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.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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?

          • Samueru@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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.

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

              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.

              And the legal punishment for that is losing your legs? Cops in the UK take down assailants with knives all the time without paralyzing them for life. If they then had a jury sentence them to have their legs cut off people would call it barbaric, but again, put them in front of an American cop and “they had it coming.”

              I would not hit an old person because they used a fire extinguisher on me

              Old man or no, he was assaulting people with a fire extinguisher and got assaulted in return. Why didn’t he “have it coming”?

              I wouldn’t even fucking be looting and burning a random store to begin with.

              Oh right, because property is the most important thing and the property was in danger. “Won’t somebody please think of the property?!”

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

                And the legal punishment for that is losing your legs? Cops in the UK take down assailants with knives all the time without paralyzing them for life. If they then had a jury sentence them to have their legs cut off people would call it barbaric, but again, put them in front of an American cop and “they had it coming.”

                Poor guy. Also you’re starting in a very bad place if you are comparing US cops to UK cops, US cops constantly shoot people armed with knives and no one goes around “protesting” because of it, this case was because a very short video of only the shooting were the knife could barely even be seen was posted on twitter and misinformation about it spreaded instantly.

                Old man or no, he was assaulting people with a fire extinguisher and got assaulted in return. Why didn’t he “have it coming”?

                Oh right, because property is the most important thing and the property was in danger. “Won’t somebody please think of the property?!”

                Insane that you would defend such person that would sucker punched an old guy. While at the same fucking time having a problem that kyle defended themselves from being attacked. amazing.

                Also I don’t know what drama you have with property when the people that were killed were killed because they attacked someone that was armed. So yeah stop whining about that.

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

                  I don’t know what drama you have with property when the people that were killed were killed because they attacked someone that was armed. So yeah stop whining about that.

                  If we could go back to my original post, I was not complaining about the people who got shot, I was pointing out Rittenhouse’s own stated reasons for being there:

                  he was at the demonstration to “protect businesses and provide medical assistance.”

                  He brought a gun to an area he had no business being in to protect property. With his gun. What did he think he was going to do with it if not shoot people (take lives) to protect property?

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

                    Oh yeah, what kyle did is very stupid. But what the others were doing is orders of magnitude more stupid.

                    He brought a gun to an area he had no business being in to protect property. With his gun. What did he think he was going to do with it if not shoot people (take lives) to protect property?

                    Not really, usually just having people armed is enough to deter others from looting, that’s more likely what they expected to happen.

                    And it doesn’t matter because no looter was shot here.

                    So yeah if you shoot at some people simply because they were looting you’re in big trouble, or maybe you are, in the end in the US trials are by jury and most likely than not if you are the owner of the place it is very likely that the jury would not found you guilty, don’t test it out though lol.

        • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 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
                ·
                edit-2
                8 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 didn’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 wasn’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
                  ·
                  8 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 don’t know if this is different in the land where property is king, but I worked in retail and was told “If someone tries to rob you, let them. It’s not worth risking your life for. property can always be replaced.
                  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 shouldn’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 “but but but THE PROPERTY!” to try to distract from the issue at hand really shows people’s values.

                  • Samueru@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 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 can’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, you’re just grasping for straws at this point.

                    edit: Also you can’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.

      • ZK686@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        8 months ago

        WTF are you smoking? The dudes ATTACKED HIM FIRST… damn man…seems like you guys just insist on ignoring the facts.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.