936
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 18 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 42 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Samueru@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

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

[-] Wiz@midwest.social 6 points 7 months ago

"I will apply medical assistance ... with my AR15!"

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 7 points 7 months ago

No judge acquitted him. It was a jury.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 29 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago
[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 16 points 7 months ago

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?

[-] Samueru@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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

[-] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Samueru@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It was thrown out by the biased piece of shit judge:

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

You’re defending a fucking murderer.

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:

https://apnews.com/article/trials-f19acb6b4f1e4128610d2078105db1ce

Read this carefully:

Prosecutors say that the video shows Rittenhouse watching some men exiting a CVS store and then commenting that he wishes he had his rifle so he could shoot them. It was filmed 15 days before the Kenosha shootings.

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.

[-] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago

You’re defending a murderer. End of argument.

[-] Samueru@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Is legal eagle also defending a murderer btw?

[-] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

You’re defending a murderer. Maybe stop it.

[-] Samueru@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 6 points 7 months ago

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…

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.

I wanna see the evidence of this.

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.

[-] Samueru@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Where do you think he was when these multiple confrontations started?

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.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 5 points 7 months ago

Bro wouldn't convict Rittenhouse without a gopro recording of his entire day lmao

[-] Samueru@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 3 points 7 months ago

At least edit your comment to remove that blatant lie that Rittenhouse was protecting property.

[-] Samueru@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Never said that...

I don't know why you know feel to make lies about me now, did I struck a nerve or something?

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 12 points 7 months ago

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.

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

walked the streets for hours pointing it at protestors

If they had shot him first, would they be the ones defending themselves from him?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 18 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 15 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Samueru@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee 33 points 7 months ago

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

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

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

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)
[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

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

[-] Zehzin@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

His role in Naked Gun? That's a great movie.

[-] theluckyone@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

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

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

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.

this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
936 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3311 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS