Content Moderation Case Study: GoFundMe Addresses Controversial Fundraising Efforts (2020)
from the you-are-the-company-you-keep dept
Summary: Shortly after protests began in Kenosha, Wisconsin over the shooting of Jacob Blake by police officers, armed citizens began showing up ostensibly to protect businesses and homes from violent protesters. One of these citizens was Kyle Rittenhouse, an Illinois native who traveled to Kenosha as a self-appointed peacekeeping force.
Following an altercation at a Kenosha car dealership, Rittenhouse shot three protesters, killing two of them. Shortly after it became apparent Rittenhouse was going to be criminally-charged, fundraisers for his legal defense were set up in his name at GoFundMe.
As controversy continued to swirl, GoFundMe deleted the fundraisers from its platform and refunded all donations. When asked for the reason, GoFundMe stated the fundraisers had violated its terms of service. While nothing was specifically cited by GoFundMe as the violation triggering the removals, its terms of service allow it to remove "any other activity" the site deems "unacceptable."
Decisions to be made by GoFundMe:
- Should moderation decisions be influenced by public outcry? Or should objectivity remain in place even if controversial fundraisers result in considerable public pushback?
- Does a policy of deleting fundraisers for people charged with serious criminal activity give users the impression that everyone accused of criminal acts is guilty? Does this prevent the wrongfully accused from securing competent legal help?
- Can fundraisers that violate the terms of service be detected prior to public posting? If this isn't possible at this time, would it be worth implementing to lower the possibility of controversial fundraisers gaining public attention before GoFundMe can address them?
- Does a perceived lack of consistency in moderation decisions encourage more direct regulation by government agencies?
- Does GoFundMe have any obligation to treat accused criminals as innocent until proven guilty?
- Does treating the terms of service as fluid and subject to constant change deter fundraisers from using the site?
This decision follows others GoFundMe has made in the past to take down controversial fundraising attempts. In 2015, it removed a fundraiser for Baltimore police officers facing criminal charges in the death of Freddie Gray. The stated reason for the removal was the fundraiser's attempt to "benefit" people charged with serious crimes. However, that same violation was not cited during the removal of Rittenhouse-related fundraisers, despite his being charged with first degree homicide.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content moderation, crowdfunding, funding, kyle rittenhouse
Companies: gofundme
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is incorrect. Jacob Blake is paralyzed from the shooting, but he is still alive. (Source)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was wondering about that.
Yeah Blakes injuries were serious. He lost the ability to walk and much of his digestion system. But he is still alive, such as it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I was wondering about that. -- JUST READ Wikipedia.
Stop wondering and READ even slanted version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse
On August 23, 2020, Jacob Blake, an African-American man, was shot four times in the back during an arrest by a Kenosha police officer after he was unsuccessfully tasered.[10][11][12] Blake was shot after he opened the door to his SUV and reached into the vehicle. [TO GET A WEAPON.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You lost me at [TO GET AT A WEAPON]
Law enforcement now have a long well earned reputation for shouting things like stop resisting and drop the knife in order to justify escalation of force. And the witness there did not see any aggression on Blake's part nor any weapon.
And since you're so diligently reading everything, I can assume you knew about this, Commentor and are intentionally interpreting the situation in bad faith.
But also a few acts of violence during a protest does not make a riot, otherwise a few bad cops would be enough to disband a precinct, yes? Or are these rules only for the convenience of justifying the purge of Others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
States' Rights
Last I heard, Rittenhouse' lawyers were challenging extradition from Illinois to Wisconsin, which would be the first time ever it was challenged for a homicide charge. (In rare cases, an activity is a crime in one state but not in another, we've had interstate extradition challenges.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: States' Rights
Is it really? I would have assumed that the defense would always file the paperwork on the off chance the prosecutor fucks up, it's not like they have anything to lose by doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intra-state extradition
According to the Guardian (I think) it's such a trivial rubber-stamp process that defense attorneys don't bother unless there's a real possibility it might be blocked. In the case of Rittenhouse the governors of both states had already signed off on the extradition at the time.
The defense was hoping for political bias, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: States' Rights
"it's not like they have anything to lose by doing it"
That does seem to be a big problem with the US legal system - there's no disincentive from flooding the courts with stupid actions since the lawyers get paid either way and usually don't face consequences for doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't imagine why the site didn't want to be associated with someone responsible for one attempted murder and two successful ones...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JUST READ Wikipedia "That One Guy".
JUST READ Wikipedia. YOU ARE LYING.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: JUST READ Wikipedia "That One Guy".
[That session was poisoned, so IP address change via TOR...]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The article isn't accurate in statements about Rittenhouse.
The story is slanted. Rittenhouse did shoot "protesters", he shot rioters who were actively destroying and attempting to break into and burn property. He attempted to stop them, they aggressively pursued and shot at him, he shot in self defense and fled additional rioters attempting to kill him, then, in self-defense shot two additional rioters who were assaulting him when he fell over, and an additional shooter in the arm who shot at him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Rioters"
Any means to discredit the victims? This isn't just disinformation but obvious disinformation, especially to those of us who have seen the video.
Rittenhouse came to counterprotest from out of state with deadly force. He was looking to murder someone.
And he did. Twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Rioters"
It's kind of funny how the anonymous troll debunked his own "self-defense" lie so handily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Rioters" -- $2.5 million damage of "protest"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse
RIOTERS, PERIOD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"RIOTERS, PERIOD"
Yeah, no.
First, we've already had Boogaloo Bois arrested by the FBI for false-flagging in Minneapolis. Turns out the Boogs were responsible for burning down a precinct during a BLM protest.
Second, the BLM are justified in going full-on sabotage campaign, considering the police continue their ongoing campaign of murdering Americans with impunity and brutalizing peaceful protests, also robbing them via asset forfeiture and demolishing houses with poorly justified SWAT raids. If you don't get the point of the social contract, Commentor then you might at least notice a lot of law enforcement behavior fits the indictments in the United States Declaration of Independence. This is bullshit we, the people, have dealt with before.
Or do you give no fucks if it's black people being oppressed?
Now granted arson, vandalism and looting were tabulated to have caused $1–2 billion in insured damages nationally, between May 26 and June 8. However 93% of individual protests were "peaceful and nondestructive"
But yeah, it seems a lot of folks are more concerned about their precious small businesses than the integrity of the communities they sit in. But even feudal lords knew that squeezing the peasants too hard (or failing to protect them) would only result in the land getting blighted and massive winter famines.
Maybe you didn't actually read all that part because it didn't fit your white-supremacist ideology?
So, protestors. And
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Posting before coffee again.
So... protestors.
And ones justified to get violent if things don't change in a hurry. Our sympathy -- for law enforcement, for militia wannabe gunboys with poor fire discipline and for businesses that exploit oppressed, impoverished neighborhoods -- knows bounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re awfully defensive of a murderer. Is it because he killed people whom you consider your ideological “enemies”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about Rittenhouse.
That statement is true if, and only if, by "this story" you mean your own tall tale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about Rittenho
What he means is that he's been drinking from the rancid koolaid again, and he hates the slant toward reality that he's expose to elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about Ritt
You claim you've anywhere near "reality"? BALONEY.
READ THIS AND THEN TRY TO REPEAT YOUR LIES, "PaulT". -- And quit pretending to be expert on law, let alone American law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about Rittenhouse.
You comment is slanted. Rittenhouse did shoot protesters. There's video, you know.
How must it feel to have bought into a lie so deeply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about Rittenhouse.
"Rittenhouse did shoot "protesters", he shot rioters who were actively destroying and attempting to break into and burn property"
Which, if true, means he still illegally shot people. The excuse might have some weight if it was his property, but since he travelled in from another state with the express purpose of playing with his guns in a crowd setting, it won't work here.
"he shot in self defense"
...after people tried to apprehend him after he'd just been witnessed murdering someone. Again, not an excuse.
"who were assaulting him when he fell over"
apprehending him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about Rittenho
Your spinning the assertion that he shot protesters,not rioters, which is not the case. He only shot in self defense when rioters shot at him first when he confronted them breaking into, destroying, and burning property during their rioting which they wanted to do without anyone confronting and stoping them from destroying property. That property he was contracted to protect and did not shoot them because they were breaking into the property, he shot only who shot at him, who died from that gunshot. After he was pursued by angry rioters who wanted to kill him, and failed in their attempts but did try, and in his self-defense, he killed only who attacked him. He did not indiscriminately go on a shooting spree on protesters, who were present among the rioters trying to destroy, burn, and harm anyone protecting their property when confronted and stopped.
I'm guessing these pro-BLM comments are by BLM supporters trying to spin a lie about how kyle murdered "protesters" who were protesting, not attempting to kill him when he tried to stop rioters from breaking into and destroying the property he was contracted to protect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about Ritt
Please, he could have opened fire on a crowd who were sitting on the ground singing kumbahyah and you would make excuses for him and find ways to smear his victims as that's what the right do all the time, even murdered children are not immune from mudslinging and conspiracy theories.
He went to another state with a gun intending to get in a fight and he killed people. You can smear his victims any way you want, that fact remains. He wanted to kill people and he did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about
"Please, he could have opened fire on a crowd who were sitting on the ground singing kumbahyah"
What's the betting that the first reaction of this guy to the Las Vegas shooting was to pretend that the crowd would have been fine if they had been armed (despite the physical and logical problems with that stance)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about
But that's not at all the facts, you're just MAKING UP a fable so as to smear opponents, all that the left actually does.
YOU are simply LYING "Bloof".
JUST READ Wikipedia. YOU ARE LYING.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
He went with another state with a gun and a desire to kill people,if he did not he would not have travelled with a gun to another state to harass protesters. He would have stayed at home like a normal person.
He went looking for a fight, he found a fight, and he killed people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
Commentor you're sounding hysterical. All that the left actually does? Really?
And yes, law enforcement does have a habit of smearing victims of officer-involved shooting after the fact, as if the character of a dead man informs the circumstances why he was murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about
YOU ARE LYING, "Bloof". SIMPLY LYING.
A) He went to stop rioting that the police were told to NOT stop.
B) Self-defense.
C) NOT victims. Actively chasing him. READ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
He went to another state with a gun to place himself in a situation where he would get to shoot at people, He shot at people, he killed people. If he did not want to kill people he would not have gone with a gun to harass protesters.
He wanted to kill people.
He went to kill people.
He killed people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements
Your statements are false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statem
Please be specific, otherwise no one knows wth you are taking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statem
"Your statements are false."
Which ones?
What are your sources?
How do the 2 dead bodies at the scene not invalidate your third point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
In a different state.
Maybe in one case, not so much with the others.
They’re dead. That makes them victims of his violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self defense
Self defense is a a legal defense, a subset of justifiable homicide and in the US under the doctrine of necessity.
This is to say Rittenhouse can argue at trial that he was defending himself. Assuredly, his lawyers will. And that might work especially of Wisconsin has a stand your ground law and it's not determined that Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor.
As for defending property, federal security guard regulations do not give special privileges to guards, whose job is to observe and report. Any efforts to apprehend and arrest are based on citizen's arrest, in which case deadly force is appropriate only against deadly force. (We have special licenses for PMCs, PSCs and bounty hunters who are given more leeway). Unless Wisconsin has a special hired gun rule I don't know about, Rittenhouse's status as a guard by informal or verbal contract will not improve his defense.
It's also conspicuous that he did not announce himself to others as a guard, or warn that he was ready to open fire, which security officers and officers of the law are required to do. For an alleged guard with an alleged contract, Rittenhouse in no way behaved like an actual security agent.
And that, I suspect, is going to go a long way in convicting him of first-degree homicide.
(Law enforcement routinely fails to announce themselves or warn before opening fire. Officers then will claim they did so in reports or in court. And they are seldom prosecuted when this is revealed by video. But that's a failure of the justice system, not a precedent that it's acceptable to open hostilities with deadly force without warning. It's one of the reasons we want to defund the police, if not abolish the entire justice system for alternative approaches to violent crime.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Self defense
I agree with almost all of your statements regarding Kyle's legal case of self-defense.
What I do not agree with is asserting that because his case may be determined self-defense, just like in similar circumstances with law enforcement officers, that it's a reason or rationale to defund/abolish the police.
Law enforcement agencies vet thoroughly law enforcement officers, with one in ten in most law-enforcement agencies getting in. That's not to say that some do not have lax education requirements, such as only a GED.
Usually, law enforcement officers go through routine drug tests and are given a lie detector test to determine if they are trustworthy, disqualifying applicants with prejudice against race or gender. Unfortunately, lives are always on the line when it comes to law enforcement, and not all law enforcement officers can handle every situation under stress and pressure perfectly. Law enforcement wages are salary based usually and are usually in the low-medium pay grade, get a lot of disrespect, and in some cities have a high mortality rate.
Given all that I stated about law enforcement. Police are expected to be more than police officers. From domestic problem solvers, crime fighters, bilingual, paramedics, putting their lives potentially at risk on each an every call, from one to another(911 for example).
A lot of cops take their jobs seriously and they aren't paid nearly enough to handle the rampant crime, thanks to BLM.
I also agree that Kyle shouldn't have been in the place at the time he was. But from what I've read and from reviewing video statements from witnesses, with additional video of what happened, he's innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that’s where “defund the police” comes in: The idea is to take money away from overfunded police departments and give it to social services that are better equipped to handle certain kinds of emergency calls. Who would you rather have answering a call about someone in a mental health emergency: a social worker trained to properly deal with people with mental illnesses, or a cop whose training taught them to see someone in distress as a “potential enemy combatant”?
What about the alt-right/White nationalist chucklefucks, who are by far the largest domestic terror threat to the nation — do they not count as committing “rampant crime”?
He might — and I stress might — be found “not guilty” of the murder charges. But he killed those people all the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Law enforcement [is vetted] thoroughly"
Given how they are being trained the night of your first kill you will have your best sex ever doesn't seem to reflect the kind of professionalism you imply.
Once again, I'll refer to the Grenzschutzgruppe 9 (GSG 9), an anti-terrorist unit that operated over 1500 sorties and discharged their weapons in only five occasions.
Here in the US, police-involved homicides run (about) four a day, most of whom are unarmed and nonviolent.
So whatever the current training is with a 90% wash-out (which I suspect is like frat hazing), it is totally not working.
A friend of mine who was trained as a firefighter in San Francisco in the late 80s trained along with the San Francisco SWAT unit, and yes, they too were known for their fire discipline. And they understood they were the babysitters of the rest of us.
But SWAT divisions are not trained like that anymore, rather they're given a weekend voluntary seminar before they're issued military surplus gear. (And camouflage armor with subdued police patches. WTF?).
No the US has lost it. The police unions have their own white supremacist subchapters, and black officers have repeatedly reported there are glass ceilings in fraternal orders. Law enforcement officers so rarely get indicted or tried on their shenanigans (including brutality and sexual assault) that it makes national news when it happens... and sometimes when it fails to happen, as is the case with Breonna Taylor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"the rampant crime, thanks to BLM"
What BLM crimewave is this?
Are you talking about their inconvenient-to-you but mostly-peaceful protests? I've already mentioned (over here) the conspicuously low rate of violence during the George Floyd protests, and the Boogaloo Bois burning down a precinct disguised as BLMers.
No, where the FBI was unwilling to state five years ago it was white nationalist movements responsible for the majority of terror incidents in the US, now it's being more open about it. If you're worried about crime and violent unrest, worry about Proud Boys, Boogaloos and other very fine people.
Oh and worry about the 70 million voters who seem to be okay with a President who supports their mischief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Kyle shouldn't have been in the place at the time he was"
That's an understatement. The problem is Kyle brought a deadly weapon into a civil unrest zone. That just could not have ended well.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt based on his age that he failed to think things through and the likely end result. Some people get stupid around guns the way they get stupid around dishy / randy underage teens. But in this case the outcome is two people dead and one person missing half his arm.
But it also tells me Rittenhouse is the kind of guy who will not-know-what-he's-doing right into committing a murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abolishing the police
What I do not agree with is asserting that because his case may be determined self-defense, just like in similar circumstances with law enforcement officers, that it's a reason or rationale to defund/abolish the police.
No, I was talking about testilying the routine act of law enforcement officers lying in court to cover their fellow officers. This is not only an accepted and expected practice, but it is also accepted and condoned by the courts, and when false and misleading statements are uncovered with evidence, perjury charges never follow.
This isn't an argument to abolish the police. This is an argument to abolish the entire justice system including the police, prosecutors, judges, courts and prisons.
Our current system is more interested in securing convictions rather than assuring justice isn't miscarried. And it wants more warm bodies in our (cruel) prisons.
Or to put it another way, every last inmate and detainee of the United States of America (and of the individual states) is a political prisoner, not a criminal one, and should be pardoned and released -- at least they should if the United States truly believes in due process.
And yes. That would include all these guys. If we wanted to contain them and protect the public from scary people, the governments need to be able to guarantee the rights of those we incarcerate.
Otherwise we're just as bad as King George, or King Louis.
So yes. Abolish the whole thing, including the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
"He went to stop rioting that the police were told to NOT stop."
Under what legal authority that included the right to summarily execute people?
"Self-defense"
A claim that's lost as a real defence when you've murdered someone and are trying to flee the scene.
"Actively chasing him"
...in order to try and stop him murdering more people after he scored his first victim, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about Ritt
"he was contracted to protect"
I had not heard of this part of the story, please provide details as I am unable to locate anything discussing this. Do you have a copy of this contract? Have you seen it? I'm curious what might it say about the protection of property and the methods to be employed. Would it mention the use of lethal force an the conditions for same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about
"Do you have a copy of this contract? "
exactly! you can't contract with a minor. a seventeen year old can't even join the military without his/her parents signing the documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
From what I have read, his mother drove him there knowing he had a weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about
Well, he's being charged as an adult, so obviously had the right to make contracts. Whether did or not isn't clear, but it's a STUPID off-topic objection as typical here at TD. -- I'm just answering it for fun while waiting for this browser session to be poisoned too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse
By the way, anyone reasonable should note that NONE of the fanboys links to even Wikipedia: they don't care about the truth, just want Rittenhouse jailed without trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That you’re going this far and this hard to defend a murderer who hung around with alt-right assholes is…telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
Do you know what other crime took place in my home state of Wisconsin? The Slender Man stabbing case. The perpetrators of this violent act were tried as adults. In Wisconsin, certain crimes, including murder (called "intentional homicide" in the statute), require the defendant to be tried as adults. That does NOT mean that these pre-teen girls or Rittenhouse were of legal age to sign a contract at the time of the crime.
Well, for starters, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. I hate to be "one of those people", and I do rely on Wikipedia quite a bit. It may be right 95% of the time, but it shouldn't be treated as Gospel truth. Any claim without a cited source should be considered suspect. And if you don't provide evidence of your claims, no one here will take you seriously.
And as I've stated in several Techdirt comments elsewhere, I'm politically liberal. I also think that Rittenhouse's actions are abhorrent and that he's guilty of what he's been accused of. But I also believe that Rittenhouse should be given due process. It would be unjust of me to say otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wanna know the grand irony of Ol’ Brainy Smurf quoting Wikipedia and treating as the gospel in this instance? He never treats Wikipedia that way when someone quotes it in a way that proves him wrong (which isn’t all that hard to do).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
"Well, he's being charged as an adult"
Murderers often are.
"NONE of the fanboys links to even Wikipedia"
Because we know what evidence and primary sources are.
"they don't care about the truth, just want Rittenhouse jailed without trial."
Nope, most people believe he's entitled to the due process and access to a fair trial that he denied his victims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
"I'm just answering it for fun while waiting for this browser session to be poisoned too."
Sorry, I must have missed this answer you provided. Please point out where it is and what it said.
Was there a contract or not? Why is this a stupid off topic question? It is simply questioning a stupid off topic claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
So given how your all about due process, what are your feelings about Michael Reinoehl being executed without trial by a swarm of cops who didn't identify themselves or make any attempt to arrest him? What are your opinions about the president of the united states BRAGGING about it? I'm sure you're just outraged about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about Ritt
"Your spinning the assertion that he shot protesters,not rioters,"
Rioting does not attract a death sentence from a random vigilante shooter in any version of the law I'm aware of.
"He did not indiscriminately go on a shooting spree on protesters"
No, he carried a weapon across state lines to a state he was not permitted to carry, in order to "protect" property he did not own or have any real claim to "protecting". In the kinds of non-psychopaths, human life is still more valuable than bricks.
"attempting to kill him when he tried to stop rioters from breaking into and destroying the property he was contracted to protect"
Given that his version of "stopping a rioter" was "summarily execute him on the spot", I'm not surprised by the reaction. The only sad thing is that Rittenhouse will be provided with the full due process and proportionate punishment he denied to his victims.
Even if your version of events is true, you're still very wrong in anything approaching a sane society rules by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about
I think people have the right o defend life, liberty and property. Pretty sure that when a molotov cocktail was thrown and him and then shot at and he shot the shooter who was apart of the rioters who shot at him on the property he was paid to protect, while they were breaking into it trying to, loot and set it ablaze, it was self-defense and justified.
"He did not indiscriminately go on a shooting spree on protesters"
No, he carried a weapon across state lines to a state he was not permitted to carry, in order to "protect" property he did not own or have any real claim to "protecting". In the kinds of non-psychopaths, human life is still more valuable than bricks.
Wrong. He did not carry a weapon across state lines, that's been disproven,get your facts straight. Self-defense up to the use of deadly force is justified when attacked and you believe your life is in danger, hence his use of deadly force was justified when attacked. He was not the attacker, looter, or arsonist rioting.
He did not shoot at anyone attempting to break into, loot, and burn the property he was contracted to protect. He shot at whom used deadly force against him who he tried to stop.
Given that his version of "stopping a rioter" was "summarily execute him on the spot", I'm not surprised by the reaction. The only sad thing is that Rittenhouse will be provided with the full due process and proportionate punishment he denied to his victims.
Due processes, self-defense, and the right to protect property up to the use of force makes sense and are afforded to all Americans. Something BLM hates and has been trying to dismantle and destroy so they can go on a rampage destroying homes, businesses, livelihoods, and due process in a court of law.
Someone comes to my place of business trying to loot, and burn my property and attempt to harm me with any object when I confront them and tell them to leave, then I will use up to deadly force. Why? Because I have a right to defend myself and my property. Thankfully I live in a state where I can shoot trespassers. I have a sign on my property and business that clearly states, Trespassers will be shot.
Protesting has nothing to do with destroying personal or public property or harming or attempting to harm those that say, stop, go home, you're not going destroy this property. Which is the short of what happened in kyle's case, he did not approach them and shoot, he said(in general), leave, he was attacked with deadly objects and a gun was discharged at him by the first attacker, whom he shot and killed. Then he ran away from the mob of rioters who were apart of the group he tried to stop from destroying the property he was to protect, he did not shoot them until he had to defend his own life in the same instance when his life was threatened when first attacked.
It's sad that the sight of an American flag and the chant of USA angers BLM so much, they'll attack anyone who supports the American way, the American flag and willing to say USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
"I think people have the right o defend life, liberty and property"
Yes, they do. Including the guys who wanted to apprehend a person just seen murdering somebody.
Also, all rights have limits. I don't care how much you love your property (or in this case, the property of a stranger living in a different state) - you don't have the right to go full Judge Dredd. Especially not in the middle of a protest that's specifically about people with more authority than you shooting someone in the back multiple times for disobeying their authority.
"that's been disproven"
Reliable source that's not some Infowars blog or easily disproven by factual sources?
"Due processes, self-defense, and the right to protect property up to the use of force makes sense and are afforded to all Americans."
Apart from the two guys Rittenhouse murdered, and the people they were protesting about in the first place...
"Someone comes to my place of business trying to loot, and burn my property and attempt to harm me with any object when I confront them and tell them to leave, then I will use up to deadly force"
You might have some kind of defence there. But you're not standing in another state defending someone else' property specifically because you thought you might get into a fight. That's also for the courts to decide after the fact, not for some random bystander to issue their desired retribution on you on the spot.
"they'll attack anyone who supports the American way, the American flag and willing to say USA"
Yeah, if you decide that those words mean "black people should be killed on the spot if the cops feel like doing it", you'll get some backlash and you shouldn't be surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
So you live in Oregon, by any chance?
Because just because it's legal now doesn't make it a good idea for you to keep taking so many hallucinogens like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo
In the real world:
strike one against Shittedpants
strike two
strike three
strike four
strike five
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements
"In the real world:
"defending" property with deadly force is not self-defense"
It is if you're in your own home or business, someone tried breaking in and shooting and you feel like your life is in danger if you don't respond in kind (offer void if the home invaders are cops who forgot to identify themselves). Within certain parameters, this can be a respectable spur of the moment defence.
It's not if you've travelled to a other state to "defend" someone else's property because you read that some folks upset about yet another black guy being shot in the back - then thought you might get a chance to be a hero when things get ugly and the cops don't want to get another extrajudicial killing on camera.
That is the issue here, of course. Rittenhouse had no real reason to even be in the city or state where this happened other than wanting to use his toys, let alone any excuse to be justified in shooting the people trying to apprehend him because he'd just been witnessed killing someone.
The implication that his actions were justified, even desirable, does not reflect well on someone who pretends to be interested in rights or the rule of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statem
Yes, thanks for the clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statem
JUST READ Wikipedia. YOU ARE LYING.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse
By the way, for hypothetical new readers, "PaulT" claims to be British working in Gibraltar (living in Spain), and yet here he is as if an authority on American law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rittenhouse wasn’t defending his own property. Rittenhouse wasn’t even defending property in his own state. He traveled across state lines to defend third-party property to which he had no clear connection, then killed three people and fled the state. Even if you want to argue that Rittenhouse was somehow justified in his defending that property, I fail to see how “rioting” justifies him murdering somebody.
Property can be replaced; people can’t. You tell on yourself if you value the property he “defended” more than the lives he ended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in st
"JUST READ Wikipedia"
No. Provide a reliable primary source.
"and yet here he is as if an authority on American law"
I'm. not, but you should be ashamed that I understand more about the reality of the subject than you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about
Oh, "even if" facts are against YOU, you're still right, eh? And then claim sanity.
Now, ever heard of the "Riot Act" in the UK? You claim to be a UK serf, and surely have heard the phrase. -- Once that's literally read to "protesters" then the police are authorized to use deadly force.
We don't have that as such here, BUT just answer how you'd "sanely" stop a mob who's already destroyed millions in property from burning down an entire city? HMM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about Ritt
"Your spinning" says the liar who just changed his story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about
JUST READ Wikipedia. YOU ARE LYING.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The article isn't accurate in statements about Rittenhouse.
I don't think any of the fine white folks who supports Rittenhouse would be comfortable with black men wandering around their neighborhoods with assault rifles, would they?
What makes you think that pasty white moron was wanted in that neighborhood? He went looking for trouble and found it. I hope they put his ass in prison, so he can ask the majority black prison population about when the poor white man is going to get a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real issue.
The real issue with social networks and services is when they don't abide by their terms of service, they are engaging in false advertising.
They have a duty to advertise precisely the product they are providing, and having a catchall legalese in their EULA ultimatly means they have false advertising going on.
This is where class action lawsuits ought to get involved. Most of these platforms have binding arbitration clauses. That is where your problem is at.
What needs to happen here is the services need to be providing a defined, tangible, understandable service. If they are not, then everything they advertise their product as is falsly advertised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fanboys lie! Take your usual advice, kids, and READ Wikipedia.
Here's a key paragraph:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fanboys lie! Take your usual advice, kids, and READ Wikipedi
Nah, we'd rather read primary sources that aren't being feverishly rewritten to pretend that yet another MAGA type is a murders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fanboys lie! (Part 2 because all at once wouldn't go in.)
On-the-scene reporter Richie McGinniss has since stated that the sound of the shot was the moment Rittenhouse "went from running away to aiming his weapon".[35] Then, according to Kenosha County prosecutors, Rosenbaum managed to engage Rittenhouse and tried to take his rifle from him.[36] [37][38] Rittenhouse then fired four shots, hitting Rosenbaum in the groin, back, and left hand. The bullets fractured Rosenbaum's pelvis, perforated his right lung and liver,[39] and caused additional minor wounds to his left thigh and forehead.[39] Rittenhouse remained near the fatally wounded Rosenbaum as McGinnis began administering first aid. Rittenhouse then made a phone call and was heard saying "I just killed somebody," and then fled as more protesters arrived.[38]
Fanboy assertions above contradict what even Wikipedia says: "managed to engage" is simply euphemism for ATTACKED, and that after a chase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fanboys lie! (Part 2 because all at once wouldn't go in.)
If somebody, not identifiable as law enforcement, starts shooting at you and your friends, would you try to engage them, or would you treat them as good guys defending society?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fanboys lie! (Part 2 because all at once wouldn't go in.
"If somebody, not identifiable as law enforcement, starts shooting at you and your friends, would you try to engage them, or would you treat them as good guys defending society?"
So, you support Breonna Taylor's boyfriend shooting back at the unidentified intruders breaking into her home? That's a twist I didn't expect, but well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fanboys lie! (Part 2 because all at once wouldn't go
Unless cops are identifiable as such, and have announced their presence before breaking down doors etc., the law should look at them being shot in the same way as any armed aggressor being shot. Note the identifiable and announced, as against an armed intruder, you probably need to shoot before you could recognize the word police blazoned across their chest, if present, as giving an aggressor the advantage of the first shot is a losing strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboys lie! (Part 2 because all at once wouldn'
"Unless cops are identifiable as such, and have announced their presence before breaking down doors etc., the law should look at them being shot in the same way as any armed aggressor being shot."
Yes, so Breonna Taylor's boyfriend and numerous other cases that BLM are currently protesting were justifiable self defence that led to the needless deaths of victims who were just trying to defend themselves, and the police who created those situations need to be reprimanded.
Again, glad you can come to the side of facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In piece about "moderation", Techdirt doesn't STOP lies here.
Your version is at best abridged and slanted. That's why you DON'T give this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse
Having lied that Rittenhouse is a crazed killer, you then try to turn this into argument that crazed killers shouldn't be funded through usual sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A person who commits a crime shouldn’t get to profit from their notoriety. What makes that statement controversial, other than your assertion that a kid who crossed state lines with an illegally obtained AR-15 and a willingness to commit violence didn’t actually murder the three people he murdered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In piece about "moderation", Techdirt doesn't STOP lies here
"That's why you DON'T give this link"
No, they don't give it because it's Wikipedia and only a moron would use it as a primary source ona controversial subject.
Why are you a moron?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh.
I use it often enough to disambiguate what I'm talking about, but the link he provides doesn't say that much.
What Rittenhouse's lawyer claims is not reliable. And Commentor seems to believe it is stronger evidence Rittenhouse's actions were defensible than it actually is.
The video can be attained with a bit of searching, but be warned, it's gory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh.
"I use it often enough to disambiguate what I'm talking about"
I use it as a first step, but do so with the knowledge that uncited claims are likely not reliable, and that controversial subjects are a battleground that leaves the first round of edits unreliable
"The video can be attained with a bit of searching, but be warned, it's gory."
Hence why this guy wants us to look at the sanitised version of events that his team have had a chance to downplay, rather than the original footage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In piece about "moderation", Techdirt doesn't STOP lies here
Having lied that Rittenhouse is a crazed killer, you then try to turn this into argument that crazed killers shouldn't be funded through usual sites.
Let's just chant 'lock him up!' and be done with it.
Or as I like to put it, "acting like a true MAGA patriot." Amirite MAGAtards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In piece about "moderation", Techdirt doesn't STOP lies
Nah, "lock him/her up" is a chant reserved for a political opponent who has been implied, but never proven, to have broken the law, in order to get idiots to fall for vague promises of action that are never really going to happen.
It's not applicable in a case where someone's been witnessed committing the crime and is currently going through the applicable legal processes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
Rittenhouse brought an AR-15 style weapon to the protest. If he was really coming to the protest to secure an area and serve as a responder, he didn't need an AR.
Had pre-negotiated this security contract he claims, an anti-riot pepper gun with a personal cartridge can be had for about $30. It would not freak out anyone around him, and he wouldn't have been tempted to panic and kill someone.
(I bought a few years ago to discourage a roommate from buying a gun when she had a stalker. She bought the gun anyway. She never needed either.)
These pepper guns have a better takedown-ratio than handguns (dunno the comparison to ARs) and they leave the victim very much alive so you can laugh at them afterwords. And not deal with the angst and consequence of having killed someone.
Also, the user of such a weapon only faces an assault charge when the police arrive. Rather than assault with a deadly weapon and homicide.
If Rittenhouse was looking to serve and protect as he claimed, something like would have been more than adequate, and would be plenty available in Illinois. And we'd entirely be telling a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]