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 still cant’ get past his forced cry at his trail, with the little side eye peek to see if they were watching.
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.
Yeah, it is wild how the anti-BLM types will quote the supposed “the country’s cities were burned to the ground” (really, when was this again?) and some ginned-up numbers of total dollars of damages done, usually with great amount of hand-wringing about damage done to businesses.
They tip their hands without even realizing it, I think.
deleted by creator
Property over people. It’s almost cliche at this point to bring it up but here’s a reminder that police in the USA were created primarily to return escaped slaves to their owners, they were a tool of the wealthy and merchant class. It’s protect property and serve capital above all else.
Overseer <-> Officer
He was being beaten with a skateboard, wasn’t he?
Why did he go there in the first place? To “protect property” with his gun.
Yeah, but the shots were in self defence, even though he shouldn’t have been there
So back to my comment:
He can go there, with his gun, to potentially take lives to protect property.
This is because the protestors are not allowed to damage property to protect lives.That’s America for you
This is because the protestors are not allowed to damage property to protect lives.
What live are people protecting by burning a car lot? Or by punching an old man in the face that had a fire extinguisher (yes that happened the day before the shooting).
What live are people protecting
From the article:
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.
When the state treats a group of people’s lives as less important than property, people are going to react to that.
Or by punching an old man in the face that had a fire extinguisher
I watched the video, the man was using the fire extinguisher on people, how would you respond if someone was using a fire extinguisher on you?
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 really think those people were BLM protester?! Do you think this guy is also a BLM protester?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N70fok1R2Kg
When the state treats a group of people’s lives as less important than property, people are going to react to that.
Nvm that they were “protesting” the shooting of Jacob Blake which was 100% justified as it turned out the dude was abusing his girlfriend and pulled a knife on the police when they tried to arrest him.
how would you respond if someone was using a fire extinguisher on you?
The guy that hit him was some random person on shorts, they weren’t even being sprayed on by the fire extinguisher lmao
But if you still want the answer no, I would not hit an old person because they used a fire extinguisher on me, I wouldn’t even fucking be looting and burning a random store to begin with.
What business is this guy protecting by chasing people around outside of it with a fire extinguisher as they’re leaving the business? The damage was already done at that point, there was no reason to continue escalating things further. When you put yourself in dangerous situations and personally decide to escalate them, you really can’t be surprised if you get hurt when things escalate. Mess with the bull, get the horns.
You make a good point, but I still feel horrible that this is what is being called “protesters destroying property to protect lives” and then get mad when they attacked rittenhouse and found out.
WTF are you smoking? The dudes ATTACKED HIM FIRST… damn man…seems like you guys just insist on ignoring the facts.
Reading comprehension dude: WHY DID HE GO THERE WITH HIS GUN? What did he think he was going to do with it? He thought to himself “Some stranger’s property might be damaged” and went there, with his gun, to protect property he had no actual connection with. Because the property of strangers is more important than the lives of strangers.
He was being beaten with a skateboard after he killed somebody with a gun. So, uh, y’know, just out of nowhere. /s
Yea, but you’re on Redd…I mean, Lemmy… so, the looters, arsonists and burglars get a pass…
Right, because property is more important than people.
Your only way of disparaging these people is “they were damaging property!” Which last I checked did not carry the death sentence.
Put them in front of a jury and a death sentence would be monstrous, put them in front of a vigilante and “they had it coming for stealing!”“Property is more important than people” is a phrase being thrown around by the Left to try and make the Rittenhouse situation into something it isn’t. He didn’t go there to kill anyone. He went there to help defend stores, like 1000’s of others did throughout the country (remember during the LA riots, Koreans sitting on top of their stores with guns? Were they horrible because they cared about their belongings?). He was attacked by some low lives who fucked around and found out.
He went there to help defend stores
And how was he going to defend the stores? With a gun. Anyone who knows anything about guns will tell you: you do not point a gun at a target you don’t intend to kill.
So he went there to shoot people in order to protect property that wasn’t even his and he had no connection to.
Remember kids, you can riot, burn, and loot… as long as it’s “for a good cause.”
Remember kids: If you purposely insert yourself in dangerous situations that you have no reason to be in, you can find an excuse to kill people with your gun! PEW PEW!
The Boston tea party is taught to every single kid in this country, give me a break. We’re a country built on rioting burning and looting.
Lol…okay, let’s compare the Boston Tea Party to people taking part in criminal acts in their own communities…
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.
His odds of a political career are pretty good. Repubs love guys like this. Repubs don’t want a functioning government, they want everyone they hate to be angry.
As a dirty European watching from the sidelines, I’m struggling to understand how to could both have bought a firearm illegally yes utilised a loophole to not get charged for it. I did a quick search but couldn’t find anything - could you explain more?
i think the technicality here is that it’s technically legal, the way he bought it. But only through one particular law that says that it isn’t. He didn’t buy it through a gun store, he didn’t buy it locally. He went out of his way, to another quite young individual, who then sold it to him (i want to say it was legal for him to buy it there, not where he lived) and then made his way to the riot.
It’s been a while since i’ve read up on this, but it was a rather weird situation regardless. I don’t care who you are, this is very weird behavior from someone who would be behaving in a legal manner. That may not be true. I’m assuming this is all stated in the legal paper work. I’m not digging that up though.
Either way this never should’ve happened. The fact that he was allowed to go there, armed was fucking insane.
Enjoy your five minutes hate
so far i have only gotten people agreeing with me. I dont really understand why anybody would disagree with me. He is a genuinely bad person at this point.
Which should make you very suspicious.
Disagreement is normal. A diversity of opinions is normal.
When everybody agrees so readily and hates somebody they never even met, something funny is going on.
you mean the fact that everybody agrees with me on the fact that killing people and then turning into a fucking career is a dick move?
Or the fact that his parents allowed a 17 year old to attend a protest where angry armed people are likely to be, open carrying a rifle?
I don’t have the time to unpack your witty rhetoric. Speak plainly.
It seems you don’t have time to be online then. Go do what you have to do and come back when you have the free time.
Don’t make silly demands like you’re too busy and are owed a dumbing down of old news.
so, by rhetoric, haha funny term, i use that all the time when talking about conservative politics… Anyway, you mean the very clear statements of fact that i made regarding this pretty cut and dry situation that would be hard to fudge which presumably, most people would happen to agree with my stance on?
TL;DR since im so nice and all, you’re wrong.
Never mind he was found not guilty right? Because you know, public opinion matters more…
OJ simpy was found innocent. Clearly he never did anything wrong…
“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.
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.
I agree what he did was self defence. I also agree that he absolutely should not have been there in the first place. But it seemed him being there wasn’t that serious of a crime in the first place? (I know there was some illegality about him moving the weapon across state lines, but still)
He’s a moron. Unfortunately it’s not illegal to be a moron.
@CharlesDarwin @Flax_vert I like how people argue about this as if US self defense law condoning people executing their neighbors and shit makes anything right lol
He put himself into harm’s way, intentionally, because of right-wing feels, and then claims “self defense”. Carrying around a brandished weapon. What was he even doing there?
It so happens that I do think self-defense is a valid defense. Under the right circumstances, of course. If, for instance, someone breaks into my house and I shoot them on the spot, I won’t exactly be jumping up and down that I was pushed to kill someone (the manly macho posturing on this kind of scenario is one I always find curious; the fact of the matter is that any normal human being would not - and should not - come away mentally unscathed from ending another human being’s life. If I were forced to end someone’s life because they broke into my house, I imagine that is something I’d wrestle with for the rest of my days), but I don’t think I should be charged with anything. However, if I go to a protest, waving around a firearm, and then feel “threatened” by someone throwing a plastic bag at me…
@CharlesDarwin Unfortunately the majority of marketing for small arms has gotten people jumping up and down at the thought of getting to kill a home intruder to the point that they were all cheering on a guy for shooting a pregnant woman and a guy running away.
There’s morality and legality. I agree what he did was morally wrong and was murder in the biblical sense, but not the legal sense under U.S. law.
When I boil down the very moment of his decision, I agree in the idea of self defense. But it’s also why I’m generally opposed to filling an environment with high-lethality machines (be they guns, OR cars). It’s naive to put confidence behind the minds in control of those objects. Highways, too, have a high rate of deaths; but they at least serve some useful purpose.
I agree
Ok I’ll bite. Why was he there?
You judge a man you never met, about an event you didn’t witness.
You judge him with such confidence. You clearly know something.
He says himself that he was there to protect businesses, but he had no relation to the business beyond that of a standard employee, and his help was never requested–he didn’t know the owners, his family didn’t own the business, and he wasn’t even a frequent customer IIRC.
The most charitable interpretation is that an untrained, underage civilian took a semiautomatic rifle across state lines, to a protest happening in a town he didn’t live in, to guard a business that he had no special relation to, and that never asked for his help.
The more probable interpretation, given posts on his social media before the shooting (that weren’t allowed to be shown in court), is that he wanted to play action hero and shoot some scumbags, and he got exactly what he hoped.
EDIT: Apparently he worked at the business he was guarding, but the point still stands–he never got permission to defend the business, nor was it ever offered.
What bullocks technicality kept his social media posts from being shown in court?!
What reason did he have for being there?
He won’t learn from his mistakes, because despite being found NOT GUILTY in a court of law, he’s still crucified by everyone, including social media like Lemmy. It’s like when that dude with a smirk who was being yelled at by the Indian…the only thing people wanted to do is punch that kid… without even knowing the context. And, even after finding out the truth (how the Indians were in his face intimidating him) people still talk shit to him for being a Trump supporter…
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.
Even if you don’t think it was murder, it’s repulsive that he is trying to make a career out of killing two people.
I don’t think he gets many other job offers
Racist murderer? Does that not sound like American cop material to you?
just watch how many will refute being “racist” or a “murderer”
not both; because that would be messed up
I’ll have a go! He may well be racist but he killed white people, and was legally found to have acted in self-defence. So all we can really say is he’s a killer. I’m not planning on being friends with the guy, but I do like a little precision in my speech.
He’s a mascot for the GOP - I doubt he’d have that hard a time getting a job at Fox or some other misinformation distributor.
To be a fox news anchor, you have to have a personality. I mean, it can be one where you scream and yell, but you can’t walk off the stage—because the show must go on. He’s annoying, even to his own, and a liability.
because the show must go on
>>>
-
TPUSA is running the show, not Rittenhouse. They recruited him like an intelligence asset by showering him with praise and “favors” in a time where he was (deservedly) receiving national ire.
-
People need to understand that the American right has a pervasive violent ideation. His actions are repulsive to you, but they are normal, necessary, and a sign of strength to the gun-owning right. Many, many Americans love what he did.
These people Want. To. Kill. You.
-
The guy who stalked and shot treyvon Martin sold the gun at auction
I think the debate is nuanced so I’m not trying to say it’s absolutely equatable, I’m more trying to feel out your actual position.
If a woman was being abused by her husband, stood up to him and killed him in self defense…if domestic abuse/survivor groups invited her to speak, would it be also repulsive?
Or say that woman armed herself as a child(17 yr old) and walked into a tense situation of strangers untrained and ready to shoot someone… and then ends up shooting someone. Might be a better comparison.
Perfect example. She shoots him with a gun she bought and then brought back home. To the people who think he’s a victim, you’re the one saying “well, she should have left him and certainly not brought the gun into the house!”
But I understand that the question will be avoided at all costs, because that’s the only way to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
It’s actually a pretty terrible example. A person has a right to be safe in their own home. Kyle had no reason to cross state lines with an illegally acquired rifle.
State lines means nothing when it’s a city on the border, and the illegal firearm charge was thrown out for, yk, not being true
State lines means nothing
“Laws don’t matter as long as some shit bag gets to shoot liberals.”
Fuck off.
That’s not what I said, but iirc he didn’t cross the gun with state lines- I may be misremembering though.
Fuck off.
Please read the rules if you care so much about laws.
You’re avoiding the question. Would it be repulsive for abuse survivors to invite her to talk?
You’re avoiding the question. Would it be repulsive for abuse survivors to invite her to talk?
Because it’s transparently obvious that you want folks to go “of course that wouldn’t be repulsive” so you can go “AH HA!” when in reality this tortured attempt to equate the two has no value aside from disingenuous rhetorical plays as you are attempting.
Remember this all comes from someone saying that even if you don’t think he’s guilty of murder, it should still be repulsive that he’s being invited to and going to talks, because he killed some people.
I’m trying to get people to realize that if you think he’s innocent, you wouldn’t find this repulsive. there is nothing disingenuous about that.
What is disingenuous is misrepresenting my position in an attempt to avoid facing this contradiction, which is what you are accusing them all of doing.
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?
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.
Maybe people are avoiding it because it has fuck all to do with Rittenhouse.
Then just move on if you don’t see the point. The fact that everyone who has responded has blatantly misrepresented my point or asked a question back without answering mine tells me a lot about how the avoidance isn’t because it supposedly has nothing to do with the topic.
Kyle had no reason to cross state lines with an illegally acquired rifle.
They actually had more reason than the rest of the people he shot, because they at least worked on that town.
Also the rifle never made it across state lines, it was always there at dominick black’s home.
Cool, no one had any reason to be there. That doesn’t make it ok for some dipshit to shoot them.
The gun that his friend bought for him because he couldn’t buy it himself, and he never had it at his own house? There’s so much convoluted bullshit wrapped around trying to justify his ownership of that gun…
That doesn’t make it ok for some dipshit to shoot them.
Yes it does, it was either let him be attacked by rosenbaum or the crowd (which the crowd actually began hitting him anyway lol) or defend yourself.
This isn’t even a stand your ground case because rittenhouse tried to flee in every case lol.
The gun that his friend night for him because he couldn’t legally buy it himself, and he never had it at his own house? There’s so much convoluted bullshit wrapped around trying to justify his ownership of that gun…
You said that he crossed state lines with the rifle.
I’ll answer it by pointing out that you’re building a straw man. I would call you a goat fellating syphilis factory but I’m pretty sure that both goats and syphilis would hate to be inside you.
There is a clear difference between putting yourself in a situation by crossing state lines over some shit that has nothing to do with you and having to live with an abuser. She has to go home to a person. He could have stayed his ass home knowing what was happening and would have been just fucking fine. He was looking to kill, she’s trying to live. If she’s making a living on it, it’s making a living on surviving, not going to look for trouble. But you can’t see that, you slimy donkey fucking inbred.
I get that people like you argue in bad faith. I really don’t care and this response isn’t for you. In fact I’m blocking you after I make this because I have no interest in listening to a sniveling shit pile try to lawyer his way into making crossing state lines hoping to kill someone ok. I’m writing this so anyone confused about what kind of person you are can read and see that you’re looking to find a way to kill.
Go fuck yourself instead of forcing yourself on your sister-cousin again. I hope that last brain cell you’re clinging to falls out and knocks out that last tooth that’s holding on by a thread on its way out.
I love how you claim you are going to answer the question, and then simply insult me while not answering the question… And the telling me you’re blocking me.
You’re doing me a favor. Thanks.
judging by the votes, you are deluded
I feel bad for people who think that popularity is the same as correctness. You are basically doing the equivalent of “wow, this influencer has a lots of followers. They can’t be wrong!” Lol
You seem to be JAQing off here, but your straw man is pretty weak.
Let’s say instead the abused woman is safely away from her husband and he can’t harm her any more. Then she illegally obtains a firearm, drives 2 hours to the husband’s place of work, starts a fight with him, and when he starts to get violent with her she the shoots him.
Do you think this woman is justified in the shooting?
But Rittenhouse neither illegally obtained the firearm nor drove two hours? And Rittenhouse had just as much a right to be there as the protestors
He also wasn’t married to an abusive man. What’s your point?
Well why mention that for the analogy then?
Why would I answer your unrelated question if you are unwilling to answer mine? Whether I think anyone is justified is not really the point of the analogy.
With Rittenhouse it’s more like a woman was being abused by her husband, she tried to hit him back him in self defense, but then he killed her and then made a career out of giving talks about how brave he was for defending himself.
mods removed my comment for saying this guy is a murderer, cause he killed people.
Apparently, that is equivalent to hate speech.
Last I checked taking a gun to a place specifically to kill someone is murder, yup, even if our jurors decided they are not criminally liable , still a murderer, just not convicted.
I had a related conversation not long ago with a friend that took exception to me saying US troops “murder” people. His argument was that its a legal term and not accurate in that context. Which is probably true, but i dont think Im ever going to let go of killing people= murder regardless of what the law says.
Killing people = homicide
i dont think Im ever going to let go of killing people= murder regardless of what the law says.
Not trying to change your mind one way or the other, but could I ask clarifying questions?
I’m sure you have a definition for what “killing” is to justify your beliefs, but like what is it?
Are drunks that kill people while they are blacked out murders?
What about giving someone peanuts that die from allergies? Does it matter if they didn’t know about the allergy?
What about doctors killing people in the OR?
Or a baby killing their mom during childbirth?
Are all these people murders because they killed someone?
Wanted to edit real quick. I’m not trying to claim Rittenhouse didn’t have a mindset to murder someone. Idk about what the legal definition is, he went there trying to kill someone so I could agree calling him a murder.
If you pay taxes then you might be considered an accessory to murder. Unless you consider taxes to be theft, of course.
I pay taxes to pay for bombs that murder thousands. Am I a murderer?
I would also like to point out after Rittenhouse had murdered two people, he was photographed flashing a white power symbol wearing a “free as fuck” t-shirt with the Proud Boys.
There isn’t a doubt in my mind he went to that protest to murder.
I had to look up that hand gesture because I’d never heard of it, and finding out what is pissed me off. Are they fucking serious? The O-K hand gesture??
It’s so evil and rotten to try to corrupt such a common, useful, and benign hand gesture and to try to turn that into a symbol of hate. Absolutely enraging
If Rittenhouse hadn’t even murdered or physically harmed anyone, I’d still say he’s worth society’s most energetic condemnation on his views alone.
It was supposed to be a troll post from 4chan, but they actually used it for that afterwards, so yes, we are looking at the evolution of dog whistles and the blurred lines of hate speech on the internet.
It’s called, “plausible deniability.” The in-group knows what they’re doing and they can gaslight the out-group.
It’s a brilliant but sinister tactic.
Yes it’s a White Power Gesture now.
The most hilarious part is that it was originally a 4chan joke, and now they’ve accepted it as a real symbol. It’s like the flat earth. You joke and the crazies take it seriously.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/18/ok-sign-white-power-symbol-or-just-right-wing-troll
Yeah, I don’t dig deep into all this culture war nonsense, but I got informed of this after giving one my buddies the ok sign. They explained it to me but I don’t care, I am taking the OK back, they cannot have it, it belongs us to us normal loving folks, not the toxic hate filled mongrels.
what mind?
I will never name my kid Kyle
Eric approved
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.”
Those students are lucky that piece of shit wasn’t strapped.
deleted by creator
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.
Confronting Kyle Rittenhouse? Be careful, no sudden movements. We wouldn’t want him to feel threatened, now would we?
Don’t drop any acorns and cut all trees in the surrounding area
We should start throwing acorns at murderous dumbshits
Jeff Goldblum: “Don’t move! He can’t see us if we don’t move.”
Hide all the plastic bags.
I mean, based on history so long as you don’t chase him down and try to take his gun, knock him to the ground and move to bludgeon him, or try a false surrender with intent to shoot him you’re probably fine.
But seriously, if you think he just started shooting at the drop of a hat, watch the trial footage.
He’s a dumbass kid who should never have gone to the protest in the first place (but had every legal right to be where he was) turned right wing grifter because no one else will have him, but all three of his shootings definitely fall under self defense.
I’ll take my downvotes now for not expressing views that contradict trial evidence now, thanks.
Yeah, I feel like most people didn’t watch the full trial. You can have the opinion he shouldn’t have been there, but putting yourself in a dumb situation doesn’t automatically forfeit your right to self defense
I watched the trial, and I saw the footage. I don’t agree with the verdict one bit, but we live in a society and I just have to accept that outcome.
However, I don’t have to change my opinion about the guy just because he was acquitted in court. He went out looking for trouble, found it, and two people died because of it.
Nah, he is a murderer. Shitty laws in a shithole state does not change that fact.
In what state are there laws that would lead to his conviction for double homicide?
Nah, he is a murderer. Shitty laws in a shithole state does not change that fact.
What shitty laws are we talking about? He made a pretty basic and straightforward self defense defense. He didn’t invoke Stand Your Ground, in no small part because WI doesn’t do Stand Your Ground (and all Stand Your Ground generally means is that you don’t have a duty to try to flee from an attacker if possible, and it was only really possible for Rosenbaum and he did try to flee from Rosenbaum).
The only case where he got off on a charge because of “shitty laws” I can think of would be the weapons possession charge and that’s because WI has different ages for different classes of guns, and the kind of gun he had was in the 16+ rather than 18+ category. Ironically, there was at least one person with an illegal gun on the scene, and it was Grosskreutz, and then it was because it was a concealed carry with an expired permit.
I can go into detail if you’d like to know why I agree with the self defense argument made for each of the shootings, but for now I’ll leave you with the point where I knew Rittenhouse would be found not guilty for Grosskreutz, since that one had a single question that changed everything:
“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him — advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” the defense said.
“Correct,” Grosskreutz replied.
Because that question was the difference between self defense or not self defense.
I dunno about that. If you needlessly insert yourself into a dangerous situation and you kill people in self defense, there should be consequences.
He went looking for violence. He found it.
I don’t agree, that seems like it would be giving official journalists for example special privileges over citizen journalists. Give free reign to racists to lynch counter protestors, etc.
Do most journalists carry illegal guns in the course of their work?
I don’t think it was illegal, or at least the court didn’t.
Do most journalists carry illegal guns in the course of their work?
Well that’s what our legal system is for, to hash out individual cases. If someone’s going as a citizen journalist that’s very different from going to “keep the peace and shoot looters” and very intentionally bringing along long guns, vs pistols.
He couldn’t legally own a pistol. He was determined to have legally possessed a rifle.
If I’m on my way to sell crack and I get attacked by some psycho do I lose my right of self defense?
If I’m breaking curfew and I get attacked by some psycho do I lose my right of self defense?
At some point you will see that it makes no sense, the legal system already forbids killing looters, so you want them to lose their right of self defense because you don’t like them.
Context matters. He went looking for a fight and found one. One lawyer I heard pointed out that had he lost the fight and died whomever killed him would have been able to argue, probably successfully, the same thing. Self-defense.
Why should the law support murder if the murderer is better at it?
Grosskreutz (the one who survived) could have shot Rittenhouse and justifiably claimed self-defense under the law. He had a gun pointed at him by a dude who had just wasted two other men with it. The law’s fucked.
You’re not wrong on this. And Rittenhouse mostly got off with a self defense claim on shooting Grosskreutz because Grosskreutz approached in a false surrender, lowered his hands and pointed his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. Grosskreutz answered a question to that effect during the trial, and that answer was likely the deciding point on that charge.
Last man standing justice system.
Just like the Heard vs Depp case, people have already decided on the truth and they don’t care that the evidence at trial painted a very different story than the one liberal media told you to believe.
Like you said, Kyle was a dumb kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he was retreating every single time he shot someone. I hate this case because I’m left in the awkward position of defending a rightoid but that trial was very thorough and those are the facts.
What liberal media is this?
who was in the wrong place at the wrong time
Why was he at that place at that time? He didn’t just stumble into the area unaware.
Maybe - and I’m just spitballing here - a parent should have done something different about their stupid underage failure of a son.
Things you should not do if you are the parent of a dumb kid.
- Give them a gun.
- Let them take a gun or any weapon out of the house unsupervised.
- Let them go to another state at night unsupervised.
- Let them go to a violent protest alone.
Let them take a gun or any weapon out of the house unsupervised.He didn’t take it out of his home. The gun was never in his home. This was covered in the trial, because if he had had the gun at home, it would have been illegal due to differences in firearms possession laws between WI and IL. That’s why the gun was kept in WI.
Let them go to another state at night unsupervised.This is such a nothing, but it makes it sound like a big deal. Kenosha is right by the state line, he lived in a town just on the other side of the state line. So, what you are saying is you think parents shouldn’t allow kids in their late teens to go to the next town over unsupervised. The distance is ~20 miles, about half an hour in a car.
So, what you are saying is you think parents shouldn’t allow kids in their late teens to go to the next town over unsupervised. The distance is ~20 miles, about half an hour in a car.
Regular kids? That’s fine.
Dumb kids like this joker? Hell no.
So if I enter your house with a gun and you “threaten” me, I have the right to shot you “in self defense”, right?
You don’t grab a rifle, drive to another state, go to a rally that you gate and then day “they were threatening me”. That’s the equivalent of Russians saying now “Ukrainians are threatening us”.
Just about everything you wrote shows a complete lack of understanding of the evidence presented at trial.
Gun never crossed state lines. If it had, they could have busted him for a firearms possession charge in IL. The gun was kept in WI because of differences in gun laws between WI and IL.
Driving to another state is such a nothing. It’s phrased this way to make it sound like he took some massive journey, but Kenosha and Antioch are just on opposite sides of the state line from each other. The distance is about 20 miles, about half an hour by car. He worked in Kenosha as well.
He didn’t just show up and declare people were threatening him and then start shooting at them. He got into an argument with Rosenbaum when Rittenhouse tried to put out a fire and Rittenhouse tried to flee him. Someone else fired a shot, at which point Rittenhouse stopped and turned and Rosenbaum was within arms length and reached for Rittenhouse’s gun. Rittenhouse fires.
Then Rittenhouse starts heading for the police line. He gets knocked to the ground, and Gruber moved to start beating him with an improvised weapon. Rittenhouse shoots him too.
Then Grosskreutz approaches him in a false surrender,.gets close, lowers his hands and points his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shoots him. Grosskreutz’s own testimony said as much.
Kyle works in that state and did not “bring the rifle across state borders” which just cements to me that so many of you did not follow the trial. You’re speaking from a position of ignorance.
You don’t grab a rifle, drive to another state
This did not happen, the rifle was always there and rittenhouse was there the day before as they worked there, at least read the damn wikipedia article of the kenosha unrest before making up such blatant lies.
edit: And to give you an example, lets say you rob a house and then flee, you can actually defend yourself if the home owner starts chasing you after you left the home.
Here they couldn’t even demonstrate a “crime” or something that rittenhouse did that would have given them a reason to chase him, all we know is that Rosenbaum was going around threatening people before he began to chase rittenhouse and tried to take their weapon, also the moment right before someone shot their pistol into the air which was what made rittenhouse turn around when Rosenbaum was chasing him.
