Re:YouTube takes down independent court livestreams
by kyleee on Monday November 15, 2021 @08:39PM
(#29235561)
Is that an ethical approach?
Re:YouTube takes down independent court livestreams
by 2OEH8eoCRo0 on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @08:13AM
(#29240122)
> The testimony underscores the prosecutors’ challenge in disproving a self-defense claim.
In medium font just below the headline.
Re:YouTube takes down independent court livestreams
by genewitch on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @11:34AM
(#29242533)
This is weird to me, 'challenge to disprove self defense' - since the accused was retreating towards law enforcement, and in general you have a duty to retreat if possible, I don't quite get the leap necessary that the pistol wielder was scared for their life. I can, however, believe that post-incident introspection would color the encounter this way, to the person with the pistol.
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.
Re:YouTube takes down independent court livestreams
by User23 on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @01:17PM
(#29256705)
It may be weird to you, but that's the law in Wisconsin and, as I understand it, every state other than Virginia[1]. The defendant gets the presumption that he acted in self-defense and the prosecution has to prove otherwise.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/16/rittenhous...
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.