Kyle Rittenhouse storms off stage after being confronted by students
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.
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.
Oddly enough one of the people shot were indeed an EMT and they were also armed.
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?
Because you're spreading misinformation lol. Did you even watch the trial?
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?
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...
I wanna see the evidence of this. (EDIT: There isn't any and they just made it the fuck up lmao)
That guy was caught on video threatening everyone before the shooting happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N70fok1R2Kg
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;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxoYNpBMaCg
There’s video of that piece of shit saying he wanted to shoot people. It was thrown out by the biased piece of shit judge:
https://apnews.com/article/trials-f19acb6b4f1e4128610d2078105db1ce
You’re defending a fucking murderer.
Even legal eagle had to make a video defending the judge because of misinformation about this from people like you lmao:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxoYNpBMaCg
They are not a murderer, as much as that pains you. It is a fact. And I can tell you that if you actually watched the damn trial you would come to the same conclusion.
Now onto the news article you linked:
Read this carefully:
That was actually a looting, not just some people exiting a store lol, and yeah rittenhouse said that, it was thrown out because rittenhouse shot no looter. All the people he shot were people that were attacking him, and the one that started all of this was Rosenbaum himself who was going around insulting people and chasing rittenhouse who tried to flee from it.
Yes it is possible that he went there to shoot a looters, but that did not happen, it is a simple fact.
You’re defending a murderer. End of argument.
Is legal eagle also defending a murderer btw?
You’re defending a murderer. Maybe stop it.
Couldnt even answer a simple question lmao. Maybe just maybe it is because you don't like awnser.
What a weird thing you picked that you are willing to lie and spread misinformation and hatred over.
Seems like you don't like how other people think and that makes them deserve to lose their rights, you are also defending a pedophile by your own logic kek.
It was mentioned by Rittenhouse in his own testimony, of course he would blatantly admit to breaking the laws while on trial unless there were evidence either way.
Are you high? Where do you think he was when these multiple confrontations started? He wasn't brawling people on rooftops or inside of businesses, idiot.
Show the fucking video of rittenhouse walking for hours pointing his gun to multiple people like you just said.
The only video we have before the confrontation is this one that shows rosenbaum threatening other people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N70fok1R2Kg
edit: Also the other person that rittenhouse shot pointed a pistol in his face first, it was also caught on video, what is worse is that they even admitted in the FUCKING TRIAL THAT HE POINTED HIS GUN at rittenhouse. This lead to a famous facepalm by one of the prosecutors lol.
Bro wouldn't convict Rittenhouse without a gopro recording of his entire day lmao
Hey at least edit your comment and remove that blatant lie you still have there saying that rittenhouse pointed his gun at multiple people.
You gain nothing by lying so blatantly my dude, or by making fun of me for asking for evidence of such lie...
And yeah I would not convict people without evidence kek.
At least edit your comment to remove that blatant lie that Rittenhouse was protecting property.
Never said that...
I don't know why you know feel to make lies about me now, did I struck a nerve or something?
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.
He literally travelled there with a loaded murder-rifle to point it at people and kill them. That's not defence. Nothing about that is defence. It's literally offence, he went there from out of state just to do that.
He claims he was there to protect businesses and help injured people. To claim he went there to kill people is literally just fabricated.
No one asked him to defend their business.
Which has literally absolutely nothing to do with point.
So you're cool with armed vigilantes wandering around and deciding when someone needs to be shot?
No
Why wasn't he up on top of those businesses like his friends? Why was he roaming the streets looking for smoke?
Whether I can answer these questions has no bearing on if your claim that he was there to kill people is true, so I'm not sure why you're asking them.
What a fucking weird hill to die on that You've chosen.
Maybe your little piss baby rittenhouse can help you with that 😆😆
I think he's a huge idiot. If you think he's my boy, it's because you aren't very bright and can't think beyond black and white.
READ UP:
https://apnews.com/article/trials-f19acb6b4f1e4128610d2078105db1ce
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxoYNpBMaCg
And this is something every lawyer will tell you is reasonable btw.
Interesting. Any more context of this video? Although let's me clear, this is him saying he wanted to shoot someone for an unknown reason. Not him saying he wanted to go to Kenosha to shoot people.
The video wasn't allowed because rittenhouse shot no looter, legal eagle explains it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxoYNpBMaCg
The point is that he WANTED to kill people that weren’t a threat. Looting is not a punishment by vigilante murderer offense.
I'll watch the video when I get a chance, can't right now at work.
But I did want to say I appreciate you actually providing stuff respectfully instead of just attacking and misrepresenting my position.
If they had shot him first, would they be the ones defending themselves from him?
Depends on the context, I guess.
The context was already there for you:
Rittenhouse fired at some who admitted on the stand to pointing the gun at him first. Unless you have evidence that he's actually walking around pointing his gun at people without provocation, you are ironically actually defending him.
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?
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.
Yeah, that's the point.
But that is a hypothetical and we know all of the details of the Rittenhouse case...
Also right.
The point I was getting at is that the question of whether or a shooting is justified depends entirely on the circumstances that led to the shooting. Not someone's past criminal behavior that the shooter was not aware of.
You may certainly disagree with other peoples' reasons for viewing the shooting as unjustified. But it seems that you are either unwilling or unable to see that both people involved in an altercation can be bad. One shouldn't be considered a hero just because he's less bad than the other.
The dead pedo deserved what he got. Rittenhouse is a dumbass who was looking for a fight and luck was the only thing that saved him from killing an innocent bystander.
These can both be true at the same time, and saying that Rittenhouse's actions shouldn't be celebrated is not the same thing as defending pedophilia.
Rittenhouse was just a dumb kid, I heard him on a podcast and he just was just there to help, but if he was my kid he wouldnt have been there. But he was not "a dumbass who was looking for a fight". He was not a hero, he was just a person that had to defend themselves so that he survived. Sure he shouldnt have been there, but neither should all of those looters and rioters.
That's a pretty reasonable position to take. I don't agree with it, but I understand how you arrived there.
Do you still think that being a pedophile is the only reason someone would say Rittenhouse's shooting was unjustified?
With the pedo thing it just amazes me that they defend the pedo, but then will gloat when someone like Herman Cain dies of covid. It just makes me wonder why they defend him but them get mad at the minor who was just trying to get away.
With the pedo thing it just amazes me that they defend the pedo, but then will gloat when someone like Herman Cain dies of covid. It just makes me wonder why they defend him but them get mad at the minor who was just trying to get away.
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N70fok1R2Kg
I think you missed the whole point of my comment.
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?
@CableMonster believes he should decide who lives and dies, probably deserves to be on a watchlist as a potential mass murderer.
You are the one that wanted the racist pedo to attack the minor, I am saying he should defend himself. Would it have been a better outcome of instead of the pedo dying he raped another minor or murdered a minor? Which one?
Murdered a minor who instead shot and murdered two people as was his plan, or even better still Kyle should have stayed the fuck home and not committed multiple homicide over his political beliefs that black lives in fact did not matter. Did you really think I was going to sit here and tell you one murder was worse than multiple murders?
Let me get this straight, you would rather one minor die, than have the two attackers (one pedo, one domestic violence) survive? Thats pretty telling...
I am going to take the pro-minor anti-racist pedo stance. I guess you are picking the pro-pedo side...
Stfu, pedo
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?
Irrelevant.
He's famous for being a murderer, whether he was found guilty or not doesn't matter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I do, I just don't care what wrong people think about shit that's basic and obvious.
Yeah but those people are fucking stupid, so I wouldn't listen to them.
I don't, because I actually watch the damn trial
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?
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.
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.