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 Rittenhouse case was a litmus test of sorts. It was justified self-defense both objectively and litigiously and you leftists still harp on this subject like the facts and statements weren’t publicly available 🤣
It’s when I realized most of the liberals were just fake and didn’t really read anything other than Twitter, tik tok, or Instagram. I’m still a die hard Democrat with a heavy emphasis on social programs but y’all really need to get your head out your asses - before we start losing more people due to your virtue signaling bull crap 😂
Quick question: why is Rittenhouse being invited to speak at places? What is his area of “expertise”?
You have to be an expert to be invited to speak at places? Someone should tell the flat earthers.
A more serious answer is that Rittenhouse faced a trial that gained notoriety around the world. An incident that occurred at a protest/riot at the height of the BLM movement. It was seen by many as blatant murder and to others it was self-defense, making the outcome of the case very personal to millions of people. So why would you invite someone like Rittenhouse, the defendant in a historic trial, to speak at an event? Hmmm 🤔
So makes as much sense as inviting the killer of George Floyd to speak. Or OJ Simpson.
Whatever the topic of conversation, surely they can find someone with some actual expertise on the topic instead of just someone whose claim to fame is being charged with a crime?
Getting charged for robbing a convenience store and avoiding punishment doesn’t make me a good choice to give a speech to people, unless that speech is “how to get away with robbing a convenience store.”
Derek Chauvin was charged and convicted, had he been acquitted of any charges, you bet your ass he would’ve been doing speeches for the alt right group. OJ has literally done speeches (not pertaining to acting or football) after his trial and gained a huge amount of notoriety for that questionable ruling. Why would you prove my point like this? 🤣 Being a person of interest doesn’t just mean you’re an expert an a given topic, it could just be that you have something interesting to say and have a story people want to hear. And Rittenhouse’s story is pretty interesting, wouldn’t you say so?
Do you even know the subject of these speeches? Why would you assume Rittenhouse doesn’t have the experience to talk about said topic? What if it was about being in one of the most famous cases of all time? 🤔
Please don’t tell me this is supposed to be a real question. You understand the difference between a typical felony charge and the killing of two individuals and wounding another during a civil right protest, right? Not to mention the precedent it will set in future self-defense cases. This comment is absurd.
You’re making my point for me. When these people get booked to speak it speaks volumes about the people booking them and the people going to listen to them.
Then a lawyer, a legal expert of some kind, would be a better choice than the guy sobbing on the stand that apparently didn’t understand “if I go to this place and bring a gun I might end up shooting somebody.”
Yup, that’s why if it would be absurd to invite someone to speak for being charged with robbing a store, then it is insane to invite someone to speak for being charged with the killing of two individuals and wounding another.
I can’t say that some individuals aren’t praising Rittenhouse for what he did, which is odd behavior, but what he did wasn’t illegal and was justified in the eyes of the law. I haven’t defended those entities, such as Turning Point or Daily Wire, whatsoever - just merely challenging your feigned incredulity about why someone would want to have him speak or appear as a guest in their show. And like you said “it speaks volumes about them” which I agree with. Doesn’t necessarily mean anything about the individual they book.
Again, I don’t know what you’re arguing here. You don’t like Rittenhouse, some people do and they want to listen to him talk. I know you understand why someone would like to hear this kid speak - you and I don’t like it or really get it but I don’t give a shit. Why do you care so much?
This is so sad, dude. Do I really have to restate the importance of this case? We can have a good conversation but you’re just trying to win a dumb internet debate - and failing.
Let me simplify it lil bro:
Back to your original comment
And I made the simple point that having Rittenhouse as a speaker is far louder “virtue signaling bull crap” than anyone calling him a murderer.
Says the guy responding with multiple paragraphs.
No, I’m just making a straight forward point. The fact that you think this is something to “win” really explains a lot.
Ya, I’m not going to bother trying to parse any of that.
Lol are you down voting my comments? 🤣😂
It’s almost like the law didn’t consider the idea that a bunch of angry and awful people would show up to one place intent on hurting each other. It’s almost like this is the opposite of civil order and he just showed up knowingly with a weapon.
I don’t really fault the jury for their conclusion, but gun owners just keep getting to show up with guns proving their own case that you need a gun everywhere to be safe.
This isn’t some silly partisan squabble. An echo chamber convinced a very very young man to show up and kill. And now he gets paid to speak? And you laugh at the people who rightfully hate him? Loool
I’m a supporter of the BLM movement but even I can say some of those protests were more than peaceful. Staying past curfew and destroying property is by definition a riot. I’m not necessarily opposed to their rationale for causing mayhem - but you can’t say only one side showed up with “intent on hurting each other”.
This is a genuine question: how many of the BLM protesters were involved in retaliatory gunfire from the other side (not including the police obviously)? I’m pretty sure it’s near zero which makes Rittenhouse’s case unique as it is rare. I wouldn’t call this a reoccurring issue and gun carry laws vary from state to state. That’s a more complicated issue than this case.
There may be something to this but in Rittenhouse’s case, he was there defending his friends of the family’s store. He wasn’t just there to “show up and kill”. In fact, if you watch the same videos the jury and the literal rest of the world watched; it’s obviously, demonstrably, undeniably justified self defense.
You didn’t really read my post, did you
Problem is I read it thoroughly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Get out of here with your level headed logic, we want to hate people and pretend it’s because we are loving, sane people!
Holy based