YnOF7y-KuHE?t=127
There's no chief-of-a-protest who can take administrative action against some anonymous drunk idiot throwing a brick into a window. There is, however, a chief-of-police who can theoretically do the same about the, ah, bad apples.
Practically, the various chiefs of police seem to be doing everything they can to protect those bad apples from the consequences of their behaviour.
Also, between civilians and police, the police should know better. We give them guns and a mandate to uphold the law, and pay them lots of money to do so. But instead of zero tolerance for criminal behaviour in their ranks, it's all coverups, collusion, the thin blue line, punishing whistleblowers, and lobbying for legislature that grants them them immunity to the consequences.
The police were thanking him for being out there, for his support, and giving out water bottles. (Top video in the article, skip about a minute in)
1:40 something in. Police: "Are you Protecting that building" Crowd: "yes" Police: "Thank you."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/26/jacob-blake...
Also if the police are celebrating illegal acts that should tell you something about the state of justice.
Ultimately it’s the transitory nature of the participation that marks it out as not part of the community. For example a landlord might not be considered part of the community despite owning property.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Antioch,+Illinois+60002/Keno...
I don't think it's black and white whether you can say his communitiee were or weren't a part of the larger communities.
In regards to the "state lines" ... it's funny when people actually care about "borders".
There is also no evidence (in his immediate past) or leading up to the events proving he's guilty of premeditated malicious intent.
His actions prior to getting chased by and shooting the first guy are what I have serious questions about.
You can disagree with his motivation all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that he was being attacked while retreating, and there's a reasonable case to be made for his life being in danger (taking hits to the head while on the ground).
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wiscons...
In many US-states, if a convicted felon (barred from owning a gun) uses a gun in self-defense (say defending against an intruder) they can still be charged with illegal possession. In fact, even more stringent, say their spouse used the gun, and the felon had access to it, they can be charged with what's called constructive possession of a firearm.
Not complying with officers should not mean a death sentence. This isn't Judge Dread. Other countries besides the US manage to not regularly murder black people- in fact most countries don't have anywhere near the level of police murder that the US has.
You mean the knife was in the car he was trying to get into at the time he was shot?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-sci...
Case in point: https://www.startribune.com/police-umbrella-man-was-a-white-...
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?"
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 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.
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.
But primarily commercial reasons related to having a completely different distribution model.
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).
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.
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.
These words are so overused these days in headlines.
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.
Sorry, these sort of headlines remind me of WWE wrestling ads.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, get one of those famous players like Roger Federer. Or maybe the whole Detroit Redskins team.
You might as well say solving conflict in the middle-east is as simple as turning every government there into a functioning liberal democracy.
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.
https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-cle...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de... [2] 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/
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?
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.
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.
And I don’t think it’s an enemy of my enemy thing. I think these groups genuinely think Trump supports them.
This is from the following twitter thread by a NYTimes reporter: https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
[0] https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...
> (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.