The rioting (distinct from the protests) in cities have resulted in a dozen or more dead. Can they be traced back to social media organizing as well? Should all comms that can potentially end up with death and destruction of property be censored?
Whataboutism. And a terrible effort. There has been no confirmed violence traced back to left-wing groups. Criminality has mostly been opportunistic by local criminal gangs, spontaneous personal conflict or organized by law enforcement against civilians and journalists. Only right-wing groups are organizing terrorism. And the comparison is pointless. We should decry this behavior whenever we see it.
OP was asking if riots were organized on social media as if that was some counter argument to why we should not permit the kind of organized violence from the BuzzFeed story. This struck me as an attempt to weaken the argument that we should be upset about right-wing terrorism on social media. It has also been widely asserted by the president (among others) that left-wing groups are the bigger terror threat. OP didn't say it but I'm reading between the lines.
Short answer is that it is all still irrelevant. Any attempt to organize violent confrontations on social media should be subject to removal. Incitement is explicitly excluded from first amendment protection. Planned rioting should absolutely be shut down as well but there's been no reports of that. Banning any organizing that could possibly lead to violence is definitely not the same thing.
You know this guy is just another one of the far left extremists hanging out on HN. Look at his history. This site is plagued with self avowed left wing extremists.
Yes; there's a listing [0] of violence committed during the protests since they started earlier in the year.
I think that the police will continue killing people until they are disbanded or restructured. History tells us that police in Chicago and NYC, for example, can be and have been the primary source of corruption and organized crime. Edit: Chicago's police ran a torture ring for years [2]; NYPD has earned a dedicated page for all of their corruption scandals and the most egregious misconduct [3].
Facebook isn't doing enough to curb police using social media to organize. I don't think that we're asking for censorship, so much as we're asking Facebook to stop implicitly supporting violence and hate. Compare and contrast the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, where Facebook admitted [1], after half a decade of implicitly backing the genocide, that they had been too slow to respond to the problem.
Edit: Downvoters, what are you exactly upset about? In addition to actually answering the parent's question and providing a listing of instances, I'm directly addressing their concerns and preserving the context of the original article. Please use your words.
Parent comment and you could maybe bring some evidence. Right now, however, the vast majority of killings are being committed by police, with some additional killings by right-wing "militia" protestors, like those talked about in the original article. I'm substituting nothing; I'm bringing the thread back on-topic after parent tried to whatabout and ignore the origin article.
The media spin going on regarding Kenosha is crazy. If I hadn't seen the videos of what happened, I would have assumed it was a white supremacist shooting peaceful protesters, not someone who was being attacked and only shot when he couldn't get away.
The first person was killed because he threw a plastic bag.
"The complaint claims that cell phone video showed Rosenbaum, who appeared to be unarmed, trailing behind Rittenhouse before throwing a plastic bag at him. As the pair approached a car, a loud bang is heard, followed by an unidentified male yelling an obscenity. When Rosenbaum gets close to Rittenhouse, another four bangs are heard."
The widely circulated video is of people trying to disarm.him after he killed the first person.
This is the prosecutors claim. This is the same prosecutor that decided to push for murder 1 which is a ridiculous over charge. Unless the prosecutor has written evidence from Kyle claiming he went to the protest either directly to kill people or aggro people into attacking him so he could kill them the charge won't stand.
For balance here is Kyle's lawyers statement on the incident where he claims one of his pursuers lunged at him to try and take his rifle and that was the reason for the first shooting:
> As Kyle proceeded towards the second mechanic’s shop, he was accosted by multiple rioters who recognized that he had been attempting to protect a business the mob wanted to destroy. This outraged the rioters and created a mob now determined to hurt Kyle. They began chasing him down. Kyle attempted to get away, but he could not do so quickly enough. Upon the sound of a gunshot behind him, Kyle turned and was immediately faced with an attacker lunging towards him and reaching for his rifle. He reacted instantaneously and justifiably with his weapon to protect himself, firing and striking the attacker.
I think it was MSNBC and a panel was discussing Kenosha and one of them matter-of-factly called the person in question "white supremacist" without any supporting evidence. There is no journalism --it's just narrative.
Obviously there is a lot we don't know and the case may reveal more facts we are unaware of.
This is not how to look at this if you want to find a way to solve our society’s ills. The gunman was the instigator because he travelled to riots and not to protect anyone he knows or his own property. He brought an assault rifle and walked the streets. Why would anyone not looking for trouble do that? That’s vigilantism. The police are there to deal with it. Not untrained teenagers. Remember, the second amendment is because we want a “well regulated” militia not randos with guns. When you do what this person did, you make it inevitable that gun violence will be the result. That’s why self defense laws do not protect you if you unnecessarily created the situation that led to you having to defend yourself.
The problem with police violence is an extension of this. Police training is directed at control and overwhelming force. Even when there is an alternative path to de-escalate. When you are being attacked, even if you just committed a crime and the attacker is a police officer, your instinct is to fight back. The result is continued escalation until someone is dead.
But are there clear rules of what kind of "help" you can and cannot provide? None of the individuals harmed while attacking the gunman needed to intervene either - and I'm sceptical they all had first-hand knowledge of the 1st shooting versus hearing the allegations of the crowd/mob.
Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Shoulan_v._Peng_Yu - same ethic of "if it wasn't his property, he must have been looking for trouble"; If that's the case every out-of-town protest/rioter is also an instigator.
Truth is, we don't know what preceded Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse, and until we do, we don't know who threw the first punch.
> The police are there to deal with it
last I heard the US police have no duty to protect. Until this is changed, people will be in no hurry to surrender the right to bear arms.
Not in any way. That is a debate over Good Samaritans helping vs not getting involved. This is about vigilantes showing up with assault rifles when the police are already there.
The kid was chased by multiple felony offenders, one with a gun, and was attacked and knocked to the ground by another with a skateboard. The video evidence clearly shows he acted in self defense
He was 17, so regardless of his actions, he's still a kid. And he wasn't just walking around, he was defending business and property. Earlier in the day he was cleaning graffiti off of buildings in Kenosha
How things change. I think that just 10 or 15 years ago a person risking their own safety to protect someone's else building from being set on fire and burned to the ground would be considered a hero.
I'm not saying that he's innocent. It's just crazy how "That was not his business or property" makes a valid point today.
Apparently his attorney is saying he did not carry a weapon across state lines but rather a friend there let him borrow theirs. If that was a registered weapon, that will come out in the trial.
Completely irrelevant to this post. He was part of an organized effort to escalate tension and create conditions for violence. Even if he was assaulted, walking through that crowd with a loaded rifle acting like a tough guy is equivalent to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. He absolutely should not have been there.
... after he already had killed a protestor. After realizing what he did, instead of calling for help or staying to justify his actions, he ran away and shot two more people in the process.
Then the police let him walk away.
Please contrast this with the same police shooting an unarmed black man seven times in the back at close range while getting into his car. Imagine if he had 2’ long rifle on him too.
I don’t relish political discussion in this forum, and I’m sorry to dang et all if I’m furthering that. It just feels like the world is on fire and it’s hard to bite your tongue when ostensibly reasonable people fundamentally disagree with things covered on video.
First, calling them protestors is dishonest. At that point it had devolved into a violent riot. He ran away because an armed man was chasing him, and another with a skateboard. Also, he was taken into custody, not allowed to walk away. The three men who attacked Kyle were all convicted criminals as well. https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelCoudrey/status/12988734361...
The black man was not unarmed, he had a knife in his hand and a gun in his car. The police fired when he reached into the car. He already had the knife in his hand and told the police he was going to grab the other
I believe you have multiple factual errors here; in particular, Rittenhouse shot and killed a person first, then tried to run away and killed 1 more person.
Also, Jacob Blake did not have a gun. It's stil unclear whether he was holding a knife or sunglasses.
stay to face the angry mob of anonymous individuals (wearing face-covering hoods and masks)?
Consider that RH was not running from the police, but from a mob of people shouting "Get him!" and shooting pistols. You think he still must be guilty if he chose to run from that?
Almost everyone has seen all the videos by now. Only retards are still repeating the treasonous MSM narrative. FB probably should snuff this stuff out but not for why some people may think.
I think the reason why it wasn't removed is probably because it wasn't clear it violated facebook policy. I guess after the fact because of media pressure facebook has decided that it did.
I'm sorry but some guy going with his gun to a protest for no reason is as bad or probably worst than rioters and looters. I don't understand how some people can blame looters but defend this guy. Don't mix things together. He literally killed some humans. Are you out of your mind or your biases blinded you so badly that you can't judge anymore and you don't see anything?
They should investigate and see how a "17" years old is so brain washed to take a gun and go there. I hate rioters and looters, but I can't imagine how can I convince myself to go there with a gun. That isn't normal.
39 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 96.2 ms ] threadHe might not have directly interacted with it - doesn't mean he didn't see it? Shared by a friend?
Or are their analytics so detailed that they can guarantee he never saw it?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/david-dorns-widow-speaks-a...
He was one of the earliest victims of the looters. He was black and also a former cop.
Short answer is that it is all still irrelevant. Any attempt to organize violent confrontations on social media should be subject to removal. Incitement is explicitly excluded from first amendment protection. Planned rioting should absolutely be shut down as well but there's been no reports of that. Banning any organizing that could possibly lead to violence is definitely not the same thing.
Not exactly, no he was not.
I think that the police will continue killing people until they are disbanded or restructured. History tells us that police in Chicago and NYC, for example, can be and have been the primary source of corruption and organized crime. Edit: Chicago's police ran a torture ring for years [2]; NYPD has earned a dedicated page for all of their corruption scandals and the most egregious misconduct [3].
Facebook isn't doing enough to curb police using social media to organize. I don't think that we're asking for censorship, so much as we're asking Facebook to stop implicitly supporting violence and hate. Compare and contrast the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, where Facebook admitted [1], after half a decade of implicitly backing the genocide, that they had been too slow to respond to the problem.
Edit: Downvoters, what are you exactly upset about? In addition to actually answering the parent's question and providing a listing of instances, I'm directly addressing their concerns and preserving the context of the original article. Please use your words.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incide...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide#Facebook's_r...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Departmen...
"The complaint claims that cell phone video showed Rosenbaum, who appeared to be unarmed, trailing behind Rittenhouse before throwing a plastic bag at him. As the pair approached a car, a loud bang is heard, followed by an unidentified male yelling an obscenity. When Rosenbaum gets close to Rittenhouse, another four bangs are heard."
The widely circulated video is of people trying to disarm.him after he killed the first person.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooti...
For balance here is Kyle's lawyers statement on the incident where he claims one of his pursuers lunged at him to try and take his rifle and that was the reason for the first shooting:
https://wkow.com/2020/08/28/attorneys-say-accused-kenosha-sh...
> As Kyle proceeded towards the second mechanic’s shop, he was accosted by multiple rioters who recognized that he had been attempting to protect a business the mob wanted to destroy. This outraged the rioters and created a mob now determined to hurt Kyle. They began chasing him down. Kyle attempted to get away, but he could not do so quickly enough. Upon the sound of a gunshot behind him, Kyle turned and was immediately faced with an attacker lunging towards him and reaching for his rifle. He reacted instantaneously and justifiably with his weapon to protect himself, firing and striking the attacker.
Note that this is after the bag was thrown - the person who threw it continued to chase the shooter and was within contact distance.
Apologies for the domain. This is a heavily politicized event, and YouTube seems to be taking down the videos.
According to lawyer statement[0] he turned after hearing a gunshot behind him, and then shot as the first person lunged at him.
I see no evidence the mob of people chasing him were trying to "disarm" him, in fact the third person shot was pretty clearly trying to shoot him.
[0]: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kyle-rittenhouses-lawy...
Obviously there is a lot we don't know and the case may reveal more facts we are unaware of.
The problem with police violence is an extension of this. Police training is directed at control and overwhelming force. Even when there is an alternative path to de-escalate. When you are being attacked, even if you just committed a crime and the attacker is a police officer, your instinct is to fight back. The result is continued escalation until someone is dead.
Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Shoulan_v._Peng_Yu - same ethic of "if it wasn't his property, he must have been looking for trouble"; If that's the case every out-of-town protest/rioter is also an instigator.
Truth is, we don't know what preceded Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse, and until we do, we don't know who threw the first punch.
> The police are there to deal with it
last I heard the US police have no duty to protect. Until this is changed, people will be in no hurry to surrender the right to bear arms.
Not in any way. That is a debate over Good Samaritans helping vs not getting involved. This is about vigilantes showing up with assault rifles when the police are already there.
That was not his business or property. He was a vigilante.
I'm not saying that he's innocent. It's just crazy how "That was not his business or property" makes a valid point today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnI4dIvWXNA
Then the police let him walk away.
Please contrast this with the same police shooting an unarmed black man seven times in the back at close range while getting into his car. Imagine if he had 2’ long rifle on him too.
I don’t relish political discussion in this forum, and I’m sorry to dang et all if I’m furthering that. It just feels like the world is on fire and it’s hard to bite your tongue when ostensibly reasonable people fundamentally disagree with things covered on video.
The black man was not unarmed, he had a knife in his hand and a gun in his car. The police fired when he reached into the car. He already had the knife in his hand and told the police he was going to grab the other
Also, Jacob Blake did not have a gun. It's stil unclear whether he was holding a knife or sunglasses.
stay to face the angry mob of anonymous individuals (wearing face-covering hoods and masks)?
Consider that RH was not running from the police, but from a mob of people shouting "Get him!" and shooting pistols. You think he still must be guilty if he chose to run from that?
There is a cached url available at: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AaKHZ...
It looks like in the event itself there was no direct call for violence unless the event description has been lost with the caching.
The title just said: "Armed Citizens to Protect our Lives and Property" and it was hosted by "Konosha Guard".
Don't outsource a core competency. Facebook has reached a point where moderation is at least as important as engineering.
They should investigate and see how a "17" years old is so brain washed to take a gun and go there. I hate rioters and looters, but I can't imagine how can I convince myself to go there with a gun. That isn't normal.