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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
“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.
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.
Or seat fillers.
Fuck yeah, make that piece of shit feel bad. Pure uncut Colombian schadenfreude.
What is Colombian schadenfreude?
“Uncut Colombian” is a drug reference for cocaine. He’s just trying to say it’s the “best of the best”.
I’m saying I snort that shit.
“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.
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.
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.
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
“I am not aware of these comments or their context, but if said—yes, I agree they are racist.” Not hard.
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
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).
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.
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
“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
Someone taught him how to have the aesthetics of a rational argument, but forgot the part about the substance.
I mean that seems fair that he wouldn’t comment on something he doesn’t know about
I’m sure the people he killed would disagree
What?
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.
Oh I see, idk, seems like he’s just someone who gets scared under pressure
Exactly the kinda person who shouldn’t have a gun.
Also exactly the kinda person who might need a gun to defend themselves.
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?
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.
It’s insane that the only reason he was noticed and brought into their political organization was through
murdershooting 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.
for the express purpose of intimidating people and hopefully getting the opportunity to shoot them in ‘self defense’
He got away with it so he’s automatically a power fantasy for Cons.
Don’t forget that he murdered people at a BLM protest, so Cons also think he’s a hero.
Yes, but remember they’re not racist tho. /s
Because of TP USA.
I feel now is a good time to pimp our community, !toiletpaperusa@lemmy.world
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !toiletpaperusa@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.
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.
YHGTBSM. A rifle is not a deadly weapon.
IAIFNSYMDIIVDTTIR.
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.”
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.
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.
- He’s not famous for murder.
- The university didn’t invite him to talk, it was just the venue.
He is only famous because he is a murderer and he got away with it. He has nothing else going for him at all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Murder” is not an exclusively legal term.
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.
“killing black people isn’t murder like killing rats with pesticide isn’t murder” -the least racist conservative
Because he’s famous for racist murder.
Yeah our country isn’t doing great. Send ethics
calling it a racist murder just shows how much you really know about the topic at hand 🤣 goodness
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
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.
Murder apologist who chose the username “Kindness”.
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.”
Pretty sure he does discriminate
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.
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.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 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.
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.
WTF are you smoking? The dudes ATTACKED HIM FIRST… damn man…seems like you guys just insist on ignoring the facts.
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.
Remember kids, you can riot, burn, and loot… as long as it’s “for a good cause.”
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…
deleted by creator
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
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.
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…
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
“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
“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
Roll Insight (DC 5)
Crit fail
Dm: you know he is full of shit.
Kyle Rittenhouse is the Greta Thunberg of the right-wing. Change my mind.
Greta Thurnberg a young woman appalled by politicians watching the world burn and doing nothing, unwilling to make even the smallest sacrifice for future generations.
Kyle Rittenhouse racist proud boy who murdered black [lives matter supporters] people for fun and profit.
Yeah, I can see how they fit the bold young activist figurehead role for each side, but the juxtaposition REALLY highlights how disgusting right wing politics are.
[Edit]
My point probably came across a bit faulty. Sorry for that, not a native english speaker.
I’m in full support of Greta, I think she’s great. And I think what Rittenhouse is a piece of shit, but he’s a product of an environment that brought him up like that and now idolize him.
My point, even though it came out poorly, was that its weird that for right-leaning people Kyle was acting within his rights, and did the right thing are also saying Greta Thunberg is a puppet controlled by “leftie adults” for propaganda.
And the left-leaning would probably say the same but in vice versa.
It’s just interesting for me how each group has chosen their infallible idol who is mature and can do no wrong, who happen to be around the same age, and frankly, children.
Yeah, I understood what you were saying. I don’t get the downvotes you’re getting. I was just adding that it’s a sad reflection of reality that those two people play the same role. Goes to show how fucked up the right wing has gotten.
I don’t agree with everything you just said but we vibin’
Can’t change your mind, you’re not listening to anything that doesn’t say what you want to hear.
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.
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.
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.
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 actively sought out the situation, and therefore bears some responsibility.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I guess you feel bad for all murderers then.
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.
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.
Never mind he was found not guilty right? Because you know, public opinion matters more…
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…
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
