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 collegeās Turning Point USA chapter to speak at the campus. However, the event was met with backlash from a number of students who objected to Rittenhouseās presence.
The 21-year-old gained notoriety in August 2020 when, at the age of 17, heĀ shot and killed two menāJoseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, as well as injuring 26-year-old Gaige Grosskreutzāat a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
He said theĀ three shootings, carried out with a semi-automaticĀ AR-15-style firearm, were in self-defense. TheĀ Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest where the shootings took place was held afterĀ Jacob Blake, a Black man, was left paralyzed from the waist down after he was shot by a white police officer.
Murder is literally the illegal killing of someone. So yes it absolutely matters whether he was convicted. To claim itās 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 donāt think heās a murderer.
And Iāve heard plenty of them make the claim anyone who thinks he is a murderer is stupid. In this regard, youāre just like them.
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.
I do, I just donāt care what wrong people think about shit thatās basic and obvious.
Yeah but those people are fucking stupid, so I wouldnāt listen to them.
I donāt, because I actually watch the damn trial
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?
Ehh, except youāre 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 wonāt disagree. He is a killer. The distinction is important because the ālawā deemed it rightful.
Again, make whatever argument you want for that being wrong.
āMurderā is not an exclusively legal term.
18 U.S.C.Ā Ā§ 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
theĀ unlawfulĀ premeditatedĀ killing of one human being by another.
This is both the legal definition of murder and the dictionary definition.
Next youāll say āBut lAnGuAgEs ChAnGe OvEr TiMeā
Edit: Iād 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 heās a murderer is the most meaningless form of activism I can think of. Youāre an ant screaming at a bulldozer.
ākilling black people isnāt murder like killing rats with pesticide isnāt murderā -the least racist conservative
The people inviting him to speak seen him as a victim who acted in self defense. Which is the whole point of the question: heās not a murder to them.
Itās funny how exactly like them you are, and how stupid you think they are for it.