Still broken for "kyle rittenhouse" however.

Like, say, a bunch of people searching for a single person's name, finding people named that, and harassing them.

Well there is; you don't put takedowns in the hands of an algorithm. Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law.

Why?

Notice that this is different than what you promote. Search results are sorted by an algorithm; that's unavoidable and excessively simple algorithms like "alphabetical order" are useless. And then it's a hard problem, to which the best solution is probably multiple independent search engines with different algorithms.

But removing the thing whatsoever? Court order or GTFO.

Why should this be the standard by which YouTube can remove videos? Why shouldn't they be legally allowed to remove content via algorithms even if it creates a bad user experience?

Could you explain what you mean by "public space"?

> vital part of the public discourse

I don't agree. In my view, YouTube is one of the lowest forms of public discourse, its fundamental purpose is to generate ad revenue and the nature of the content hosted there reflects this pernicious incentive. Yes, YouTube does have some great things on it, but it's just one tiny facet of "the public discourse".

> Court-like processes are the appropriate standard for decisions about the use of something that affects so many people.

Can you quantify "affects" and "so many people"? YouTube is mostly an entertainment triviality, even (especially) in the realm of politics, I don't see how videos being removed from the site is important.

You could say the same for all media. Television is advertising-driven, radio is advertising-driven, even the most respectable of literary magazines is advertising-driven. Most content is pandering to someone or other.

> Can you quantify "affects" and "so many people"? YouTube is mostly an entertainment triviality, even (especially) in the realm of politics

Again, you could (and many would) say the same for television or what have you. It would still be corrosive to society if a single entity controlled the majority of television, or the majority of radio, or... - and that's much the situation that YouTube is in.

I don't necessarily disagree, but what's your point?

> It would still be corrosive to society if a single entity controlled the majority of television, or the majority of radio, or... - and that's much the situation that YouTube is in.

This is already the case. Additionally, I don't think you've demonstrated that YouTube's video moderation policy is "corrosive to society"

Removing obscene, explicit, and even illegal content is only practical at YouTube's scale using algorithms, the idea that they should just abandon algorithmic removal of videos entirely is not a realistic suggestion.

>Why?

So that the Rekieta folks can live stream it, of course!

Therein lies the problem.

Or, without having to put on a tinfoil hat, it's been trained to remove content that discusses shooting and killing people?

Or even more benignly, a lot of people reported the stream because users also have a vested interest in abusing censorship systems for political purposes, and it's not always easy to separate that kind of collective bad actorship from legitimate reports.

You don't have to attack the legitimacy of someone's position like this. Sure, it is possible that the reasons for it are what you're saying, but this personal dismissive attack is unwarranted, and frankly at this point tired and ineffective.

Or do they just have a dark sense of humor or something?

>So most people aren't feeling much sympathy for the fact that he died.

The GP said they were laughing and celebrating it, that's quite different from 'aren't feeling much sympathy for someone dying'.

And robust self-defense laws for when someone poses an immediate threat and there's not enough time to go to law enforcement to help.

>The GP said they were laughing and celebrating it, that's quite different from 'aren't feeling much sympathy for someone dying'.

It's called "understatement." To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while they are in the process of trying to assault and/or kill someone (which the evidence clearly shows) is in fact something to be celebrated. The world is a better place for his absence from it.

> To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while they are in the process of trying to assault and/or kill someone (which the evidence clearly shows) is in fact something to be celebrated. The world is a better place for his absence from it.

It might also be the result of provocation by someone open carrying around an assault rifle in public, after traveling from out of state in order to specifically do that.

Open carrying is not provocation, otherwise open carrying itself would be inherently illegal, nor sure what your reasoning is there.

Edit: Also, what the hell does him crossing state lines have to do with anything? He lives like 5 minutes from the Wisconsin border and lives closer to Kenosha than his three assailants

You mean victims.

With all the witnesses, video recordings, FBI heat imaging video, etc. what makes you suspect the jury is not getting the full picture? If Kyle is convicted on all charges, will you protest the conviction because of this?

That charge was dropped because Kyle was not carrying a short-barreled rifle.

However, ADA Binger did take Kyle's rifle, pointed it at the jury without checking it (saying his assistant had), and had his finger on the trigger while doing so.

Thankfully he didn't go full Baldwin, because there was no clip and no round in the chamber and the judge made them check it afterwards, but you can watch the stream if you want to see how it went down.

There's a disputed drone video footage where some think they see Kyle raising his gun in his left hand, but if you look at the video, the pixels they're pointing at exist before Kyle even reaches that point, meaning it can't be a gun. It may be a mirror or some other part of the car.

This is a major dispute because the prosecution gave the defense a low-quality, strange resolution rip of the video while having a higher-quality version for themselves. They admitted that "our version is better" in open court, before backing off to claim it's "just playing weird."

Kraus, who said he would have a much better job if he knew this encoding stuff, was seen with Handbrake installed on his laptop. The program was installed shortly after Kyle plead guilty according to the dates on the file.

It was perfectly legal for Rittenhouse to carry rifle at the time. The weapon charge has been dropped.

First off, there's no such thing as an "assault" rifle, there's just a "rifle". Stop using idiotic terms made up morons who don't know shit about weapons.

Second, provoking someone who's openly carrying a firearm... yeah, that sounds like a good idea.

As far as what an assault rifle is, it's basically a rifle capable of burst fire or automatic fire (it's a bit more complicated than that but that's the basic idea). Rittenhouse's AR (and virtually all civilian owned firearms for that matter) are not capable of burst or automatic fire and are not assault rifles.

This is only half-true. The difference between a pistol and a rifle is whether it has a stock. The difference between a normal rifle and a short-barreled rifle is whether the barrel is 16" or not.

I'm not saying it makes more sense, but that is the classification the ATF uses. Never put a stock on any weapon with less than a 16" barrel, unless you're really, really, really sure you fall under some kind of exemption (i.e. that might not apply to black powder weapons).

Most hunting rifles for e.g. deer rifles fire larger caliber rounds than the rifle in question in the case. Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but "big" does not necessarily mean "more deadly", nor does "big" actually apply to this rifle.

The ATF makes these rules, and currently (my understanding, haven't looked in a while to see if anything changed with the new administration) an AR pistol is something that's less than 26" overall with a barrel of less than 16". There's also rules about how you can't put an actual buttstock on it (but you can put a "brace" ... the definition of which can be confusing). Anything shorter than that and does have an actual stuck is an SBR (short-barrel rifle) and you need an ATF tax stamp for that.

The "messaging"??

The only thing wrong with the "messaging" was that every single citizen of Kenosha didn't show up with AR-15s to ensure all of the out-of-towners weren't able to burn down anything, or try to assault anyone.

If you can spend time to riot, you can spend time filling out resumes for a job. I don't have time to fucking riot... I'm too busy working. These people should have been too. You wanna make the world better for people? Tell them to stop committing sexual assault and stealing people's SUVs. If Jacob Blake hadn't been doing those things, he wouldn't have had a warrant out for his arrest, he wouldn't have been shot for trying to go for his knife, Kenosha wouldn't have had rioting, Joseph Kiddiediddler and Dumbshit Skaterboi would still be alive, the prosecution's star witness would still have his bicep, and Kyle Rittenhouse wouldn't be in this mess.

Amazing how two people had to die, and two others had their lives ruined, and we had hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage, all because a black man in Kenosha thinks he doesn't have to obey the law, only to find out very dramatically that he will in fact obey the law.

It's almost like obeying society's law results in a harmonious society!

Yeah, exactly. ""Assault"" rifles are defined entirely by your emotional response to seeing it. It's a concept invented by the media.

You don't have to answer that, you can if you want, but I just felt the need to point out how ridiculous this "provocation" point actually is.

The difference is

Yes, exactly my point. It's cosmetically scary and calling it an assault rifle makes the minds of many of those hearing it jump to a fear-based response. When in reality an AR-15 is no more or less deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle in the same caliber. Slapping black plastic on a gun may make it look "scarier" to the uninformed, but it doesn't change the threat that Kyle did or did not pose by being there armed.

Walking through the streets of a riot (I won't say "brandishing" but...) carrying what LOOKS to be a big scary gun is sending a very strong message to other people around him. A lot of people equate that gun with "active shooter" and "paramilitary."

You may not appreciate it, but there is a substantial difference, not just practically but legally. If you're ignorant of that difference, that's fine. Everybody is mistaken or ignorant some of the time. We're all human after all. But if you know the difference and choose to use the wrong terminology anyway, then you are being deliberately deceptive. Either way, it warrants a correction.

It was the first example of the Assault Rifle weapon type with the defining characteristics being an intermediate cartridge (between pistol round and rifle round) that allows controllable automatic fire at engagement ranges further than submachine guns.

Most AR15s cannot be considered 'Assault Rifles' as although they are chambered in an intermediate cartridge, they are for the most part semi-automatic and not capable of automatic fire.

Note that 'Assault Rifle' does not seem to be a ATF defined term, they always use the term Machine Gun for automatic weapons. The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word

Every game I've played where it is relevant uses the "Assault Rifle" term, and way more young people are familiar with game definitions than anything else. Here is roughly how weapons are defined in games:

Submachine gun - Automatic pistol with large clip.

Rifle - Single shot long barrel higher calibre weapon

Battle Rifle - Burst fire rifle with large clip

Assault Rifle - Automatic fire rifle with large clip

Machine gun - Belt fed automatic fire rifle

Edit: Nothing legal about the above, of course, just noting what the general population would associate with each term. And you can understand why people would be worried about automatic fire high calibre weapons. They aren't useful for anything other than to kill lots of people.

And afaik the usual distinction for a battle rifle is that it's larger caliber (e.g. as many cold-war standard-issue rifles were)

I understand the point you were making. I do have to ask people, if there's any difference between the Mossberg 464 lever action and the Mossberg 464 ZMB rifle - I mean purely from how scary it is, or whatever.

Words have meaning and details matter, especially when discussing legalities. It absolutely is always a false claim.

To a lot of people, any big Navy ship that is not an aircraft carrier is "a battleship". To a lot of people, anybody banging away on a keyboard from the command line = "hacking". That doesn't make either claim true. Specificity and clarity are important. To mutually work through a problem set we need commonly-understood definitions, and the lexicon thankfully isn't limited to the simplistic understanding of the uninformed masses.

Source?

>Where was the outrage then?

You seemed to have been pretty outraged.

The title says independent live stream while this thread makes it clear it's right wingers.

The prosecution has beyond ridiculous arguments time and again over the last 2 weeks. The lawyers all started out really civil, and some of the violations (especially the 5th amendment one that even got the Judge angry) began to make then exasperated.

Combine that with the general silence of the defense, and by now they are all pretty angry at how much of a mess this is.

A lot of ridiculous arguments were brought up by the jury about Rosenbaum, to the point that internal jokes have started emerging surrounding the death of Rosenbaum. Most serve to ridicule the prosecution, rather than Rosenbaum himself.

Lastly, They you are in profession where every time you're in court, some has died. You develop a cruel sense of humor to cope. Very common for victims of abuse or military to have similar coping mechanisms. It seems bizarre from a civilian's POV, but that's just our privilege.

They have paid settlements and plead guilty for causing harm through their sting attempts and disinformation multiple times.

Anyone taking Veritas seriously is not looking at their history, which makes it very clear that anything they release is untrustworthy at best. They are very clearly far-right political operatives, and in no way a neutral entity.

I saw that they pled guilty to trespassing but have otherwise won all their completed defamation cases.

Do you have a source/list of which cases they pled guilty to "misinformation" or similar?

> In March 2013, O'Keefe settled the case with Vera, paying Vera $100,000.

He tried to entrap someone for human smuggling. The guy immediately reported it to the police, but O'Keefe released edited footage anyway.

> The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O'Keefe and Giles. Each of the ACORN employees recorded in California was a low level employee whose job was to help the needy individuals who walked in the door seeking assistance. Giles and O'Keefe lied to engender compassion, but then edited their statements from the released videos.

O'Keefe pictured himself in stereotypical "pimp" clothes in the released footage, while actually wearing normal clothes at the time. The whole thing was clearly an attempt to extract something as damaging as possible and dress it up as an actual problem, regardless of the truth.

Even if you agree with their politics, you'd be a fool to assume anyone willing to spin what they produce like that is going to produce "neutral" videos a third party can trust as a source when they have intentionally edited them misleadingly multiple times.

> Vera filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against O'Keefe and Giles for recording him without his permission, which was a violation of California law.

While recording that conversation appeared to be illegal, that is neither "for causing harm through their sting attempts and disinformation" and definitely not "multiple times".

I'm all for calling out bad actors but at least call them out for what they've done vs what you imagined.

And yet you spread misinformation in this very comment. Bravo.

It'd be interesting to have a poll of the people defending YouTube back when they started taking a political stance and see if they think that a line has been crossed somewhere between there and here, or if this is still the sort of behaviour they expect from YouTube.

It seems that YouTube has taken a firm stance against being a knowledge repository a la Wikipedia or Google Search.

Although I do want to protest politics by Tweet. There is nothing here to really discuss; we don't know why, or even if, YouTube is suppressing commentary of the Rittenhouse trial or what Rekieta thinks about it. Tweets are too shallow.

In reality, there has never been much tolerance for free speech. This has been the norm for all of human history. It has also been the norm that people with non-controversial thoughts have believed they had freedom of speech. It’s only once you finally happen to have a thought that isn’t tolerable by those in power that you realize there was never any freedom from the beginning. Is that sad? It’s an increase in awareness. The world is not a happy place.

Freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom to spout anything without repercussion. Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance).

I'd like to believe we have more freedom of speech nowadays than 100 years ago when society was more hierarchical. However... every fart you make gets recorded and if zoomed in on, it gets reprimanded to the point where a cardinal Richelieu would be able to get the subject hanging.

With regards of multi-culture and tolerance: certain behaviour is not accepted, and if ghat does not get assimilated the main culture become more racist to the subculture. Subcultures are free to maintain a part of their identity, its how certsin customs got into other society after war etc.

Popper said we should tolerate the intolerant as far as possible. His statement mostly related to when the intolerant starts to get physical or other real actions, not people just talking, he wouldn't agree with this modern interpretation of his words: "don't let intolerant people speak, shut them up!". He was very much in favor of conversations, so a platform where tolerant and intolerant people can meet and discuss is exactly what he would have wanted.

It’s interesting that you’re regurgitating this fairly standard talking point in response to my comment even though it refutes a point my comment never made. It’s as if you grepped the term “freedom of speech” in my comment and that mechanically triggered this cookie cutter response. As long as you’re not thinking critically about the content you are reading, you’ll never have an original thought that actually may be intolerable to those in power.

That isn't even a senseless wish when people of all ages use the internet, but that is a parenting issue and not solvable by censorship.

Yeah, remember this one? "The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." How far we have come...

Such horrible people maintain a doublespeak even in their own mind.

We’ve lost. We’ve lost.

I also find myself disagreeing with my father's politics often. I do compartmentalize it into a judgment of his political views, not my view on him as a person.

It’s sad, I’m sad, he’s sad, but he keeps doing it, and doesn’t want to discuss it.

To answer your question, I have often changed my mind in my life. Precisely because I’ve always engaged with opponents, had animated debates, and sometimes encompassed their point of view. I don’t understand how one can stay stuck on a demonstrably false information, and be so mean about it that you wouldn’t want it undemonstrated. But I feel like 10-20% of the Gen Z generation has the same problem dealing with their parents consuming fake news.

I don't think we lost, I think some people have cognative bias and feminism has been hijacked in recent years by "Social Marxists" and mutated the original cause. When a person build's their cognition on a false premise a dysfunctional cognitive bias is formed. The individual will need to grow out of it themself, but it's hard to do because it requires breaking a bit of ones ego and facing ones shadow.

If you want to talk more hit me up, links in profile.

Again, they're either naive or that's what they want and should be honest about it.

This is one reason why I think P2P tech like peertube will not only be around longer but even thrive.

Given the lack of such metadata on the streams which typically have protected content, the system taking these down probably just looks at similarity of content to streams which are proprietary and silences them "to be safe".

I can't tell you how many times they mocked one of the prosecutors for their weight. I actually do think this is a clear case of self-defense, but if you have to make fun of someone for their weight then you prob don't have a very good point.

For an example from this specific case, compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head, to the coverage of his testimony by CNN, et. al.

The mainstream media lies, constantly and blatantly, not by minor omissions or bad research, but by gross, egregious violations of truth that can only be explained by extreme malice and contempt for their viewers.

I've more or less read that fact on NYT though.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige...

> “So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi, a defense lawyer, asked.

> “Correct,” Mr. Grosskreutz answered.

> “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun — now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” Mr. Chirafisi said.

> “Correct,” he said.

“Gaige Grosskreutz says he feared for his life before Kyle Rittenhouse shot him during Kenosha unrest”

“Gaige Grosskreutz says he feared for his life, pointed gun at Kyle Rittenhouse before getting shot”

>> I've more or less read that fact on NYT though.

>> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige...

> Would be interesting to see the percentage people who only saw the first headline: https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/202...

What does a Washington Post headline have to do with a New York Times article?

Huh? What does archiving have to do with anything? What seems to have happened is someone is confusing the Washington Post for the New York Times in a way that leaves a misleading impression in this thread. It's like if you're talking about your software engineer friend Denny, and someone responds with a criticism of some software engineer named Eric like he's talking about the same person.

The general point is that there are plenty of subtle ways to present/disseminate new that allows bias to seep through.

In this example the WP reported it in the least effective way possible - as an edit to an existing article that most people would never revisit. Even then, they choose to keep the first half of that head line - as opposed to at the forefront presenting a piece of update that will have actual material impact on the case, which to an unbiased/oppositely-biased publication would be a separate headline. Instead, it’s more important that you know Grosskreutz “feared for his life”, which is even more subtly manipulative.

Edit: Just to harp on this point of how ridiculous Grosskreutz fearing for his life is as a headline by that point: his friend, who posed for a photo with him together in the hospital, had posted an deleted on facebook a post stating that Grosskreutz had said that his only regret was not emptying his mag into Rittenhouse. And the fact that there has always been video of the incident showing Grosskreutz approaching a downed Rittenhouse and drawing his handgun as he was shot - even before his corroborating admission. And their headline emphasizes that Grosskreutz had feared for his life without mentioning any of the evidence contrary to this narrative.

I bring this up to support the argument in the parent comment to the one I responded to, this example betrays a blatant and willful intent to misrepresent the facts on the part of at least this one member of the mainstream media.

I suppose you can, but your comment needed a better transition to make it clear what you were doing. The original comment brought CNN's coverage of a topic (in an unverifiable way) to make a general claim that "mainstream media lies, constantly and blatantly." Someone responded that the NYT article is a counterexample to that claim, and you quoted that link but started randomly talking about a Washington Post headline without even mentioning the publication's name, which made it seem like you were talking about the NYT's headline.

> In this example the WP reported it in the least effective way possible - as an edit to an existing article that most people would never revisit.

What else would you have them do? I see this kind of criticism often, but when I actually think about what would satisfy the critic vs. the other users of the product, it seems like a situation where one users wants the product tailored to their unusual wants in a way that would degrade user experience for the bulk of other users or would require an investment that would be hard to justify, e.g.:

1. Headlining errata on the front page: that would be annoying and take space away from what 99.999% of users are actually looking for (today's news as of now).

2. Featuring errata prominently in the actual article: again, it's annoying because 99.999% of users want to read today's news as of now, not errata.

3. Article version control accessible to the users: relatively expensive, and 99.999% of users don't care and would never use it. Even if they have some internal version, my guess there's all kinds of unpublishable or unpolished stuff in the history that they're now going to have to edit for publication.

4. Issuing corrected articles, keeping the erroneous ones online: now you have different links flying around for more-or-less the same stuff, but the most popular ones are likely the early ones with errors. Even if you put a link to the correction, most people want to read the best version, and the links aren't taking them there.

5. Etc.

> I bring this up to support the argument in the parent comment to the one I responded to, this example betrays a blatant and willful intent to misrepresent the facts on the part of at least this one member of the mainstream media.

That's obviously false, since the claim is incoherent when applied to your example. If it were true, why would they have bothered to correct the headline? If they had a "blatant and willful intent to misrepresent the facts" wouldn't they have kept the initial headline because it "misrepresented the facts"? In reality, the corrected the headline, which is evidence that they don't indent to "misrepresent the facts."

The video was public well before Grosskreutz admitted to drawing his weapon at Rittenhouse as he approached him, the Facebook post after the incident was known about. They should’ve informed their audience of these facts more so than they were informed of Grosskreutz’s fear of his life, however the latter was the most broadly disseminated piece of info by being a headline item. “Video shows Kenosha shooting victim drawing gun as he was shot” was not a headline, “Kenosha shooting victim testifies” was not the headline and would’ve been a less blatantly biased choice.

It’s very simple. A WP reader is more likely to find out from being their audience that Grosskreutz feared for his life than the other facts that I’ve mention that are much more interesting and critical to the case, and it’s by design

> and you quoted that link but started randomly talking about a Washington Post headline without even mentioning the publication's name

I did not quote the NYT link. The name of the WP is in the url that I posted. Sorry I didn’t make clear the context

> That's obviously false, since the claim is incoherent when applied to your example. If it were true, why would they have bothered to correct the headline?

It would’ve been worse had they been completely silent of that part of the testimony, I agree. It would’ve been harder for me to verify though, that a publication mentioned it not even once, so I choose this example to save time. But no, your response completely missed my main point, they don’t have to not update it, dissemination of a certain piece of information in terms of its reach can be diminished without it reaching zero. Statements can be used push a false narrative without being outright untrue. There are more tactful ways to mislead than simply lying, obviously. Edit: To answer your question, to enable the defense that you’ve just made

> It’s very simple. A WP reader is more likely to find out from being their audience that Grosskreutz feared for his life than the other facts that I’ve mention that are much more interesting and critical to the case, and it’s by design.

I'm obviously not following this story as closely as you. However, I think the issue here may be that you wished you read a different story than the Washington Post was actually writing. What it looks like they were writing was an account of this Grosskreutz's testimony, and his accounting of his mental state at the time may have been the most newsworthy part of that. It seems like you want something more like a Wikipedia article offering a definitive account of the event based all known sources (e.g. "the video", "the Facebook post"), which is not what the article you linked actually was. If I want a hammer, but have a screwdriver, it's not the screwdriver's fault for not being a hammer.

Furthermore, you're almost exclusively focused on a headline, which can never tell the full story. Usually there are multiple legitimate possibilities for a headline, and there's no perfect one that will satisfy everyone.

>> That's obviously false, since the claim is incoherent when applied to your example. If it were true, why would they have bothered to correct the headline?

> But no, your response completely missed my main point, they don’t have to not update it, dissemination of a certain piece of information in terms of its reach can be diminished without it reaching zero. Statements can be used push a false narrative without being outright untrue. There are more tactful ways to mislead than simply lying, obviously. Edit: To answer your question, to enable the defense that you’ve just made

That's getting into paranoid conspiracy territory. It's pretty unbelievable that the Washington Post would be trying to mislead, but then fix it to "enable the defense that [I've] just made." The actual evidence here is pointing to a different theory that better fits the evidence than that one (i.e. the Washington Post headline writer is trying to get it right, but it's an iterative process).

Now, don't get me wrong. It's totally believable that they have good intentions to report the truth, but, being human, also have biases and other constraints that subvert those intentions to a degree (and may be particularly irksome to those with different biases), but it's going way too far to attribute malicious intent to them.

Keep that in mind while we're talking about omitting information to manipulate the narrative.

Fists can do just as much damage as a skateboard.

My normal desktop items could break skulls too, I'm pretty sure. And the pens, oof...

If you use an item in a manner that can reliably kill people then you use a deadly weapon even if it wasn't intended to be a deadly weapon. Is a pair of scissors a deadly weapon? Yes. Is a heavy hard blunt object (like a statue) a deadly weapon? Yes.

It's not productive to argue about definitions, even if they don't make sense to me. My intent wasn't a semantics argument.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just offering my observations of precedent.

> “Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

I would say a skateboard, wielded as a weapon, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Getting hit in the head with a skateboard even once seems likely to cause a concussion or maybe even internal bleeding.

You probably do have a good number of items that could be classified as deadly weapons on your desk, depending on how they were used.

Aluminum bats don’t weigh much either but I’m not going to go out of my way to have my head in the path of one.

This conversation is getting ridiculous.

A skateboard held in your hand can't use much of the mass of your arm to help, it's mostly impacting with its own weight. Your hand can impact with a lot more weight behind it even though the swing radius won't be as big.

How many people, if you asked "Do you have any weapons in your backyard?", would say "Yes, several rocks."

This isn't about possession but about a confrontation. A person with a rock wont get caught by police and taken to court over owning a weapon. But a person swinging the rock around and charging at people will get charged for attacking people with a deadly weapon. And in this situation the question is "Was it reasonable to fear for your life?", then the second definition is used.

And I'll point out that the original post I responded to was saying that they were armed. To me that implies the object needs to be a weapon in a vacuum.

As a general rule, I think that the legal experts know more about this than you do.

But sometimes things get interpreted in ways that really stretch the meanings of words. I think anyone that has looked at legal history can agree with that.

And sometimes legal definitions are dumb, which isn't even a court thing.

Also even if it's correct inside its realm, if enough objects count as deadly weapons then "he had a deadly weapon" loses most of its impact and gets misleading. I'm reminded that technically a bare receiver is a gun...

If we were evaluating how valuable someone's opinion is on all this stuff, your opinion would be way down the list, compared to legal experts.

And if we compared a random ununiformed opinion, such as from you, and compared it to the opinions of the legal system, it is way more likely that you don't really know how any of this works, as opposed to the actual legal experts.

weapon, n: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

Does a skateboard have other innocent purposes, to which it is generally put to use? Of course — that’s generally why skateboards are brought to riots.

It provides plausible deniability during the times when you’re not using it to hit people in the head with a deadly weapon.

Why is this crazy to you? This is why someone can be charged for assault with a deadly weapon while trying to run someone over with their car.

Do you think that’s crazy just because cars are usually meant to be used for driving?

> This is why someone can be charged for assault with a deadly weapon while trying to run someone over with their car.

A car is at least in a medium category where it's not a generally safe object.

Remember that my original objection was saying someone was "armed". If we used the definition you gave to figure that out, I think almost everyone is armed. Or they transform from unarmed to armed when they smack someone??

If you used it as a weapon, it's a weapon. There aren't generally enhanced criminal charges for non-deadly weapons, however — that's usually just charged as assault.

> With 'serious', does that mean you're suggesting a different definition from the one you quoted?

No, I'm tying this question back to the actual law.

> Remember that my original objection was saying someone was "armed". If we used the definition you gave to figure that out, I think almost everyone is armed.

You're treating the law like it's some sort of extremely idiotic expert system that implodes anytime someone grabs their child's baseball bat with the intent of murdering someone — or actually does so.

Google "mens rea". You're not going to beat a charge with the argument of "It was a little league baseball bat!".

If this still isn't clear, maybe it'd help to see how Colorado defines a "deadly weapon":

> (I) A firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; or (II) A knife, bludgeon, or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.

If you can figure out how to use your ice cube as a deadly weapon, then congratulations, at the moment you picked up an ice cube with the intent to use it as a deadly weapon, you armed yourself with a deadly weapon.

> Or they transform from unarmed to armed when they smack someone??

They transform from unarmed to armed when they arm themselves with an object they intend to use as a weapon.

You know you could just google this stuff, right? This is very simple, well-established law.

That makes sense if they intended to use it as a weapon.

What if they didn't?

> This is very simple, well-established law.

Mens rea makes sense for certain crimes.

I would not say someone is 'armed' or 'not armed' based on intent.

> Google "mens rea". You're not going to beat a charge with the argument of "It was a little league baseball bat!".

> (II) A knife, bludgeon, or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.

A baseball bat at least is pretty dangerous when used as intended. So is a car. A skateboard isn't, and an ice cube isn't.

> You're treating the law like it's some sort of extremely idiotic expert system that implodes anytime someone grabs their child's baseball bat with the intent of murdering someone — or actually does so.

The legal system wouldn't implode if it was just 'assault'.

If you claim to not see the similarity between a skateboard and a baseball bat in terms of the potential for serious bodily harm, you're either lying to us to keep this tepid, boring argument on life-support, or just lying to yourself.

> The legal system wouldn't implode if it was just 'assault'.

You don't think assault with a deadly weapon is a more serious crime than simple assault?

So you'd charge and punish a shove identically to hitting someone with a skateboard?

Fascinating. I don't believe you.

It says "intended to be used" right there in the law.

> So you'd charge and punish a shove identically to hitting someone with a skateboard?

Would you charge a shove exactly the same as stomping on someone's face?

Same crime category doesn't mean same punishment. I would charge a big skateboard swing as worse than a shove, and I would also charge a solid punch as worse than a shove.

You're extrapolating from my posts in an extremely uncharitable way.

It also says "in the manner it is used or intended to be used".

> Would you charge a shove exactly the same as stomping on someone's face?

In Colorado, a simple shove would be third-degree assault, while stomping on someone's face would be first-degree assault.

> Same crime category doesn't mean same punishment. I would charge a big skateboard swing as worse than a shove, and I would also charge a solid punch as worse than a shove.

Guess what? Both a fist and a skateboard can be classified as assault with a deadly weapon!

> You're extrapolating from my posts in an extremely uncharitable way.

You don't need a law degree to wrap your head around any of this. Even the most basic googling would suffice, but you're clearly not even doing that. What you are doing is ignorantly pontificating about something you clearly know nothing about, while making not even a modicum effort to learn.

Yeah but I'm worried about the part before any misuse.

> Guess what? Both a fist and a skateboard can be classified as assault with a deadly weapon!

Cool, then saying someone was 'armed' is extremely meaningless.

Which is what I really cared about here. I commented specifically because I didn't like the description of 'armed'.

I don't care about what label is put on a criminal charge. That's why the things you want me to google aren't helpful to me.

‘Armed’ means they were carrying a weapon. That’s not meaningless. How have we come full circle here?

You’re welcome to disagree with the dictionary, the law, and the rest of the world, but there’s absolutely zero point in us debating your unique, novel, pedantic, and most likely disingenuous position further.

Pointing that out is not disingenuous!

And it's not disingenuous for me to earnestly use the definition of weapon I'm being told to use, right? Nobody seems to like my definition of weapon.

I swear I'm arguing in good faith.

A skateboard can certainly be a weapon but I believe this is conjecture.

If you go back to the 1999 Seattle WTO protests, you mostly see people using short, concealable weapons, such as wooden clubs.

At some point, the gear of choice evolved towards the plausibly deniable, including skateboards, umbrellas, etc.

2020 example:

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGunzShow/status/12668514068222...

https://skatenewswire.com/jesse-vieira-black-rock-security-g...

Are you telling me people are fooled to miss on the correct reporting? Or whats you train of thought?

It’s a clever example of what Mark Rosewater calls lenticular design. The low information crowd gets their emotional fix from the headlines and early text and quits there while the Times’ more thoughtful readers get the full picture. Given the paper’s financial success in the Internet age I think we can say they’ve found a good business model.

In medium font just below the headline.

If there's an active shooter the general thing to do is hide, not go after anyone that is carrying a weapon.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance that any verdict will be accepted as is, though. I know most of my acquaintances have already made up their minds, trial outcome be damned.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/16/rittenhous...

Just keep people divided? Get more viewers who are "outraged"?

Dystopic

It is insanely hard to present only facts and be truthful and impartial. It is quite easy to pick a narrative and stick to it, damn the facts.

MSM is funded by advertisers and big corporations. They’ll do what their money masters want them to - vilifying unions is a good example.

Look, I don’t know if Ivermectin is effective for Covid or not. From what I have heard it seems like looking into it with an unbiased lens may be worth it. I don’t care if it is effective or not so much as I don’t think news and corporate interest should drive the national opinion.

I’m not even that scared about the anti viral that Pfizer is pushing. HIV drugs have been around long enough to establish a safety profile and weigh the risk vs reward. I do think, that despite reports ivermectin has a pretty solid safety record. However safe HIV drugs are, the commercials for them list significant side effects. Again I hesitate to post this as someone thinks I’m pushing ivermectin as a legitimate therapy. I truly do not know…

To me the sequence of the story commercial and the counter story made me feel a bit queasy.

People did look into this with an unbiased lens (did dozens of medical studies, many still ongoing) and so far there is no good evidence that it has any beneficial effect whatsoever. On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses not intended for human consumption (there have been thousands of calls to poison control centers about Ivermectin in the past few months, and some have died).

From what I have seen everyone pushing Ivermectin is a grossly misinformed and non-credible amateur. Some of these snake-oil salespeople may have direct financial interest, while others just want to promote their own questionable agendas, e.g. trying to undermine/disparage some extremely effective vaccines.

This is a horrible example of something “worth looking into”.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

Treating covid with ivermectin does seem like a bad idea, but it also doesn't really seem that dangerous overall. I'm sure there are deaths out there from people overdosing on it but they seem like a really rare event.

[0] - https://forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/10/20/calls-about-ive...

[1] - https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/15400.pdf

[2] - https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...

Not really.

> On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses not intended for human consumption (there have been thousands of calls to poison control centers about Ivermectin in the past few months, and some have died).

You're falling for sensationalized propaganda. If you read the CDC advisory, there was only a five fold increase over the pre-pandemic baseline [1]. The pre-pandemic baseline for ivermectin poisoning is absurdly low.

> Some of these snake-oil salespeople may have direct financial interest

You mean like the financial interests of pharma companies who would prefer a treatment that wasn't off patent? If we're going to use financial incentives to infer credibility, pharma loses on this question hands down every time.

The truth is that the pharmacokinetics of ivermectin closely match Pfizer's new anti-COVID drug [2] (3CL protease inhibition).

[1] https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00449.asp

[2] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp0296...

It certainly could turn out to be nothing. But on the other hand, why not get a doctors prescription until a couple of high quality studies have decided the issue? As you point out, the only real problem seems to be people taking it in unsafe dosages or through unreliable channels like a vet.

[0] Which is broadly consistent with the studies I've seen over at https://ivmmeta.com/ - not sure by how much, but it does seem to assist.

There isn't strong evidence, and you can't just eyeball studies and assume you understand them with no training.

I have cystic fibrosis, and I have tried to do things like this before by looking at studies on unverified treatments. It doesn't work. You just end up with snake oil. I have a masters in biomedical engineering, and I couldn't do it.

Interpreting studies is hard. Interpreting meta analysis accurately is super hard. Tons of studies are fake, or have bias, or have poor methodology. That website is total bullshit and is just throwing all the studies in to their statistical soup and mixing them together to come up with nonsensical results.

"There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 billion."

Lol, wtf?

I'm no medical anything but I do have extensive academic and statistical training. There is enough in these studies for someone to take Ivermectin as an "eh, why not?" gambit. There is evidence it is helpful, although the evidence isn't conclusive (or even especially strong). Some doctors are already prescribing it, quite reasonably.

Maybe the solution to this is to allow OTC sales of human grade Ivermectin. The drug is one of the safest in the world. No reasonable reason to deny the drug if someone wants it.

This is not true at all. Ivermectin has some nasty neurological effects (vertigo, seizures, blindness) at high doses.

This has been going on for decades, this is nothing new. What is new is the medium and the cost. TV is still expensive even today, while internet is cheap, its reach is much larger and it has permanent memory.

This is why we should support smaller independent outlets like TYT. We may or may not like their style, but they don't rely on corporate sponsors and that deserves respect. I am also happy about independent newsletter publishers (on substack, for example) - these are a drop in the ocean, but still a start.

I can't name a single large publication (left, right, center, liberal, conservative... whatever) that I trust or respect :(

An independent news source should be primarily funded by either non-patisans for good will or by viewers. I'll take Stephen Crowder over TYT any day.

But either way, Stephen Crowder has much of an agenda to gain viewers as TYT - if your viewers support you, then more viewers is more support.

If your viewers don't support you money-wise, then those interests are more indirect, such as a desire for implicit campaigning by donars, like TYT, or for corporate funding, like NBC/Fox.

If your goal is news then getting as close to the primary source is as important as possible, and unfortunately YouTube is making this even more difficult today. If your goal is interpretation you need to listen to a wide variety of experts to form an informed opinion that you can actually defend.

Ultimately, every news outlet is beholden to someone and most have made editorial choices to more palatable to the demographic they have acquired over the years.

>I don’t care if it is effective or not so much as I don’t think news and corporate interest should drive the national opinion.

Even more frightening is that a lot of people who think that don't have the same opinion on things like these that are way worse than anything NBC News does:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o

They always focus and nitpick on media that's mostly following the science, and ignore the other side pushing drugs with unsound studies as some kind of magic drugs.

>From what I have heard it seems like looking into it with an unbiased lens may be worth it

And do you really think every country where covid isn't as politicized, like India, Brazil (both of who have extensive experience using ivermectin and HCQ for other users), China, UK, European countries, Canada etc. haven't looked at it with an unbiased lens?

Maybe listen to actual scientists with decades of drug development research experience instead of 'both siding' the conversation?

E.g https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/ivermectin-covid-1...

Ivermectin has failed to be seriously studied, while the patentable drug got a good study out of the gate. I wonder why.

Canada usually waits for fda approval and data before it approves most things.

UK, Brazil and India have right wing govts, do you really think they would suppress real cures and destroy their economy and popularity of their leaders and parties due to lockdowns, hospitalizations, and the dead filling up burial grounds. If HCQ or IVR actually worked, a leader would have mandated it and would have become hugely popular for saving their country from a pandemic that other countries are getting roiled by. Imagine how much more popular Boris or Modi would become, it would literally seal their next election win.

Or maybe IVR or HCQ aren't good drugs against covid and are hyped up for political reasons by some and then pushed by others who aren't capable of properly reading or understanding scientific studies.

This conspiracy only makes sense to people who cannot think broadly, skeptically and logically.

But you are here to disparage a company that has developed a novel antiviral treatment and has applied for the authorization.

CNN has a liberal audience. If they ran multiple headlines on this (whether automated or just articles written by different editors) I'm sure the one that paints Rittenhouse as without any justification will get more clicks. And therefore its more likely those writers will be promoted internally based on performance + those who are covering the story will continue to cover the story instead of moving to something else.

Look at a site like Reddit. It takes user submitted headlines for news stories. And depending on the subreddit the headliens will always skew one way politically without the need for money dictating things.

If your viewers demand malice and being malicious is the only way to keep your viewers, that doesn't mean you're not being malicious; it means you're being malicious for money.

Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by the criminal justice system.

While I think there is doubtlessly some truth to that, I think it misses the bigger picture which is: People weren't blank slates going into this story. Most people who care about the trial one way or the other already had opinions about subjects relating to the trial before they ever heard of this particular incident. People already had opinions about gun control, self defense, protesting, etc.

Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases.

We're finding out that this is a case of eating your seed corn.

If you give people two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true, they're going to prefer the one that flatters their ego. So the ego flattering is short-term profitable.

But eventually there is a story people are interested in enough to actually watch the trial, or read the source documents. Or someone else does that and points them right to the place where the media narrative disintegrates.

Then it's not two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true. The one the media outlet is giving them is demonstrably false. Which makes them more skeptical next time, and when they look, it's false again. And again.

The result is a loss of trust.

What happens then? Have a look at their ratings.

I do - more neutral, emotionally cooler headlines like this will get fewer clicks and therefore generate less ad revenue

Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? Would there have more or less danger to himself as a response worker free of weapons vs one with a huge weapon?

The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it.

It is going to sound like a very radical position, but burning a city to the ground does not sound like mere shoplifting to me.

That a kid may have said something stupid is a possibility, but you can throw a rock in this crowd and find examples of speech that is not exactly bolstering their cause. In fact, if you do end up going through court records, you will find defense quoting one of the 'victims' saying some of those stupid things. There are no good guys here.

BUT.

There is a clear case of self-defense. And that is all that matters. If I can't defend myself from a mob going at me, something is wrong with current society.

I have a friend here in LA whose business was smashed in during the riots last year (I learned about it when I saw a picture of him standing in front of his business in the LA Times). I felt so bad, and I was outraged! When I checked in with him, he just shrugged and was like, "eh, I have insurance." It took me a minute to understand. But, I mean, it's super complicated, because protests can easily be co-opted by kids who want to opportunistically rage/profit. And, as an All Gas No Brakes episode taught me, it's cathartic and feels like the only thing that some of them can do that has any impact.

You obviously, by your posts, don't know the facts of this case, so why are you weighing in the first place?

> Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment?

The situation was already dangerous - people were looting and setting shit on fire. Rittenhouse had already put out one of those fires. And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one? In fact, if the third guy had not brought a gun, he'd still have most of his bicep.

> one with a huge weapon

Stop calling it a "huge weapon". You sound ridiculous. It's a fucking AR-15. It's not a Howitzer.

> I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses.

I don't disagree with a level of neutrality (though it depends on the context - for example, the media has a tendency to go overly-neutral when describing "cars colliding with pedestrians"), but I was saying that further detail is valuable and attainable on-site. In this case, whether the shooter is, say, a business owner defending their business (such as the Korean shopowners perched on the roofs during the Rodney King riots), or a guy from out of town walking through the streets carrying - yes - a super visible weapon (aka a huge gun). Some commenters in this thread are also throwing things at me about the criminal past of the other people involved, which sounds to me like they're also having trouble following the thread (which again, is about the neutrality of initial reporting).

> And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one?

I don't understand your logic. Are you pretending that I'm defending this third guy or something?

Not everyone needs to take a side in cases like this. My opinion - uninformed or super informed - has no impact on the case (neither does yours), and I am not a stakeholder in this case. I have some trust in the justice system (and mostly, I'm pretty busy at the moment).

But like I said, guy driving in from out of town with a gun to defend the property of strangers is asking for trouble. And just to ward off more weird replies like this one, I'm aware that he's not the only active party in this incident.

Perhaps if, as you say, you don't know anything about the case, you should stop sharing your opinion on it. You are misstating matters of fact and being misleading. To me, when you say you don't know anything about the case and then share the tiny detail you do know, it comes across as someone selectively presenting an argument while giving themselves license to mislead - because you "don't know" about any contrary evidence.

You say that Rittenhouse traveled "waaay out of his way" and "in from out of town". In fact, Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha, his father lived there, and Kyle lived nearby, twenty minutes away, with his mother. This isn't "out of town" or out of his way, it's his local community.

You wrote that Rittenhouse has a "history of wanting to shoot shoplifters". Actually, there was a single video where only a voice was heard saying this (Rittenhouse was not on screen) and the prosecution said the voice belonged to Rittenhouse. The prosecutor was not able to explain where the video came from. The anonymous video without the defendant on it and no reason to believe the prosecutor's hunch that the voice was Rittenhouse's wasn't allowed at trial. You can understand, perhaps, why "I'm not following the case" comes across to me more as a rhetorical trick than the truth when one of the random factoids you do know is a denied prosecutor's motion to add evidence at trial. Oh, but because you "aren't following the case" you didn't know it wasn't sourced, no evidence it's Rittenhouse on the tape, and it wasn't admissable at trial.

My entire opinion on this event (not the court case), is essentially, "fuck this guy, and I'm not at all surprised that bad shit went down." I am from Los Angeles, and when I was a kid the Rodney King riots featured massive amounts of violence and destruction, and shopowners were defending their livelihoods with guns. If a white dude from Lancaster - who had a job "in the county" - decided to visit South Central and walk down the street prominently carrying a rifle, then I would have had the same opinion I just shared. That's it! That's all I was trying to share. He escalated an already bad situation.

But yeah, if that "shooting shoplifters" video is that sketchy, I accept that. All I had heard was a headline with the judge saying it was irrelevant. And then immediately after that I saw another headline where the judge agreed with the defense that zooming in on a picture can create digital demons (did I get that right? :D).

There's another discussion to be had about wether the provocation element was introduced in good faith, or as an attempt to allow the jury to introduce their own opinions on wether his presence or his open carry were inherently "provocation", as well, which is thought to be the reason the defense has fought so strongly against the video being permitted (As the video is the only way the prosecution was allowed to introduce the concept of provocation into the jury instructions at all).

Even more important than an individual's life is the public's faith in the systems that make up our country. The Justice system and the media largely work because people believe in them. If you think the Justice system is unjust, you don't trust police or prosecutors or judges - that results in places where people settle things for themselves or for their tribe rather than relying on the courts. It results, in other words, in internecine violence.

The media too is important to have faith in. When it's working well the media calls attention to parts of society that aren't working well so we can repair or replace them. But if people don't trust the media then we won't come to know or believe problematic things are problems.

I see, with this trial, which I have been following, an instance where the media is incorrectly attacking a court that seems to be functioning reasonably. I see commentators on social media turning that flywheel too - feeding the unjustified attacks on the court.

I think the consequences of this are going to be damage to faith in the media and in the courts. That's bad. One way to reduce the badness is to stop making unsupported hyperbolic claims. If you don't know what you're talking about, find out, or don't talk.

Regarding the judge and zooming in, I'm not certain which moment you are referring to. There was a moment at the trial where the prosecutor wanted to use an iPad to "pinch to zoom" on some video and the defense objected saying that Apple algorithms might "enhance" the video by adding information that wasn't there. The judge determined that the prosecutor needed to get an expert to testify that Apple's "pinch to zoom" does not add data. I believe the ultimate resolution was that they used a PC instead and zoomed in on that.

It sounds a little silly to argue over pinch to zoom, but AI assisted super resolution algorithms do exist. To my knowledge they aren't used in Apple devices - but I don't know why it's a problem to have an expert clarify this or to use a different device that everyone is more comfortable with.

I know that my opinion of the actual case does not matter, but for the sake of clarification I'll say that I have a decent amount of trust in the system and I hope/expect a fair outcome based on the evidence. And I also trust you, as someone who has followed the case and taken the time to respond to me in a clear manner.

I agree with everything you said about the media.

My understanding of the law is that self-defense is determined by the actions of the people involved and what they were thinking - not what they may have said on other occasions or the distance from the event they live. The fact that Kyle lives twenty minutes away from Kenosha or has previously said he wanted to shoot shop lifters seems irrelevant to me and would have twenty years ago too.

I understand having limited bandwidth in your life. It's good to recognize when you don't aren't informed on a subject. However, when you aren't informed on a subject the thing to do is not share your strong opinions on that subject.

I see pictures of Kyle posing with a gun that appears to be about half the length of his body; when he is out on the streets during the riots, you can tell he is holding a gun from very far away. The messaging I get from this is not "response worker there to provide medical aid and put out fires." Do you truly not have any clue why his presence negatively contributed to the situation?

Obviously my point about him defending strangers' property was to note that he did not have a direct interest in defending his own property. The length of his drive is far from the point. But that's super true: he worked in the same county, and it was only like a 30 minute drive. I just looked it up! Amazing. Really makes me think.

Correcting details that are beside the point != winning an argument.

I think that's an oversimplification. Rittenhouse's decision to show up there armed was due to the partisan division and demonization.

Rittenhouse showing up armed and killing two people is a product of the stoked polarization.

I think being armed was probably responsible and it's fairly clear given the evidence from the trial that it was used in a responsible way that exemplifies the use of lethal force in self defense.

The media stoked narratives that caused the riots are to blame. Sensationalism of topics like police on black violence manipulates people into believing things that aren't true, and they react in ways that might very well be reasonable if the narratives were true. I think Rittenhouse is going to sue the ever loving shit out of a lot of legacy media corporations, and maybe that will make them a little more cautious when hyping the tabloid bullshit.

This seems the likely result, but I’m not quite convinced it’s their motivation.

It seems just as likely to me that they’re reporting based on analysis from people who are ideologically motivated, consciously or not.

For a lot of news programs, the credits are publicly visible and verifiably citizens. The people talking are citizens of your own country. They could care about their country instead of money. They just don’t.

The truth is corporate interests have over taken and reshaped the news and media properties they vertically own.

Does it worry you that your news promotes a culture filtered through corporate interests? Do you remember the last news story on corporate interests altering the news? You won't get that news story.. because no one wants you to think that is an issue.

They want you to be scared of foreign entities but ignore the killer sitting beside you.

Cooper: On Good Morning America today you said that you were absolutely not pointing your gun at Rittenhouse. Can you clarify there?

Grosskreutz: Yes, absolutely. Um. First and foremost, [the cross examination] was a very tense situation. Something that I've never been in before. Just like never being shot before. I think it's important to note though, specifically during cross that, if there's skilled attorney, they're able to present questions to help support their narrative. That's their job. And with one of the exhibits that Attorney Sharrad(?) had introduced, there's a photo of me with my gun pointed towards the defendant. Either just after or right during he had shot me in my right arm. I think it's important to note though that the physiology of my wound would be inconsistent with someone being shot with their arm in.. we'll say the traditional way that you would point your gun at somebody or something. The only way that I could have sustained the injury that I have is if I had been shot with my arms up.

Cooper (looking perplexed): So... so you're say--did you ever point your gun at him?

[someone speaks to Grosskreutz off camera, he looks at them, turns back] Grosskreutz: I think that in the still photos it certainly looks like it. But never intentionally. You have to understand that, following that gunshot, I was--I had no use of my arm. I wasn't able to move anything. I--and--in my right arm, or in my right arm.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/11/12/gaige-grosskreutz-i...

https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/supernormal-stimuli/#pa...

I would say this is what it's like.

At least, here in America we decided that justice should be public and cameras freely admitted into courtrooms. It's sad to see that YouTube is trying to work against these ideals of transparency, openness and universal access.

It is not, however, a universal freedom. In many foreign countries (even in Canada) it's simply impossible to get a simple video and audio feed outside of the courtroom.

Only people with the means of queuing up and spending the whole day in court can get the privilege of seeing and hearing justice with their very own eyes and ears. The rest have to rely on what these people will decide to write in either the state backed medias or billionaire owned news outlets.

Anyways this is a classic ruling class tactic: keep the plebs entertained with something else. While they're busy endlessly discussing the Rittenhouse case with ever more inane partisan takes, they're not discussing the impending economic crisis, the unprecedented levels of income and wealth inequality, pressing climate crisis...

Great recent example: Afghanistan.. do you know what happened to those people who fled? What about the ones that never made it out on time. The media changed the topic and people stopped caring.

What do you think would happen if wealth gap stops being talked about? People stop caring because people only care about their pay and buying power. Global warming same. It takes planting 1,000 new trees to offset a flight from Austria to Scotland. If global warming was taken seriously these people would meet virtually and society would be changed to tax companies with offices. That's not what the media is talking about.

> "It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced at him with your gun ... that he fired," Chirafisi said. "Right," Grosskreutz responded.

I always find it funny how 99% of the time when people claim "the mainstream media is too biased to cover this", if you look at the corresponding article it is 100% covered.

If you watch the videos of the event in sequence you realise that this is one of the most blatant and well documented cases of self-defence in history, yet people who have only consumed media coverage of the shooting have been surprised by the difficulty that the prosecution have had proving it was murder. Clearly there is something broken in the transmission of information there.

It really puts a different perspective on the entire thing, especially if you notice at the end of the video he was moving toward law enforcement the whole time.

Rosenbaum is the one that threatened Kyle previously. It's not clear how they're related, but Rosenbaum and Ziminski were together in photos where a lot of the stuff was going down, this was referenced by the defense a lot in their closing arguments.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/290695292964306948/90...

Now here's what Grosskreutz said on the stand:

Corey Chirafisi: Now, you’d agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse. Correct?

Gaige Grosskreutz: Yes.

CC: Okay. And once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that’s when he fires his gun. Yes?

GG: No.

CC: Sir, look, I don’t want to – does this look like right now your arm is being shot?

GG: That looks like my bicep being vaporized, yes.

CC: Okay. And it’s being vaporized as you’re pointing your gun directly at him. Yes?

GG: Yes.

CC: Okay. So when you were standing 3-5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired. Right?

GG: Correct.

CC: It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun — now your hands down — pointed at him that he fired. Right?

GG: Correct.

Now compare that to what Grosskreutz said to ABC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oocNVvTHP5M

ABC: "So here you’re allowed to say whatever you feel like you need to say. So you’re saying you weren’t pointing your gun at him? Is that what you’re saying?”

Grosskreutz: “That’s absolutely what I’m saying, yes.

Problems with this:

* Grosskreutz has a $10M lawsuit against the city over this.

* Grosskreutz' phone was not searched, despite a signed search warrant for the same, due to the DA's personal intervention. Nor was his and only his police interview recorded.

* Grosskreutz has an expired CCL, so was not legally carrying.

* As a side note, the illegal gun charge against Kyle, meanwhile, was dropped. Kyle was not carrying a short-barreled rifle, so Kyle's possession was ruled to be legal under WI's poorly-written laws.

* Grosskreutz lied to the police both about having a gun at all, then later changed his story to dropping it, but was caught on camera in possession of it the entire time.

* The police testified that this is the one and only time they have ever done things that way.

* Grosskreutz testified that he chose to attack because Kyle re-racked his gun. However, this does not happen anywhere in the video of the exchange and no unspent ammo from Kyle's gun was found.

* What was found is an unspent round matching Grosskreutz' glock.

* This implies that Grosskreutz re-racked his gun at some point--something he claims is a threat to kill.

* While that was not seen on camera, this must have happened while he still had two arms.

* Grosskreutz' roommate posted on social media that Grosskreutz regretted not killing Kyle. He later claimed to have been lying when brought to the stand.

In short, ABC put on someone who has changed their story multiple times when confronted with new evidence, who provably lied to the cops that were investigating a murder, and who has $10 million reasons to lie about everything.

This particular exchange has even been fact-checked, so ABC has little excuse for platforming someone they know or should have known to be lying without challenging them:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-gro...

One wonders if this coverage will ever show up with a "disputed by fact checkers" label on social media?

The unspent ammo from the glock comes from Lachowski clearing it. Grosskreutz didn't rerack the gun, but he did have one in the chamber ready to shoot, meaning that he meant to take out Rittenhouse when he advanced before having his bicep blown off.

You should want to correct it regardless of the outcome of that "if".

The fact is, (a) you are carelessly speculating about details when we are right in the middle of a mess that was caused by rampant speculation—the fact that contradictory testimony and video happens to exist is not what made the claim unkosher—and (b) even if you weren't wrong and were recounting pure facts, you are derailing the discussion.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5e30ynJn4

He had DUIs after this event but was let off

There has been some suggestion that his ability to avoid prosecution suggests that he is a likely FBI informant in Antifa.

GG isn't from Kenosha but no one makes any issue about him illegally traveling there to riot with a weapon

At the very least. Not just carrying.

It doesn't imply that. It would be nice if, in a thread about the media misreporting the facts of the case and feeding the biases of the folks who are supposed to be benefiting from the coverage, we wouldn't make other assumptions. You might think it's reasonable to make this assumption, but (a) the people leaping to conclusions—many of which turned out to be wrong—and repeating them ad nauseum over the last year also thought their assumptions about Rittenhouse were reasonable, and (b) as it turns out, the source of the ejected round is knowable/known since it was also caught on video (and it wasn't Grosskreutz doing as you said).

[I'm not going to actually delve into the details on that, since as far as I'm concerned this thread is about the meta issues of epistemology in the age of social media echo chambers and the contributions of traditional media to it, and we're best served by staying on that topic and not straying into the details of the case, which provides us a vehicle for the discussion but other than that is really just a tangential third rail.]

The police said the unspent round did not match Kyle's weapon. It does match the ammo in the Glock.

If you have video evidence of another Glock (EDIT: or any other gun using the same ammo) being racked at the scene, please show it. There were claims previously that it came from Kyle's rifle, but it was not a match and this is attested to by the prosecution's own police witness.

I was not able to locate any other claims for where the unspent round came from after several searches. This makes me wonder if you can actually produce the claimed video evidence of another source of the same ammo.

This is a nonsense sentence. It's not even clear what you're even trying to say here, but it's certain that whatever it is you are making even more bad assumptions about things that you don't actually know to be true.

> please show it [...] I was not able to locate any other claims for where the unspent round came from

It's like you ignored the entire message and homed in on the sweet temptation to muse further about the events of the night of the shooting itself, as if this were exactly the sort of trial-by-Reddit thread that I said I would not take part in here.

After the response you just received, do you really expect that the person who wrote it would meet your challenge, which would require an about-face, throwing everything just said out the window, and willingly contributing to derailing the discussion from the topic at hand?

In other words: no, and furthermore, since you're all over this thread trying to turn it into exactly what it shouldn't be: please stop.

This isn't trial by Reddit, this is discussion of the evidence that has been investigated by professional investigators and presented as evidence in open court. The only thing I mentioned that wasn't raised and cross-examined in a court of law was the statement on ABC, by the same person who had said something different under oath just before.

You're the one alluding to some mystery video you won't describe.

You (and by now, others, too) are derailing the thread from the topic at hand by trying to make it one, but no, that's not what this is.

this thread is about the meta issues of epistemology in the age of social media echo chambers and the contributions of traditional media to it, and we're best served by staying on that topic

There is no shortage of places to discuss the night of the Kenosha shooting. This is not one of them.

You mean Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head. Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them.

Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing "the mainstream media" of lying by omission.

edit: this is obviously a complicated case, but arguing whether his later shooting was in self-defense only serves to obfuscates the fact that this is a young man who brought a semi-automatic rifle to a protest, murdered an unarmed man, and then killed another before the shooting in question took place.

Many young men were following Rittenhouse, yelling things like "Get him" and "Beat him up". I sensed a lot of dangerous emotions in the videos, in the sound of the voices and the movements of the bodies. Some say that those yelling "get him" merely wanted to makes sure than Rittenhouse did not escape legal accountability (for Rittenhouse's shooting minutes earlier of Joseph Rosenbaum). But consider that Rittenhouse was walking down the middle of a wide street towards a line of cops. What need was there to detain Rittenhouse rather than simply to follow him at a distance to make sure he keeps walking toward the police line?

Then someone hit Rittenhouse on the head, Rittenhouse kept walking quickly, but fell down after a few seconds. During questioning in court, he says he fell because he got dizzy because of the blow to his head. While sitting on his ass in the middle of the street, someone ran up to him, hit him on the shoulder with a skateboard and (almost in the same motion if I recall correctly) grabbed Rittenhouse's gun and tried to pull it away from him. This someone was making the kind of dramatic-but-somewhat-clumsy movements of their whole body that people tend to make when they are in the throes of an intense emotion and trying hard to achieve some physical outcome.

Then Rittenhouse shot that someone (Anthony Huber), which very sadly killed him.

Did I leave anything important out?

EDIT. I changed "hit him on the head" (with a skateboard) to "hit him on the shoulder".

Considering that these were protest against the police, it's not reasonable to assume that the people present had any faith in the police force, no.

>someone hit him on the head with a skateboard and grabbed his gun

Hit him on the shoulder. And after watching the video about ten times, it's looks like he stumbled and landed on Rittenhouse with the board, rather than actually swinging it. Unfortunately, we only have a few frames blurry video and Rittenhouse's word on the matter, since Rittenhouse shot and killed the man immediately.

edit: It looks like you edited your comment after I opened it to respond to make it more factual. Most of what I said above still applies, but I will point out the fact that, by your own admission, Hubor was attempting to disarm Rittenhouse "in the same motion" he made contact with his skateboard, but you insist he was at the same time swinging for the head show just how much opportunity there is to twist the facts of the case to suit whatever narrative you want to spin.

That is the second time in 7 seconds that Huber's skateboard gets very close to Rittenhouse's head. Here is the first time:

https://youtu.be/1i7xSigmrfw?t=27114

-- after which Huber retrieves his skateboard from the ground, which action is inconsistent with your hypothesis that Huber's goal was to grab Rittenhouse's gun in the second interaction and the skateboard was just inconveniently in his hand.

Or am I so naive and that a mob-like situation truly brings out the animals in all of us. Cooler heads did not prevail on either side.

Whatever happens, everyone involved should never be allowed to own a gun again. They could have all gone to a bar and had a fist fight and be done with it.

And the mother even drove the kid down there armed. The chaos of Mania makes me wonder if this is the last of this behavior we’ll see from everyone before this decade calms down.

This omission game goes both ways. You're leaving pertinent information out to support your narrative also.

He had already committed murder at this point. It's not unusual (though it is unwise) to attempt to prevent a murderer from running away. Furthermore, saying that anyone was "attempting to grievously assault him" is speculation, since he shot and killed the first person to reach him after he tripped, and then shot the next person who was trying to disarm him.

If self defense, not unlawful, which facts lead you to premeditated?

Had he?

Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing your fellow commentators of lying by omission

So, let's continue to clarify the facts. I went and found the video of the incident, and you're stretching the truth to the point of being disingenuous.

Here's the video (obvious warning, it has footage of Rittenhouse shooting his victims) https://files.catbox.moe/ayaw6u.mp4

Considering he never even swings it at Rittenhouse, and merely has it in his hand when he tries to stop him running away, that's a real stretch to say he's "trying to beat him to death". I won't argue that trying to stop an armed person by jumping them is a bad idea, but that's not what you said.

you can clearly see him hitting kyle with the skateboard at around 15 seconds here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg

https://heavy.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-video-photo...

I guess it just goes to show how hard it is to pull facts out of a couple seconds of grainy video