Kyle Rittenhouse storms off stage after being confronted by students
Kyle Rittenhouse storms off stage after being confronted by students
Rittenhouse's appearance at a university generated hostility from a number of students but he remained positive, saying it had been "a great event."
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
Yeah, it is wild how the anti-BLM types will quote the supposed "the country's cities were burned to the ground" (really, when was this again?) and some ginned-up numbers of total dollars of damages done, usually with great amount of hand-wringing about damage done to businesses.
They tip their hands without even realizing it, I think.
Property over people. It's almost cliche at this point to bring it up but here's a reminder that police in the USA were created primarily to return escaped slaves to their owners, they were a tool of the wealthy and merchant class. It's protect property and serve capital above all else.
Overseer <-> Officer
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.That's America for you
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 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.
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?!"
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.
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?
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.
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 unacceptableSo 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.
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.
WTF are you smoking? The dudes ATTACKED HIM FIRST... damn man...seems like you guys just insist on ignoring the facts.
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.
He was being beaten with a skateboard after he killed somebody with a gun. So, uh, y'know, just out of nowhere. /s
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.
He went there to help defend stores
And how was he going to defend the stores? With a gun. Anyone who knows anything about guns will tell you: you do not point a gun at a target you don't intend to kill.
So he went there to shoot people in order to protect property that wasn't even his and he had no connection to.
Remember kids, you can riot, burn, and loot... as long as it's "for a good cause."
Remember kids: If you purposely insert yourself in dangerous situations that you have no reason to be in, you can find an excuse to kill people with your gun! PEW PEW!
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..