Spyke
politics·politics byMicroWave

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.

Kyle Rittenhouse storms off stage after being confronted by studentshttps://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-university-memphis-charlie-kirk-turning-point-usa-1881720Open linkView original on lemmy.world
lemmy.world

"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.

248
lemmy.world

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.

155
lemmy.ca

"Uncut Colombian" is a drug reference for cocaine. He's just trying to say it's the "best of the best".

34

Probably still schadenfreude, since we use the German word in English.

14
maynarkhreply
feddit.nl

“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.

50
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

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.

-56
lemmy.world

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.

46
aidanreply
lemmy.world

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

-18
akakunaireply
lemmy.ca

"I am not aware of these comments or their context, but if said—yes, I agree they are racist." Not hard.

17
aidanreply
lemmy.world

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

-11

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).

5

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."

-33

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.

5
lemmy.world

"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

34
frezikreply
midwest.social

Someone taught him how to have the aesthetics of a rational argument, but forgot the part about the substance.

18

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

32

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.

2
aidanreply
lemmy.world

I mean that seems fair that he wouldn't comment on something he doesn't know about

-15
lemm.ee

"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.

13

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.

-6
lemmy.world

It's a good point. On one context he was quite willing to take human life but he definitely doesn't want to get misquoted so he takes the time and energy to get it right.

4
aidanreply
lemmy.world

Oh I see, idk, seems like he's just someone who gets scared under pressure

-2

Also exactly the kinda person who might need a gun to defend themselves.

-1

You know at work when I can't give a firm answer to a question I will just say so and promise to find out. Turns out when you are not a murderer people cut you slack

2
rockSlayerreply
lemmy.world

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

139

This joke gets extra dark when you realize he has another speaking engagement next month at Kent State University.

30
lemmy.world

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.

229
moistclumpreply
lemmy.world

Racist murderer? Does that not sound like American cop material to you?

67
lemmy.world

just watch how many will refute being "racist" or a "murderer"

not both; because that would be messed up

12

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.

-3
Billiamreply
lemmy.world

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.

17
lemmy.world

Makes it all the more impressive that he ain't got what it's takes to be an entertainer for the right

4
tsonfeirreply
lemm.ee

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.

6

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.

2
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

30
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

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?

-39
nexguyreply
lemmy.world

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.

30
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

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.

-34
AbidanYrereply
lemmy.world

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.

29
Samuerureply
lemmy.world

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.

-5
AbidanYrereply
lemmy.world

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...

1

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.

-3
aidanreply
lemmy.world

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

-7
AbidanYrereply
lemmy.world

State lines means nothing

"Laws don't matter as long as some shit bag gets to shoot liberals."

Fuck off.

10

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.

-5
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

You're avoiding the question. Would it be repulsive for abuse survivors to invite her to talk?

-31
frezikreply
midwest.social

Maybe people are avoiding it because it has fuck all to do with Rittenhouse.

20

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.

-8
Blooperreply
lemmynsfw.com

Hang on - in your analogy, the 17 year old kid is the battered wife and the black strangers - miles away and across state lines - are his abusers? Suggesting the kid was somehow a victim here? Like he spent his whole life being tortured by his abusive spouse (black strangers)?

da fuq?

18

I'm feeling out the position. These people think he legitimately acted in self defense. Just like we might all believe she acted in self defense. My position isn't about equating these two things, I even explicitly said so. It's about whether its "repulsive" to invite someone because they acted in self defense.

-5
lemmy.ml

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.

7

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.

-6
TexasDrunkreply
lemmy.world

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.

19
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

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.

-28
foshoreply
lemmy.ca

judging by the votes, you are deluded

11

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

-8
bobburgerreply
fedia.io

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?

15
aidanreply
lemmy.world

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

-8
bobburgerreply
fedia.io

He also wasn't married to an abusive man. What's your point?

4

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.

-9

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.

2
mander.xyz

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?

158
lemmy.world

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.

92
jettrscgareply
lemmy.world

It's insane that the only reason he was noticed and brought into their political organization was through murder shooting 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.

71
Sippy Cupreply
lemmy.world

for the express purpose of intimidating people and hopefully getting the opportunity to shoot them in 'self defense'

44
jettrscgareply
lemmy.world

while he was too young to lawfully be able to purchase the gun that he used

33
zalgotextreply
sh.itjust.works

and, let's not forget, illegally transported an illegal firearm across state lines. illegally.

28

illegally

illegal

illegally

Eh, I've heard enough. Acquitted! bangs squeaky gavel

15
Sternreply
lemmy.world

He got away with it so he's automatically a power fantasy for Cons.

60
lemmy.world

Don't forget that he murdered people at a BLM protest, so Cons also think he's a hero.

33
Gorkreply
lemm.ee

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.

60
lemmy.world

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.

36
lemmy.world

To me the nightmare is going to happen when we see more doxing with open carry. Imagine a situation where there will be apps listing the people to be targeted, people follow them around with guns, and the moment they react to the threat they get murdered under stand your ground. All perfectly legal.

1

Yep. There are far-right groups whose favourite pastime (after being racist) is figuring out how to kill undesirables and get away with it.

I actually wouldn't be even slightly surprised if the whole "minorities need to buy guns and carry them everywhere as a magical safety talisman" began as a way of bringing the police-issued excuse "he had a gun so I got scared and shot him" to the public.

Of course, I also wouldn't be surprised if it came from a room full of sleazy gun industry executives who worked out that propaganda and hero fantasies work on left-wing people too.

1

Because he's useful to the Republicans, our extreme-right Party.

58

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.

50
lemmy.world

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.

29
lemmy.today

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.

23
dgkfreply
lemmy.ml

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.”

31

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

4
lemmy.world

Because he’s famous for racist murder.

Yeah our country isn’t doing great. Send ethics

18
lemm.ee

calling it a racist murder just shows how much you really know about the topic at hand 🤣 goodness

-52
lemmy.world

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

22

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

-29

For better or worse rightwing groups often get to give talks at universities under freedom of speech laws. It is not an ideal situation. And frankly with the internet I don't see why anyone can claim that they don't have a medium to express their views.

It's whatever, my uni had a few controversial speakers and I just didn't attend their talks

2
quindracoreply
lemm.ee
  1. He's not famous for murder.
  2. The university didn't invite him to talk, it was just the venue.
-12
uieniareply
lemmy.world

He is only famous because he is a murderer and he got away with it. He has nothing else going for him at all.

9
quindracoreply
lemm.ee

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.

-11

OJ is a murderer and so is Rittenhouse and Zimmerman. If they want to sue me, they can go ahead.

9
lemmy.world

Go ahead and sue me. He is a murderer. Just because the state messed up the case doesn't make him less than a murderer.

If you kill someone and the police never catch you are you a murderer? If they catch you but don't have enough evidence to go forward are you a murderer? If they mess up the chain of custody of evidence are you a murderer?

Who you are as a person is not altered by what some civil servants say about you. If the entire planet earth said I was a giant purple one eyed monster that wouldn't make it so.

He wasn't convicted of murder doesn't make him not a murderer. No go ahead and sue me for whatever bullshit you want.

3
quindracoreply
lemm.ee

Nothing you said makes sense.

Go ahead and sue me.

Why on Earth would I do that?

He is a murderer. Just because the state messed up the case doesn't make him less than a murderer.

And you declaring him a murderer doesn't make him one any more than the state'a failure makes him not one - neither of which is relevant, since we're discussing what he's famous for, not making value judgments.

If you kill someone and the police never catch you are you a murderer?

In every country on Earth, including whichever one you live in, it is possible to kill someone without it being murder. This is true in every culture and every religion.

Who you are as a person is not altered by what some civil servants say about you.

Now we're out past the deep end of irrelevancy. At least when you were focused on actions people did or did not take, you were within the same ballpark as the topic. Who people are as persons has absolutely no relevancy. You might as well as brought up different ways to make pasta.

You sound deeply unhinged. You might want to take a deep breath and figure out what you're even talking about.

-2

You sound deeply unhinged.

I get to sue you now. No court on earth has established that. And any value judgement, by your own admission, must be backed up by a court.

Pity you don't know the difference between accidentally killing someone and showing up with a gun to an already crazy situation.

2
Kindnessreply
lemmy.ml

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.

-39
undercrustreply
lemmy.ca

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.

28

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.

25

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.

-30
Natanaelreply
slrpnk.net

How many judges pose for photos with the defendant of violent crimes? That judge did.

22

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.

2
Zaktorreply
sopuli.xyz

Murder apologist who chose the username "Kindness".

13

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?

0
lemmy.world

A. You don't loose the right to a fair trail because you are a criminal, a former criminal, or even just an asshole. Nor are you allowed to be murdered. It doesn't matter how shit these people were a random guy with a gun doesn't get to decide if they live or die.

B. It is bizarre how prior situations only work against the victims. Everyone loves to point out that the victims were criminals and at the same time ignore the fact that Rittenhouse out himself in that situation

C. I will call that piece of shit a fucking murderer to his fucking face if I ever fucking see him. He is a murderer. Even if God were real, and came down and told me straight off that he is not a murderer in my assessment of the facts he is.

5
Kindnessreply
lemmy.ml

It doesn’t matter how shit these people were a random guy with a gun doesn’t get to decide if they live or die.

A valid point. Do you feel the same way about the paramedic?

Rittenhouse out himself in that situation

Another valid point. I agree.

C.

Please yourself. Your assessment and a definition are worth something.

How you sound to others is your problem, but personally I'd suggest you pick up a dictionary and then go with something more astute, such as killer, man-slayer, or gunman. Possibly gunboy.

-2
lemmy.world

A valid point. Do you feel the same way about the paramedic?

I think I was super clear but evidently I wasn't. People should not be murderes. If we are to have a death penalty, big if, it should be by the state through a process. Not random 17 year olds with a gun. I feel this way about everyone. No one should murder anyone. Murder is bad.

I couldn't decipher the rest of your comment.

3
Kindnessreply
lemmy.ml

The paramedic is an attempted killer too. Where is your outrage over Gaige chasing a killer to kill him? What of his lack of trial?

Just as well. The conversation is a shambling waste. You're only here to feel justified anger I suppose, so we may as well go our separate ways. A pleasant morning to you. Ciao.

-1
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

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.

-44
lemmy.today

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.

40
lemmy.world

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.

23
Samuerureply
lemmy.world

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.

-20
lemmy.world

How stupid he 17 and no paramedic. And what paramedic is carrying around AR15? And yes he drove across state lines.

12
Samuerureply
lemmy.world

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.

-9

He was no where near that town and fucking life guard. Why are defending this murdering little fuck?

4
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

No judge acquitted him. It was a jury.

-25
lemmy.today

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.

26
lemmy.today

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?

13

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;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxoYNpBMaCg

-8

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.

-17
sh.itjust.works

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?

14
lemmy.ml

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.

-14

But that is a hypothetical and we know all of the details of the Rittenhouse case...

1
lemmy.ml

A racist pedo runs at a minor and gets killed and you are mad... Not really seeing how your stance is defendable.

-43
lemmy.today

Lmao, imagine thinking people who murder BLM protestors are fighting against racism. You're too far gone, mate.

20

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?

-36

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.

-3
lemm.ee

OJ Simpson was acquitted. What's he famous for? Because it definitely isn't football.

32
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

And does anyone actually legitimately think oj simpson acted in self defense? Or does everyone recognized that it was a botched prosecution.

-19

Can you point me to anyone who legitimately thinks he acted in self defense?

-2
lemmy.dbzer0.com

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.

25

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.

0
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

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.

-18
lemmy.dbzer0.com

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.

12

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?

-7

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.

-9
Jaxreply
sh.itjust.works

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.

-9
Zaktorreply
sopuli.xyz

"Murder" is not an exclusively legal term.

5

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.

-4

"killing black people isn't murder like killing rats with pesticide isn't murder" -the least racist conservative

-5
lemmy.world

The legal system can piss on a person and tell them it's raining, and you'd be willing to drink it.

9

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.

-8

Why the fuck is this person on a stage to begin with?

"Everyone, Kyle Rittenhouse is here to tell us about indiscriminately provoking people and killing them. Round of applause, please."

128
lemmy.world

Confronting Kyle Rittenhouse? Be careful, no sudden movements. We wouldn't want him to feel threatened, now would we?

124
Dragster39reply
feddit.de

Don't drop any acorns and cut all trees in the surrounding area

28

Jeff Goldblum: "Don't move! He can't see us if we don't move."

4
Schadrachreply
lemmy.sdf.org

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.

-29

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

2

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.

2
lemmy.world

"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

105
lemmy.world

“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

69

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.

94
lemmy.world

Careful, he may feel the urge to self-defend again from hecklers.

59

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.

21
lemmy.world

He crossed state lines to hunt people, and now has a taste for human blood.

Your warning is legitimate.

17
lemmy.world

At least he didn't murder anyone in this confrontation.

56

I still cant' get past his forced cry at his trail, with the little side eye peek to see if they were watching.

51

Pissbaby Kyle much prefers it when he can shoot the people he provokes, but when he has to use his words he proves once again he's nothing but a pissbaby snowflake, melting under scrutiny.

48
lemmy.world

Cafeful, this is a guy famous for killing when feeling threatened by unarmed people.

44
gmtomreply
lemmy.world

Not true, the first guy he shot was armed with a plastic bag.

18
Kedlyreply

Damn, theres apparently TWO people traumatized by plastic bags in this thread

4

Iirc one of the people he shot was hitting him with a skateboard, the guy he shot who lived was pointing a gun at him

2

I almost feel sorry for how this kid is going to be forever type-cast as a stupid gun-nut culture warrior type. Before his brain has even fully developed. What a disaster. What he did was gawdawful but it's likely he will NEVER learn from his mistake and become a whole human being. Not when being a total dumbass for the RW elitists willing to fund such things pays a lot better than the alternative, I bet.

And when people talk about how what he did was in "self defense"....I always ask, what fuck was he even doing there in the first place? He had zero reason to be there.

40

this dude bought a gun illegally (wasnt charged because of a loop hole) recklessly endangered numerous people. His parents fucking allowed this shit

AND he has the audacity to be a political figure? Fuck this guy, seriously.

38

Conservative finds out that being unpopular but getting off on court cases/winning the electoral college doesn't change their unpopularity. More at 11.

32

Leave the kids alone, they have enough to deal with just trying to learn & not get shot by deranged, gun-toting nuts.
Get a website if you want to promote politics.
Politicians should be making sure school kids get teachers who are paid well & the kids have school lunches.

26

What happened to the car dealership that allowed an underage armed kid from out of state to guard their property? Did they quietly settle for a lot of money? That’s an angle of the story I want to know about.

25
lemmy.world

Why is that guy still relevant to them after 4 years? Either send him to prison or therapy, based on what you think he did, and be done with it.

22

Bc profits. They invested in his name brand recognition and want to maximize their return. "Logic" has nothing to do with this - it is "Greed".

3
lemmy.world

I imagine that white guys are famous who kill black people are big celebrities for the klan.

2

He killed 2 white guys and injured another white guy. No one was black that was shot. This is the dumbest shit take ever. The kid was a fucking idiot, but so where the 3 dumbasses who go injured/killed.

8
lemmy.world

Because he's a pussy, and they wouldn't let him carry his rifle on stage to shoot people in 'self-defense'.

10

ALRIGHT PUSSY PUSSY PUSSY WE HAVE WHITE PUSSY WE HAVE BLACK PUSSY WE HAVE THIS PUSSY (sadly) WE HAVE BIG PUSSY WE HAVE SMALL PUSSY

0

Probably an emotional support dog. It looked like a golden retriever. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine him having some PTSD from such unnecessary killings.

I think it's sad how they're trying to pimp him out.

1

Why are we giving this guy a platform? He's basically a grifter who got famous from walking into a Black Lives Matter protest to stir shit up, shooting three (and killing two) protesters and then somehow being acquited by a jury.

16

I just love it that he said he left because the time was up and not because he was booed and confronted.

15

since coming across this post i watched the footage. alot of nuance less so in the comments here. i dislike Kyle Rittenhouse hardheartedly, he went to the protest with an intention that was politically motivated. as to the people that wanted to cause harm to the little shit, its understandable but also gives these movements a bad name and fuel for media to condemn BLM, antifa, IRA, these were all movements to push against class divide.

people should also listen to the podcast alphabet boys or understand that government meddling like FBI employing x-cons as undercover blm members has lead to the vilance displayed in new media.

14

Fuck this kid. He should be rotting in a jail cell - certainly not sauntering around giving speeches on uni campuses.

13

Rittenhouse acting like a complete and utter coward. Gee, color me surprised.

12

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion. That doesn't make them famous for murder.

9

Did I miss something? That was my first thought when I was expecting the headline to be about another trial but it was about this guy being invited to speak to students.

But I'm glad that university is filled with people who think. People with a brain understand that this guy is a murderer and should be in jail permanently under a few tons of dirt.

The people who invited this guy should be invested.... follow the money 🤑 investigated. Because they probably have a brain and would have expected this. The motive was probably to cause media coverage.

9

The protester groups were tipped off of when the new tickets would be made available, so they reserved nearly all of them so they could interrupt, sabotage, and eventually stage a walk out.

So the protestors were going to stage a walkout, but Rittenhouse stayed on stage for the entire allotted time without them doing so. Also he only had 30min on stage but 2 hours afterwards to visit with supporters and answer their question.

Yup, no holes in that story.

3

That poor support dog. Rover probably be all "what did I do to be teathered to this removed?"

How many more stops are left? Or as I want to call them, comedic episodes.

2
pawb.social

Ok... So I don't get this. This guy got away with shooting some black protesters and seems pretty racist.

Why exactly does that make him worth putting on stage? And at a college no less...

-4
lemonmelonreply
lemmy.world

He shot three white men and killed two of them. I think he was irresponsible and foolish to insert himself in the situation. I think his motivation for doing so was racially biased.

I also think it is important to be factual where possible. He's already despicable for trying to benefit from the killings. Incorrectly labeling the victims as minorities, even by mistake, weakens the position against him by giving bad-faith actors a point of contention to home in on.

17

Fair, but I genuinely don't know this guy, I'm genuinely asking for information. Killing 3 white guys doesn't qualify you for public speaking either

2
SupraMarioreply
lemmy.world

This is how shit the info you people have, no one he shot was black...all 3 where white guys. One was a domestic abuser and the other was a pedophile, the one injured had a felony record and was not supposed to own a firearm. Rittenhouse is still a fucking idiot for being there but FFS get your info right. You sound like those right wing dipshits who just make shit up to fit an agenda.

-9
pawb.social

I don't know who this dude is. Apparently the people he shot were white - apparently I made some assumptions

So he killed 3 white guys and seems pretty racist. Why is he a public speaker? At colleges no less?

2
SupraMarioreply
lemmy.world

So let me get this straight...you come into a thread about a very well published case of self defense... with no clue who he is, but because everyone else who hates guns, think he is a POS you jump on the band wagon?

Lol what a fucking joke.

Some of you are the most ignorant people on the left. You're like the rights version of the idiots who want Joe Biden impeached....fucking just ignorant.

-4
Pwnmodereply
lemmy.world

"Self defense". Sure. When someone drives to a protest out of state and starts walking around patrolling streets with guns for some reason it's less of self defense to me and more hunting. He took it up on him himself to be a vigilante and put himself in dangerous situations that he didn't need to be in.

Calling him anything but a childish POS who wanted to wave his metal dick around is a fucking joke.

1

He lived in the area. Literally if you lived next to a state line, there isn't some random boarder, you just live in that area. It's a stupid argument.

Protecting an area from rioters, while stupid, was the reason they where there. There is plenty of footage from that night, the dude should have stayed home, but so should the 3 tools who were there looking to burn buildings and start fights. A 4 people involved were idiots, and none of them should be defended.

-2

For anyone interested the full trail is still available online and is a very interesting watch for anyone even remotely interested in the US justice system. I do feel a lot of the commenters above may feel differently after watching the entire trial and viewing the evidence presented first-hand rather than skewed through the lenses of journalists from either side of the political compass.

-7

He didnt really storm off the stage, and that critique would be simple to refute. The problem is that he is trying to use his famous to be a speaker, but he doesnt have that skill.

-8

The misinformation in this thread is real.

I'd bet money that most people here didn't watch the trial or the videos of what happened. The media baselessly called him a murderer and that was enough for people to parrot it.

-18

Kid sees the downfall of society happening and tries to do something about it. He then defended himself when needed against 3 aggressors.

Got to respect the kid.

-32

Kyle Rittenhouse is the Greta Thunberg of the right-wing. Change my mind.

-34

This dude is 100% innocent ...ya'll just mad that he killed two criminals.

-44

If this kid was black, you'd all be praising him for killing two white people who were attacking him. The reason Lemmy and Reddit hate this dude is because you associate him with some kind of "white privilege" for going to help defend businesses from being destroyed (at the request of the city's businesses who had enough of the rioting and torching) he ends up defending himself against criminals who were there just to cause problems.

-46

The Rittenhouse case was a litmus test of sorts. It was justified self-defense both objectively and litigiously and you leftists still harp on this subject like the facts and statements weren't publicly available 🤣

It's when I realized most of the liberals were just fake and didn't really read anything other than Twitter, tik tok, or Instagram. I'm still a die hard Democrat with a heavy emphasis on social programs but y'all really need to get your head out your asses - before we start losing more people due to your virtue signaling bull crap 😂

-57
thelemmy.club

I honestly feel bad for this kid. His parents are clearly unhinged, which caused him to end up thinking he needed to defend businesses in another state from rioters, and the right using him as a tool of propaganda along with the expectations that come with that cannot be healthy for the mind.

-64
Cethinreply
lemmy.zip

He's clearly making a decent living from this, all because he murdered someone and got away with it. I feel much worse about the family of the dead, or people working minimum wage trying to get by. I feel just about zero sympathy for this kid. Sure, maybe he was raised in a bad position, but it was his choice to do what he did. Do you see many other people raised in bad situations doing what he did? That's on him, not his parents.

53

His parents encouraged this bullshit. He was a young person who deserved better guidance. I’m not suggesting that he should be free, just expressing my thoughts on what a tragedy it is.

6
lemmy.world

Fuck off with that bullshit. He is a murderer who should be rotting in jail. Instead he is gifting off those murders and deserves every misfortune that comes his way.

40
blarthreply
thelemmy.club

Overly simplistic, but ok. I don’t think he should be walking about freely either. Just saying, we’re all products of our genetics, environment, and upbringing.

-16

I get what you're saying. He was a kid and probably had a fucked up childhood that led to everything. It's rare that people like that develop in a vacuum. But that's an explanation of how he got here, not an excuse.

Now he's an adult. There are definitely people on the right using him, but he made the decision to let them. He could have easily slunk into the shadows and gone on with his life. Instead, he felt the court acquittal wasn't enough and had to continue to prove he was right for his actions on the public stage. That's his choice and his alone.

He deserves the ridicule.

33
protistreply
mander.xyz

I get you on this. A lot of people really struggle to maintain empathy with people they may otherwise find despicable, but to me, increasing empathy in the world among and for literally everyone is a paramount goal. Take this example: A huge percentage of men who sexually assault children were sexually assaulted themselves as children. It's easy to dehumanize someone in this situation, but the reality is they have been both a victimizer and a victim in their lives. People are way more complex than our present instant judgment-based society allows for.

All that said, all Kyle Rittenhouse has to do is shut his ugly goddamn mouth if he wants to stop getting lambasted by the public.

29

I'm sure a significant number of people in his life told him how to do the right thing and he choose racially based violence and murdered people.

There is no reason to feel sorry for him. At best we understand how he got to be such a waste of oxygen and try to counter that.

10