Kyle Rittenhouse abruptly departed the stage during an appearance at the University of Memphis on Wednesday, after he was confronted about comments made by Turning Point USA founder and president Charlie Kirk.
Rittenhouse was invited by the college’s Turning Point USA chapter to speak at the campus. However, the event was met with backlash from a number of students who objected to Rittenhouse’s presence.
The 21-year-old gained notoriety in August 2020 when, at the age of 17, he shot and killed two men—Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, as well as injuring 26-year-old Gaige Grosskreutz—at a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
He said the three shootings, carried out with a semi-automatic AR-15-style firearm, were in self-defense. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest where the shootings took place was held after Jacob Blake, a Black man, was left paralyzed from the waist down after he was shot by a white police officer.
“Charlie Kirk has said a lot of racist things,” said a student addressing Rittenhouse from the audience.
“What racist things has Charlie Kirk said?” Rittenhouse challenged. “We’re gonna have a little bit of a dialogue of what racist things that Charlie Kirk said.”
The student responded of Kirk: “He says that we shouldn’t celebrate Juneteenth, we shouldn’t celebrate Martin Luther King day—we should be working those days—he called Ketanji Brown Jackson an affirmative action hire, he said all this nonsense about George Floyd, and he said he’d be scared if a Black pilot was on a plane. Does that not seem racist?”
“I don’t know anything about that,” Rittenhouse said from the stage, prompting jeers among the audience.
“Does that seem racist is a yes or no question, Kyle,” yelled one attendee.
“Well, after all the things I just told you, would you consider that hate speech,” the student asked Rittenhouse, who had a dog with him onstage.
“I’m not gonna comment on that,” Rittenhouse said, sparking more noise from the crowd.
Seconds later, Rittenhouse abruptly exited the stage to cheers from the crowd. The attendees were then promptly ordered to depart the venue.
They fly him around the country, but the media outfit he’s working for didn’t bother to invest in media training for their homicidal poster boy?
So much for standing your ground.
Or seat fillers.
Fuck yeah, make that piece of shit feel bad. Pure uncut Colombian schadenfreude.
What is Colombian schadenfreude?
“Uncut Colombian” is a drug reference for cocaine. He’s just trying to say it’s the “best of the best”.
I’m saying I snort that shit.
Probably still schadenfreude, since we use the German word in English.
And schadenfreude is the leftover discharge from anal sex. Named after former US senator and moral crusader Rick Schadenfreude.
“I don’t know anything about that,”
This seems to be the canned response to all “uncomfortable” topics.
It seems that right-wing “debates” are not about arguing a point or another, but bringing up the “right” talking points, and backing out the wrong ones.
Please don’t normalizing hating on people for not knowing something. If you think he actually knows kirk said these things, then please provide the proof. But if you are simply attacking him for admitting he doesn’t know something, then you’re part of the problem.
There’s a very simple way to answer this sort of question that was posed — by condemning the blatant racism of the statements themselves while acknowledging he didn’t know if Kirk had said them — and he decided not to do that.
The issue is he couldn’t know at that moment if what the students said or their portrayal of it is accurate. Furthermore, people can’t just instantly reach informed conclusions about things, a lot of people need, yk time to think. If I try to think about something on the spot I’ll just stutter and not make any sense
“I am not aware of these comments or their context, but if said—yes, I agree they are racist.” Not hard.
That’s easy to say in retrospect, it’s hard for a lot of people to answer something they didn’t expect on the spot, even if they know the answer
Rittenhouse isn’t some random dipshit that got cornered (ironically, a favourite of the likes of Crowder and Shapiro until they realised even students embarrass them) - he’s the Daily Wire’s spokesperson for crossing state lines to manufacture a situation to murder your political opponents. He chose to speak in front of that crowd, chose to field questions, and chose to run (presumably because he didn’t have a gun to kill those he disagrees with).
I think you have a point. However, you’re referring to later in the exchange. The poster imt responding to is attacking him for claiming he didn’t know whether Kirk had said those things. But if multiple people were shouting at him at that point, I can see why he reverted back to “no comment.”
Asking whether those things are hate speech is a yes/no question. Pretending to not know Kirk is a racist sack of shit was obvious deflection. Good on the students for calling out this bs.
“We’re gonna have a little bit of a dialogue of what racist things that Charlie Kirk said.”
“I don’t know anything about that,”
Not much of a dialogue lol
Someone taught him how to have the aesthetics of a rational argument, but forgot the part about the substance.
Benny bitch-boy’s made a whole career out of doing that.
You’re telling me that the guy who showed up to counter protest with a gun, who provoked protestors while holding a gun, is actually a coward who’s too afraid to comment on the racist remarks of his shitty friend.
Who’da’thunk’it
lol.
What a bitch.
They haven’t yet taught him how to deflect the truth. Teach him that what he believes is bullshit, but profitable. Teach him how to understand and ignore the truth. Teach him how to just be louder than opposition. Have him memorize talking points and teach him to always retreat to them (especially when not appropriate). Give him 15 years of practice doing that, then he’ll be great at owning college libs, preferably on camera.
I mean that seems fair that he wouldn’t comment on something he doesn’t know about
“I haven’t heard those quotes before. Presented without context, they sound pretty bad but I will reserve judgement until I’ve had a chance to do more research.”
That wasn’t that hard of a question to duck.
That’s easy to say in retrospect but a lot of people can’t think of something to say when asked something unexpected on the spot. Even if they know the answer.
I’m sure the people he killed would disagree
What?
deleted by creator
Yea, I bet he wished he could have illegally crossed state lines with a firearm he wasn’t legally allowed to have again to protect himself from these organized students
This joke gets extra dark when you realize he has another speaking engagement next month at Kent State University.
deleted by creator
Even if you don’t think it was murder, it’s repulsive that he is trying to make a career out of killing two people.
I don’t think he gets many other job offers
Racist murderer? Does that not sound like American cop material to you?
just watch how many will refute being “racist” or a “murderer”
not both; because that would be messed up
I’ll have a go! He may well be racist but he killed white people, and was legally found to have acted in self-defence. So all we can really say is he’s a killer. I’m not planning on being friends with the guy, but I do like a little precision in my speech.
He’s a mascot for the GOP - I doubt he’d have that hard a time getting a job at Fox or some other misinformation distributor.
Who the fuck would listen to him? He’s got all the charisma you’d expect a snot-nosed faux-crying-at-trial murderous teenager would have. Playing the “victim” of the “woke leftist mob” only gets you 15 minutes- just ask that dipshit AR-wielding ambulance chaser and his mustard-covered wife in Missouri how famous they are these days.
He’s got all the charisma you’d expect a snot-nosed faux-crying-at-trial murderous teenager would have.
Isn’t that like every rightwing talking head under the age of 40? The red team eats that shit up.
Makes it all the more impressive that he ain’t got what it’s takes to be an entertainer for the right
Maybe he should get the tucker carlson hairdo. That might help his chances.
To be a fox news anchor, you have to have a personality. I mean, it can be one where you scream and yell, but you can’t walk off the stage—because the show must go on. He’s annoying, even to his own, and a liability.
because the show must go on
>>>
Until they have no use for you and then it’s back to the streets
I can’t help but think if he ever was offered a job even if it was back end not front of shop that they would ask him to not tell anyone that he worked there.
-
TPUSA is running the show, not Rittenhouse. They recruited him like an intelligence asset by showering him with praise and “favors” in a time where he was (deservedly) receiving national ire.
-
People need to understand that the American right has a pervasive violent ideation. His actions are repulsive to you, but they are normal, necessary, and a sign of strength to the gun-owning right. Many, many Americans love what he did.
These people Want. To. Kill. You.
-
The guy who stalked and shot treyvon Martin sold the gun at auction
I think the debate is nuanced so I’m not trying to say it’s absolutely equatable, I’m more trying to feel out your actual position.
If a woman was being abused by her husband, stood up to him and killed him in self defense…if domestic abuse/survivor groups invited her to speak, would it be also repulsive?
Or say that woman armed herself as a child(17 yr old) and walked into a tense situation of strangers untrained and ready to shoot someone… and then ends up shooting someone. Might be a better comparison.
Perfect example. She shoots him with a gun she bought and then brought back home. To the people who think he’s a victim, you’re the one saying “well, she should have left him and certainly not brought the gun into the house!”
But I understand that the question will be avoided at all costs, because that’s the only way to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
It’s actually a pretty terrible example. A person has a right to be safe in their own home. Kyle had no reason to cross state lines with an illegally acquired rifle.
Kyle had no reason to cross state lines with an illegally acquired rifle.
They actually had more reason than the rest of the people he shot, because they at least worked on that town.
Also the rifle never made it across state lines, it was always there at dominick black’s home.
Cool, no one had any reason to be there. That doesn’t make it ok for some dipshit to shoot them.
The gun that his friend bought for him because he couldn’t buy it himself, and he never had it at his own house? There’s so much convoluted bullshit wrapped around trying to justify his ownership of that gun…
That doesn’t make it ok for some dipshit to shoot them.
Yes it does, it was either let him be attacked by rosenbaum or the crowd (which the crowd actually began hitting him anyway lol) or defend yourself.
This isn’t even a stand your ground case because rittenhouse tried to flee in every case lol.
The gun that his friend night for him because he couldn’t legally buy it himself, and he never had it at his own house? There’s so much convoluted bullshit wrapped around trying to justify his ownership of that gun…
You said that he crossed state lines with the rifle.
State lines means nothing when it’s a city on the border, and the illegal firearm charge was thrown out for, yk, not being true
State lines means nothing
“Laws don’t matter as long as some shit bag gets to shoot liberals.”
Fuck off.
That’s not what I said, but iirc he didn’t cross the gun with state lines- I may be misremembering though.
Fuck off.
Please read the rules if you care so much about laws.
You’re avoiding the question. Would it be repulsive for abuse survivors to invite her to talk?
Maybe people are avoiding it because it has fuck all to do with Rittenhouse.
Then just move on if you don’t see the point. The fact that everyone who has responded has blatantly misrepresented my point or asked a question back without answering mine tells me a lot about how the avoidance isn’t because it supposedly has nothing to do with the topic.
Because it’s an irrelevant strawman.
You’re avoiding the question. Would it be repulsive for abuse survivors to invite her to talk?
Because it’s transparently obvious that you want folks to go “of course that wouldn’t be repulsive” so you can go “AH HA!” when in reality this tortured attempt to equate the two has no value aside from disingenuous rhetorical plays as you are attempting.
Remember this all comes from someone saying that even if you don’t think he’s guilty of murder, it should still be repulsive that he’s being invited to and going to talks, because he killed some people.
I’m trying to get people to realize that if you think he’s innocent, you wouldn’t find this repulsive. there is nothing disingenuous about that.
What is disingenuous is misrepresenting my position in an attempt to avoid facing this contradiction, which is what you are accusing them all of doing.
I’ll answer it by pointing out that you’re building a straw man. I would call you a goat fellating syphilis factory but I’m pretty sure that both goats and syphilis would hate to be inside you.
There is a clear difference between putting yourself in a situation by crossing state lines over some shit that has nothing to do with you and having to live with an abuser. She has to go home to a person. He could have stayed his ass home knowing what was happening and would have been just fucking fine. He was looking to kill, she’s trying to live. If she’s making a living on it, it’s making a living on surviving, not going to look for trouble. But you can’t see that, you slimy donkey fucking inbred.
I get that people like you argue in bad faith. I really don’t care and this response isn’t for you. In fact I’m blocking you after I make this because I have no interest in listening to a sniveling shit pile try to lawyer his way into making crossing state lines hoping to kill someone ok. I’m writing this so anyone confused about what kind of person you are can read and see that you’re looking to find a way to kill.
Go fuck yourself instead of forcing yourself on your sister-cousin again. I hope that last brain cell you’re clinging to falls out and knocks out that last tooth that’s holding on by a thread on its way out.
I love how you claim you are going to answer the question, and then simply insult me while not answering the question… And the telling me you’re blocking me.
You’re doing me a favor. Thanks.
judging by the votes, you are deluded
I feel bad for people who think that popularity is the same as correctness. You are basically doing the equivalent of “wow, this influencer has a lots of followers. They can’t be wrong!” Lol
You seem to be JAQing off here, but your straw man is pretty weak.
Let’s say instead the abused woman is safely away from her husband and he can’t harm her any more. Then she illegally obtains a firearm, drives 2 hours to the husband’s place of work, starts a fight with him, and when he starts to get violent with her she the shoots him.
Do you think this woman is justified in the shooting?
Hey - I’m past asking questions, I’m literally just masturbating.
But Rittenhouse neither illegally obtained the firearm nor drove two hours? And Rittenhouse had just as much a right to be there as the protestors
He also wasn’t married to an abusive man. What’s your point?
Well why mention that for the analogy then?
Why would I answer your unrelated question if you are unwilling to answer mine? Whether I think anyone is justified is not really the point of the analogy.
With Rittenhouse it’s more like a woman was being abused by her husband, she tried to hit him back him in self defense, but then he killed her and then made a career out of giving talks about how brave he was for defending himself.
Maybe I’m missing something as I’m not from the states. Why the hell is a guy who is famous for murder invites to talk at a university?
Rittenhouse was invited to speak at Wednesday’s event by the university’s Turning Point USA (TPUSA) chapter. Founded in 2012, the non-profit promotes conservative politics at schools and college campuses.
It’s insane that the only reason he was noticed and brought into their political organization was through
murdershooting and killing people.That’s how gangs initiate people.
Edit: removed “murder” so nobody whines about whether he lawfully drove to another state with a gun and shot people.
for the express purpose of intimidating people and hopefully getting the opportunity to shoot them in ‘self defense’
while he was too young to lawfully be able to purchase the gun that he used
and, let’s not forget, illegally transported an illegal firearm across state lines. illegally.
illegally
illegal
illegally
Eh, I’ve heard enough. Acquitted! bangs squeaky gavel
And they have another one set up for him next month at Kent State.
Ironic.
Nah, intentional.
Toilet Paper USA
deleted by creator
Our gun culture is so nuts that it normalizes shit like this.
When you look at it this way, it is utterly unsurprising that we have so many mass shootings.
This isn’t normalisation, it’s celebration.
I’m not going to be coy about why they’re celebrating him either: The pro-gun community spends hour after hour theorycrafting about how they can shoot people with their cool guns and get away with it. Kyle is being celebrated for finding a new “get out of jail free” technique that specifically targeted undesirables for murder.
That’s all there is to it. They shower him with fame and money because he killed BLM protesters with America’s favourite gun. It’s his reward.
He got away with it so he’s automatically a power fantasy for Cons.
Don’t forget that he murdered people at a BLM protest, so Cons also think he’s a hero.
Yes, but remember they’re not racist tho. /s
deleted by creator
Because he’s useful to the Republicans, our extreme-right Party.
It’s because the US right will celebrate literally any action that they perceive as working against what they think everyone left of them supports or enjoys. Kyle was a clean cut looking young white man who heroically skirted the edge of laws regarding firearm purchases and visited a town that was not his own where he made sure to keep looking until he find a situation that required him to use his gun. The context was protests fueled by the death of George Floyd and shooting of Jacob Blake at the hands of police.
There were probably folks who literally touched themselves after hearing a red blooded, AR wielding young white man was able to be acquitted of murder after shooting protesters at a BLM protest. On top of that, one of the men had some form of pedophilia in his past, boosting their drumbeat of messaging claiming that folks who support LGBTQ+, and by extension all democrats and leftists, are groomers out to molest kids.
It was a perfect storm of trump supporter daydreams all centered around Kyle Rittenhouse. Folks who buy into all or most of that view are big fans.
Because having someone else buy a gun for you that you can’t legally buy, traveling to a confrontational hotspot with your guns, failing to leave a situation that was escalating, and that choice leading to one shooting a mentally ill bipolar person is perfectly legal. And the right wing absolutely wants to make sure everyone knows that. So he gets to be trotted out for any occasion where they need a “famous” person who chose to exercise their right to self-defense, despite making every effort to place themselves in a situation where it might be necessary.
But that’s not his fault.
He also managed to escape open carry laws because the judge deemed any rifle above 15 inches was not a “Deadly Weapon” despite Rittenhouse using the weapon to cause multiple deaths, due to loose interpretation of the grammar of the written laws. And the state congress in IL did nothing to correct him.
YHGTBSM. A rifle is not a deadly weapon.
IAIFNSYMDIIVDTTIR.
For those that need a translation:
“You have got to be shitting me”
“I am in fact not shitting you, my dude. It is very disappointing that this is real.”
I agree fully with you, but also this brings back to memory a 20 year old GameFAQs thread where we just posted initialisms and one guy was SO GOOD as guessing them
I’m useless for this conversation but I’m sharing a bit about what I experienced growing up
IASIHDFTTBITIWBRAAIAD
My gods, thank you for the translation!
Because of TP USA.
I feel now is a good time to pimp our community, !toiletpaperusa@lemmy.world
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !toiletpaperusa@lemmy.world
Because he’s famous for racist murder.
Yeah our country isn’t doing great. Send ethics
calling it a racist murder just shows how much you really know about the topic at hand 🤣 goodness
He went out of his way to go to a blm protest with a rifle to protect shops from protestors. Legally it wasn’t murder according to the jury, but I’m not charging him with that crime, I’m saying someone who isn’t a racist wouldn’t put themselves in that position
youre wording just made it sound like it was a hate crime, which confused me because afaik all 3 who were shot were white, and rittenhouse is also white, so you can see where im coming from with that lol
Turning Point USA invited him, not the University.
More specifically, TPUSA has a chapter at the university.
- He’s not famous for murder.
- The university didn’t invite him to talk, it was just the venue.
He is only famous because he is a murderer and he got away with it. He has nothing else going for him at all.
He was literally acquitted of murder. I’m not saying he’s famous - he’s really an obscure nobody - but his biggest claim to fame not only is legally not murder, claiming it is murder in a way people might take seriously, like a newspaper article, would open you up to liability for slander, since you’d be making claims it would be easy to prove in court you knew to be false when you made them.
He’s a killer, yes. He killed people. That’s considered potentially distinct from murder in checks notes every country on Earth.
OJ is a murderer and so is Rittenhouse and Zimmerman. If they want to sue me, they can go ahead.
Because the actual story fits blearily enough well with republican’s “good guy with a gun” mythos. Trigger Warning: Violence, Death, and Bodily Injury.
If I’m wrong, please correct me and cite your sources.
a guy who is famous for murder
Correction: Famously accused of murder and acquitted of all charges despite rigorous cross examination and ever increasingly difficult hurdles to claiming self defence… such as assuming provocation incited the first attacker. Also despite intense political pressure from then and current POTUS Joseph Biden, who was vocally in favor of murder charges until after the not-guilty verdict was delivered.
His first attacker, Joseph Rosenbaum (deceased): “The man with a toothbrush.” A belligerent 36 year old bare chested man. Chasing a 17 year old with a firearm, who was running away. A convicted child molester. At the time being tried for assault and out on bail. Shot at close range.
His second attacker, Anthony Huber (deceased): An avid skater, chasing down a presumed murderer fleeing in the direction of the police. Assailed the accused in the shoulder, neck, and head with a skateboard and grappled over the rifle. Shot at close range.
Third, Gaige Grosskreutz the star witness of the trial: a trained paramedic who chased the presumed murderer alongside Anthony Huber. Confronted the 17 year old, who had immediately prior, shot Anthony Huber while wrestling on the ground. Drew his pistol and immediately lost his right bicep upon pointing his weapon at the accused.
The 17 year old, Kyle Rittenhouse, then approached officers with his hands above his head, and was told to get out of the road. Fears of a mass shooter caused the crowds to disperse.
Please stop calling the idiot a murderer. He was acquitted, and the people who attacked him are none too heroic after looking at their part in the events, nor after seeing their criminal records.
Please stop calling the idiot a murderer.
Who, Kyle Rittenhouse the scared little boy who murdered two people? Nah, I think I’ll keep calling him what he is, but you keep on living in your fantasy world down there in the States where gunning down people in the streets and schools is a normal every day thing.
I would also like to remind people of Brock Allen Turner, the rapist, who changed his name to just Allen Turner, who is also still a rapist. Just so that we don’t forget.
Agreed. Thank you for the reminder.
Believe whatever you like, I’m not the world thought police. Discredit yourself if it please you. Fantasy is often preferable to reality and I won’t fault you for it.
you keep on living in your fantasy world down there in the States
You’re as likely to be Mr. United States as I am Mr. Canuk.
How many judges pose for photos with the defendant of violent crimes? That judge did.
That’s a new tidbit. Thank you.
As far as discrediting the trial, the jurors determine guilt.
In America, the judge is allowed to dismiss or accept evidence and facts, which can skew a trial one way or another. However, this trial was almost ridiculously thorough. The jurors were not aware of the attackers’ backgrounds, nor were allowed to consider the attackers’ other actions that night. Jurors were told to consider the defendant had instigated the incident. On the stand, the paramedic admitted he expected he wouldn’t have been shot if he didn’t point his firearm at the defendant, meaning he was aware he wasn’t chasing a mass-shooter, and might otherwise be called a murderer by everyone who is calling the defendant one.
Murder apologist who chose the username “Kindness”.
Apologist, possibly. I will absolutely defend that which I hold true. As a pedant, I will assert molesters are not rapists for molesting, rapists are not murderers for raping, and correctly classifying terrible things or events is not apologising, defending, or minimising. By all means call him a killer.
Murder apologist is a straw man I won’t be stepping to.
Kindness to remind myself not to lash out or insult people over internet comments. What’s your username mean?
Removed by mod
I’m not defending him. But he was acquitted, so he’s not famous for murder. A bunch of people believe that he genuinely acted in legitimate self defense, and thus he is a symbol of the correct use of arms for self defense and a victim of a system that tried to jail him for doing so.
The Judge deemed a rifle above 15 inches was not a “Deadly Weapon” due to wild interpretation of the grammar of the state laws. He went to a protest with a military style rifle and shot people in two separate confrontations, killing 2 people. He is a murderer, it’s just been ruled that murdering political opponents was allowed in this case.
Hell he drove across state lines to get said protest. His whole purpose was to kill people he was itching to do so.
I am against killing people but if this little fucker was shot and killed I feel no remorse.
Holy shit people are still repeating the drove across state lines crap to this day lmao. That shit was actually mentioned in the trial and quickly fell thru when Rittenhouse mentioned that they worked as a paramedic in that very place and made the prosecutor look like an asshole lmao.
At least don’t spread misinformation my dude.
How stupid he 17 and no paramedic. And what paramedic is carrying around AR15? And yes he drove across state lines.
“I will apply medical assistance … with my AR15!”
My bad, not paramedic but lifeguard.
And what paramedic is carrying around AR15?
Oddly enough one of the people shot were indeed an EMT and they were also armed.
And yes he drove across state lines.
Because they worked on that town and he was there the day before the shooting, unlike the other people involved in the shooting which iirc never lived or worked there.
He was no where near that town and fucking life guard. Why are defending this murdering little fuck?
No judge acquitted him. It was a jury.
The Jury did not get to decide on the gun charges because the Judge threw out the charges hours before closing statements. Any sympathy for this boy should be gone after seeing him use his “fame” to advocate shooting your political opponents, this is his chosen career path for years now.
So not on a murder charge?
Do you think Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a military style rifle and walked the streets for hours pointing it at protestors before shooting three, killing 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum, of Kenosha, and 26-year-old Anthony Huber, of Silver Lake, Wisconsin…
but did not commit murder?
crossed state lines with a military style rifle
That did not happen… It was mentioned in the trial and everything, the gun was always in the same state, and rittenhouse was already for several days there as they worked there…
walked the streets for hours pointing it at protestors
I wanna see the evidence of this. (EDIT: There isn’t any and they just made it the fuck up lmao)
killing 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum
That guy was caught on video threatening everyone before the shooting happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N70fok1R2Kg
26-year-old Anthony Huber
This guy kicked either kicked rittenhouse in the head or hit him in the head with a skateboard lmao. AND rittenhouse tried to flee from him before so not like he even tried to stand his ground lmao.
It is really sad how people spread misinformation about the case, yes rIttenhouse is an idiot, but you’re just blatantly lying at this point.
edit: And for the people that keep spreading the lie that the judge was biased, please watch this legal eagle video;
Do I think he’s an idiot for doing so? Absolutely. Do I think those actions you listed in and of themselves revoke any claim he has to self defense? Absolutely not.
Are you mostly mad because he killed a pedo?
Quick hypothetical for you:
John shoots and kills Frank. They had never met each other and John did not know that Frank has a history of abusing children. John claims it was self-defense.
Was the shooting justified?
Was the shooting justified?
Yes, because frank in this case was chasing John and tried to get his gun. Also frank was already caught on video threatening people lol
I think you missed the whole point of my comment.
There is not enough information. If you add the fact that Frank was chasing after John and trying to grab his gun, then yes it would be justified.
The whole point is that people here seem to be defaulting to the racist pedo that was chasing after the minor. I dont get it out of ideologically you are forced to defend the guy on your team even if they spent years in prison for one of the worst crimes.
There is not enough information.
Yeah, that’s the point.
But that is a hypothetical and we know all of the details of the Rittenhouse case…
Could have been anyone.
A racist pedo runs at a minor and gets killed and you are mad… Not really seeing how your stance is defendable.
Lmao, imagine thinking people who murder BLM protestors are fighting against racism. You’re too far gone, mate.
I didnt say he was fighting against racism, I said one of the people you are defending was a racist pedo that spent years in prison and was in the process of attacking another minor, and you are defending them. Why are you so strongly defending that person?
Is that material at all?
Sure, it puts into context the attitude of the first individual he killed. People dont really seem to care about how he chased down and tried to grab the gun of a minor, so the next best part is to point out how he was a criminal that was again trying to harm a minor, for at least the 6th time.
OJ Simpson was acquitted. What’s he famous for? Because it definitely isn’t football.
His role in Naked Gun? That’s a great movie.
And does anyone actually legitimately think oj simpson acted in self defense? Or does everyone recognized that it was a botched prosecution.
Yes in both cases…
Can you point me to anyone who legitimately thinks he acted in self defense?
But he was acquitted
Irrelevant.
He’s famous for being a murderer, whether he was found guilty or not doesn’t matter.
A bunch of people believe that he genuinely acted in legitimate self defense
They’re stupid, simple as.
Killer and murder are not the same thing. You got access to the internet, right? I’ll give you some homework: figure out why they aren’t allowed to use the word “murderer(er)” in cases.
Irrelevant.
Murder is literally the illegal killing of someone. So yes it absolutely matters whether he was convicted. To claim it’s irrelevant that he was found not guilty of murder just exposes how detached from reality your position is. We can argue that he should have been found guilty, but you have to realize that the people who disagree with you don’t think he’s a murderer.
They’re stupid, simple as.
And I’ve heard plenty of them make the claim anyone who thinks he is a murderer is stupid. In this regard, you’re just like them.
Murder is literally the illegal killing of someone
Irrelevant. People know him as a murderer, thus that is what he is famous for. Plenty of people are famous for shit thats not technically accurate.
but you have to realize that the people who disagree with you don’t think he’s a murderer.
I do, I just don’t care what wrong people think about shit that’s basic and obvious.
And I’ve heard plenty of them make the claim anyone who thinks he is a murderer is stupid. In this regard, you’re just like them.
Yeah but those people are fucking stupid, so I wouldn’t listen to them.
People know him as a murderer
I don’t, because I actually watch the damn trial
shit that’s basic and obvious.
Is it basic and obvious that you should just let be yourself attacked by a crowd even after trying to flee from said crowd instead of defending yourself?
People know him as a murderer
The people inviting him to speak seen him as a victim who acted in self defense. Which is the whole point of the question: he’s not a murder to them.
Yeah but those people are fucking stupid, so I wouldn’t listen to them.
It’s funny how exactly like them you are, and how stupid you think they are for it.
Ehh, except you’re wrong. Using terms colloquially is one thing, no one has accepted that the legal definition of murder has changed. Certainly not regarding Rittenhouse.
Yes he is known for being a killer or a shooter but he is not a murderer until charged in a court of law. Make whatever argument for how the decision not to charge him was wrong, I won’t disagree. He is a killer. The distinction is important because the “law” deemed it rightful.
Again, make whatever argument you want for that being wrong.
“Murder” is not an exclusively legal term.
18 U.S.C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
This is both the legal definition of murder and the dictionary definition.
Next you’ll say “But lAnGuAgEs ChAnGe OvEr TiMe”
Edit: I’d like to point out the failure to recognize that my meaning is the law failed. Should he be a murderer? Yes. Is he? No. Why is that? The justice system failed.
You can apply whatever meaning to whatever words you want, none of that matters in the face of the far reaching power that is the U.S. justice system. You declaring he’s a murderer is the most meaningless form of activism I can think of. You’re an ant screaming at a bulldozer.
“killing black people isn’t murder like killing rats with pesticide isn’t murder” -the least racist conservative
The legal system can piss on a person and tell them it’s raining, and you’d be willing to drink it.
If you think you can tell that from me based on this one post, well you are not nearly as bright as you think you are.
Removed by mod
Confronting Kyle Rittenhouse? Be careful, no sudden movements. We wouldn’t want him to feel threatened, now would we?
Don’t drop any acorns and cut all trees in the surrounding area
We should start throwing acorns at murderous dumbshits
Jeff Goldblum: “Don’t move! He can’t see us if we don’t move.”
Hide all the plastic bags.
I mean, based on history so long as you don’t chase him down and try to take his gun, knock him to the ground and move to bludgeon him, or try a false surrender with intent to shoot him you’re probably fine.
But seriously, if you think he just started shooting at the drop of a hat, watch the trial footage.
He’s a dumbass kid who should never have gone to the protest in the first place (but had every legal right to be where he was) turned right wing grifter because no one else will have him, but all three of his shootings definitely fall under self defense.
I’ll take my downvotes now for not expressing views that contradict trial evidence now, thanks.
Yeah, I feel like most people didn’t watch the full trial. You can have the opinion he shouldn’t have been there, but putting yourself in a dumb situation doesn’t automatically forfeit your right to self defense
I dunno about that. If you needlessly insert yourself into a dangerous situation and you kill people in self defense, there should be consequences.
He went looking for violence. He found it.
I don’t agree, that seems like it would be giving official journalists for example special privileges over citizen journalists. Give free reign to racists to lynch counter protestors, etc.
Well that’s what our legal system is for, to hash out individual cases. If someone’s going as a citizen journalist that’s very different from going to “keep the peace and shoot looters” and very intentionally bringing along long guns, vs pistols.
He couldn’t legally own a pistol. He was determined to have legally possessed a rifle.
If I’m on my way to sell crack and I get attacked by some psycho do I lose my right of self defense?
If I’m breaking curfew and I get attacked by some psycho do I lose my right of self defense?
At some point you will see that it makes no sense, the legal system already forbids killing looters, so you want them to lose their right of self defense because you don’t like them.
I watched the trial, and I saw the footage. I don’t agree with the verdict one bit, but we live in a society and I just have to accept that outcome.
However, I don’t have to change my opinion about the guy just because he was acquitted in court. He went out looking for trouble, found it, and two people died because of it.
Nah, he is a murderer. Shitty laws in a shithole state does not change that fact.
In what state are there laws that would lead to his conviction for double homicide?
Nah, he is a murderer. Shitty laws in a shithole state does not change that fact.
What shitty laws are we talking about? He made a pretty basic and straightforward self defense defense. He didn’t invoke Stand Your Ground, in no small part because WI doesn’t do Stand Your Ground (and all Stand Your Ground generally means is that you don’t have a duty to try to flee from an attacker if possible, and it was only really possible for Rosenbaum and he did try to flee from Rosenbaum).
The only case where he got off on a charge because of “shitty laws” I can think of would be the weapons possession charge and that’s because WI has different ages for different classes of guns, and the kind of gun he had was in the 16+ rather than 18+ category. Ironically, there was at least one person with an illegal gun on the scene, and it was Grosskreutz, and then it was because it was a concealed carry with an expired permit.
I can go into detail if you’d like to know why I agree with the self defense argument made for each of the shootings, but for now I’ll leave you with the point where I knew Rittenhouse would be found not guilty for Grosskreutz, since that one had a single question that changed everything:
“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?” the defense said.
“Correct,” Grosskreutz replied.
Because that question was the difference between self defense or not self defense.
Just like the Heard vs Depp case, people have already decided on the truth and they don’t care that the evidence at trial painted a very different story than the one liberal media told you to believe.
Like you said, Kyle was a dumb kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he was retreating every single time he shot someone. I hate this case because I’m left in the awkward position of defending a rightoid but that trial was very thorough and those are the facts.
Maybe - and I’m just spitballing here - a parent should have done something different about their stupid underage failure of a son.
Things you should not do if you are the parent of a dumb kid.
- Give them a gun.
- Let them take a gun or any weapon out of the house unsupervised.
- Let them go to another state at night unsupervised.
- Let them go to a violent protest alone.
Let them take a gun or any weapon out of the house unsupervised.He didn’t take it out of his home. The gun was never in his home. This was covered in the trial, because if he had had the gun at home, it would have been illegal due to differences in firearms possession laws between WI and IL. That’s why the gun was kept in WI.
Let them go to another state at night unsupervised.This is such a nothing, but it makes it sound like a big deal. Kenosha is right by the state line, he lived in a town just on the other side of the state line. So, what you are saying is you think parents shouldn’t allow kids in their late teens to go to the next town over unsupervised. The distance is ~20 miles, about half an hour in a car.
So, what you are saying is you think parents shouldn’t allow kids in their late teens to go to the next town over unsupervised. The distance is ~20 miles, about half an hour in a car.
Regular kids? That’s fine.
Dumb kids like this joker? Hell no.
So if I enter your house with a gun and you “threaten” me, I have the right to shot you “in self defense”, right?
You don’t grab a rifle, drive to another state, go to a rally that you gate and then day “they were threatening me”. That’s the equivalent of Russians saying now “Ukrainians are threatening us”.
Just about everything you wrote shows a complete lack of understanding of the evidence presented at trial.
Gun never crossed state lines. If it had, they could have busted him for a firearms possession charge in IL. The gun was kept in WI because of differences in gun laws between WI and IL.
Driving to another state is such a nothing. It’s phrased this way to make it sound like he took some massive journey, but Kenosha and Antioch are just on opposite sides of the state line from each other. The distance is about 20 miles, about half an hour by car. He worked in Kenosha as well.
He didn’t just show up and declare people were threatening him and then start shooting at them. He got into an argument with Rosenbaum when Rittenhouse tried to put out a fire and Rittenhouse tried to flee him. Someone else fired a shot, at which point Rittenhouse stopped and turned and Rosenbaum was within arms length and reached for Rittenhouse’s gun. Rittenhouse fires.
Then Rittenhouse starts heading for the police line. He gets knocked to the ground, and Gruber moved to start beating him with an improvised weapon. Rittenhouse shoots him too.
Then Grosskreutz approaches him in a false surrender,.gets close, lowers his hands and points his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shoots him. Grosskreutz’s own testimony said as much.
Kyle works in that state and did not “bring the rifle across state borders” which just cements to me that so many of you did not follow the trial. You’re speaking from a position of ignorance.
You don’t grab a rifle, drive to another state
This did not happen, the rifle was always there and rittenhouse was there the day before as they worked there, at least read the damn wikipedia article of the kenosha unrest before making up such blatant lies.
edit: And to give you an example, lets say you rob a house and then flee, you can actually defend yourself if the home owner starts chasing you after you left the home.
Here they couldn’t even demonstrate a “crime” or something that rittenhouse did that would have given them a reason to chase him, all we know is that Rosenbaum was going around threatening people before he began to chase rittenhouse and tried to take their weapon, also the moment right before someone shot their pistol into the air which was what made rittenhouse turn around when Rosenbaum was chasing him.
who was in the wrong place at the wrong time
Why was he at that place at that time? He didn’t just stumble into the area unaware.
What liberal media is this?
I would also like to point out after Rittenhouse had murdered two people, he was photographed flashing a white power symbol wearing a “free as fuck” t-shirt with the Proud Boys.
There isn’t a doubt in my mind he went to that protest to murder.
“I think it’s funny how everyone’s saying I got booted off stage, when in reality, we just did a hard cutoff time and just happened to leave at that time…”
Lmfao solid save
“I think it’s funny how everyone’s saying I got booted off stage, when in reality, we just did a hard cutoff time and just happened to leave at that time…”
Press (X) to doubt
Roll Insight (DC 5)
x
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I feel like the right will abandon him completely someday soon. He keeps messing up, and has zero charisma to really be a figurehead or an icon.
He will then attempt to find himself and show so much remorse in an attempt to grift the left side of politics. Something something “what happened was awful, and a 17 year old should have never been allowed to have a weapon” - and it will all be said without ever taking responsibility or admitted to wrongdoing.
Removed by mod
he was at the demonstration to “protect businesses and provide medical assistance.”
Remember kids: you can take lives to protect property. You can not damage property to protect lives.
He was a fucking murderous snowflake then and he’s still a pathetic fucking snowflake now.
Backstage footage…
mods removed my comment for saying this guy is a murderer, cause he killed people.
Apparently, that is equivalent to hate speech.
Careful, he may feel the urge to self-defend again from hecklers.
Can’t wait for him to wrong-turn himself into a random driveway and get a taste of his own medicine from one of his own.
He crossed state lines to hunt people, and now has a taste for human blood.
Your warning is legitimate.
He has as much charisma as a Twilight vampire.
Like George Zimmerman, but less enchanting.
Rittenhouse is a murderer!
