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.
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.
READ UP:
https://apnews.com/article/trials-f19acb6b4f1e4128610d2078105db1ce
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.
Nobody he killed was doing any looting. So whats the point? He deserves jail sentence for something he didnt do?
Had he opened fire on people that were looting, the trial would have been a totally different thing, they simply attacked him for holding a weapon which is insanely stupid and you are mad that he defended himself lmao.
You’re defending a murderer. Stop it.
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.
Yeah it is crazy how misinformation spreads, if you actually go back on reddit and check /r/news the day the ruling happened everybody pretty much knew that was going to be the result because of how much of a shitshow the trial was and that the prosecution had nothing in their case.
But yeah the fact that people still spread blatant lies like “he drove across state lines with the rifle” is very chilling.
It’s the same thing with the Zimmerman/Martin. The facts don’t matter, just the narrative the originally caught on. Any deviation from this is met with derision. And I’m not saying one side only, I’ve been attacked by both the people who think Rittenhouse is completely innocent saint that is the victim of biased system, and those who think he is a cold blooded murderer that went there that day with the intent of murdering people. No room for nuance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxoYNpBMaCg
And this is something every lawyer will tell you is reasonable btw.
If they had shot him first, would they be the ones defending themselves from him?
deleted by creator
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.