News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy by trhway on Thursday December 02, 2021 @01:56PM (#29420711)
i'm not talking about standards. I'm talking about human perception of gun danger and use as an example well established perception of gun danger by the people known to be well accustomed to guns and associated dangers.

>those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.

these people were defending themselves and others around from Rittenhouse after he shot an unarmed man and just walked away not checking on the victim, nor waiting for police like one would do in a bona fide self-defense, and that made him to be reasonably perceived as an active shooter that is a threat to anybody around. Thus he created that violent situation of him being a threat and necessitating a defense against him, and he shot the people who were defending themselves and others from him. One shouldn't be able to claim self-defense in such situation.

Re:Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy by Svettie on Thursday December 02, 2021 @07:44PM (#29425183)
There doesn't need to be a clear "bad guy" in every situation. Situations can escalate and get out of hand without any individual actors with bad intentions. So it's entirely plausible that the people charging Rittenhouse thought he was a terrorist and wanted to disarm him, and it's entirely plausible that Rittenhouse feared for his life when he shot them. To illustrate my point:

Suppose there are two people at two corners of a dark alleyway. They both hear a gunshot towards the center of the alley and draw their pistols in self-defence. They take a few steps and now see each other holding a gun. Each one raises his gun at the other, thinking that's the shooter. One fires and kills the other. AFAIK it would be justified self-defense