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 collegeā€™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 Rittenhouseā€™s presence.

The 21-year-old gained notoriety in August 2020 when, at the age of 17, heĀ shot and killed two menā€”Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, as well as injuring 26-year-old Gaige Grosskreutzā€”at 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.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      9 months ago

      get mad when they attacked rittenhouse and found out.

      So people attack Rittenhouse and he shoots them in retaliation - perfectly acceptable
      This guy attacks people with a fire extinguisher and gets punched in retaliation - Completely unacceptable

      • Samueru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        So people attack Rittenhouse and he shoots them in retaliation - perfectly acceptable

        Yeah, if some psycho comes running to grab my weapon, you have every right to defend yourself, people willing to attack you even when you are armed are willing to do a lot of harm to you.

        And in the second case they already began beating him up, including a jump kick to the head which is miracle they didnā€™t pass out from that. And the other person pointed their gun at them (yeah turns out also those people were armed).

        This guy attacks people with a fire extinguisher and gets punched in retaliation - Completely unacceptable

        Yes, because they worked at that place and it fucking sucks that people would come to it to burn it, and more importantly the person that sucker punched them wasnā€™t even being sprayed by the fire extinguisher, they were just mad that an old guy ruined his looting/arson fun.

        Also if the old guy had had a weapon and shot and killed the person that sucker punched them they would have walked away in any state, no fucking jury ever would convict such person and for a very good reason lmao.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          9 months ago

          Yeah, if some psycho comes running to grab my weapon, you have every right to defend yourself

          And if some psycho has brought a weapon to a dangerous area to threaten people with you have every right to defend yourself by attacking them and trying to take their weapon.

          It is possible for situations to exist where both parties believe their life is in danger could claim self defense for killing the other. That is the situation Rittenhouse created here by going somewhere he had no business being with his gun. If any of those people he shot had killed Rittenhouse they could have claimed self defense and it likely would have been successful because their lives were quite literally in danger, evidenced by the fact that he killed them.

          Yes, because they worked at that place and it fucking sucks that people would come to it to burn it,

          I donā€™t know if this is different in the land where property is king, but I worked in retail and was told ā€œIf someone tries to rob you, let them. Itā€™s not worth risking your life for. property can always be replaced.ā€
          So if the correct course of action if someone claims to have a weapon in their pocket is to hand over all the money in the till, how does it make any sense at all to try to stop looting during a riot with a fire extinguisher?

          No, they should not have been looting. Also, he shouldnā€™t have been there attacking people with a fire extinguisher, what did he think was going to happen? The person punching him was also wrong to do so. It is possible to have situations where everyone is wrong.

          The point is, why was the riot happening? Ignoring the cause (cops freely shooting black people unnecessarily) and focusing on ā€œbut but but THE PROPERTY!ā€ to try to distract from the issue at hand really shows peopleā€™s values.

          • Samueru@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            Ā·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            And if some psycho has brought a weapon to a dangerous area to threaten people with you have every right to defend yourself by attacking them and trying to take their weapon.

            It is possible for situations to exist where both parties believe their life is in danger could claim self defense for killing the other. That is the situation Rittenhouse created here by going somewhere he had no business being with his gun. If any of those people he shot had killed Rittenhouse they could have claimed self defense and it likely would have been successful because their lives were quite literally in danger, evidenced by the fact that he killed them.

            You canā€™t just attack people because they have a weapon wtf. There is also no indication that kyle threatened anyone with their weapon to begin with, youā€™re just grasping for straws at this point.

            edit: Also you canā€™t really claim self defense if you CHASE someone for what? having a weapon? good luck with that. Recent example was the people that chased a black person in Georgia because they thought they were a burglar.

              • Samueru@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                Ā·
                9 months ago

                That video very clearly states that having the weapon is not provocation to attack.

                Also the breakdown of events from legal eagle is very bad, even hoeg law argued with legal eagle about that part of the video on twitter when they released it.

                He downplays that a man chasing you throwing stuff at you is not going to do any harm to you may not be self defense kek, he also says ā€œself serving testimonyā€ this is worse than the arguments that the actual prosecutor tried to make lmao.

                He also constantly says that one of the shots was in the back as if rittenhouse waited for him to fall on the ground to pop a shot in the back when all shots were in quick succession and the last one hit them as they were falling on the ground. He also says that a man does a ā€œsort of a jump kickā€ when that was an actual jump kick to the head, that is aggravated assault in every sense of the word and that is more than enough to justify self defense but weird enough he downplays that.

                So no, those other would have never been justified in using self defense, they had no valid reason to start chasing and attack him in first place lmao.

                He even says that if WIsconsin had a duty to retreat the outcome of the case might have been different as if kyle tried to stand his groundā€¦