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.
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.
I watched a disgusting sham trial proving the injustice of our legal system, is that the same one you saw?
That the same trial where the survivor admitted it was his own damn fault?
Tell me if you were told a different series of events than this:
The first guy chased Kyle while yelling threats about how he was going to kill him, cornered Kyle, then lunged at his gun before Kyle shot him. Kyle then ran towards police while a mob pursued him, throwing stuff at him including a heavy rock that hit him in the head knocking him down. The second guy ran up to Kyle while he was on the ground about was about to club him in the head with a skateboard before Kyle shot him, and the third guy ran up on Kyle and pointed a gun at his head before Kyle shot him.
Care to elaborate on why you think the trial was a sham? Do you disagree that this was self defense? Or are you simply upset that he had a gun?
He traveled out of state, with a gun, looking for trouble. And killed two people. He’s a murderer as far as I’m concerned, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he ends up killing again. He’s so proud of having shot those people that he’s literally going around the country and speaking about it lol.
You could argue that even though he isn’t a convicted murderer, colloquially calling him a murderer isn’t incorrect.
Why do you feel that way though? I’m not being facetious or a troll, I genuinely want to know what facts about Kyle’s encounter that you (and probably others) base this opinion off of.
If someone chased you down unprovoked and tried to kill you, and you killed them in self defense, no one in their mind would call you a murderer. There are countless cases of self defense that are less cut and dry than this one, but no one bats an eye at them.
If you unnecessarily bring a gun somewhere and end up in a situation where you need to use it to kill people, you’re a murderer. I choose to label that murder because I place him in the same category as convicted murderers in my head. He isn’t some dude going about his life and needed to use lethal force in self defense due to unforseen circumstances. He actively sought out the situation, and therefore bears some responsibility. This is more a question of if you want to see his pattern of behavior encouraged or discouraged rather than a question about any individual’s culpability.
Even if he didn’t provoke anyone? As long as the gun isn’t pointed at anyone and threats aren’t made with it, there’s nothing provocative about it being there. I understand how others may feel different when their only exposure to firearms is what establishment news decides to show them, but reality is that the simple presence of a weapon like this is not alone a threat.
If Kyle instead brought a concealed handgun (ignoring how that’s illegal for a 17 y/o) and only drew it a moment before when he shot his first attacker, would your opinion change? How about if it was a knife, or a rock he found nearby? What if someone else jumped in and killed Kyle’s attacker instead?
He did not actively seek out to kill people, you’re misinformed at best if you believe that, arrogant at worst.
I don’t feel that trying to stop property damage for a family friend’s establishment in the middle of a riot, where police refused to stop people, is a pattern of behavior I want to discourage people from doing. If a convicted sex offender tried to kill me for stopping them from destroying my friend’s livelihood, and I killed them in self defense, I wouldn’t feel remorse for my actions.
I’m happy the jury ruled on facts and not liberal propaganda. And I say that as a registered Democrat.
You’ll notice I didn’t disagree with the verdict. I just think Kyle is scum and a murderer even if that’s not under the technical legal definitions.
Really? Letting children be judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to property damage is something your’e totally okay with? I think you have a little bit of growing up to do, buddy.
Property rights uber alles.
Carrying around that weapon in a place he had no need to be in is not provoking anyone?
Dude provocation is entirely dependent on how others feel. If I find you bringing a rifle to my kid’s birthday party is unsettling then you’ve by definition provoked me. I don’t care if you’re not pointing it at anyone lol
Please refer back to this comment, it has all the detail and context you need to understand my argument.
Thanks for the intelligent response.
I sense some sarcasm.
Why was he there?
Exactly, this guy gets it, Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t murder anyone, Kyle Rittenhouse only shot and killed two people.