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 are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
30 points

Or say that woman armed herself as a child(17 yr old) and walked into a tense situation of strangers untrained and ready to shoot someone… and then ends up shooting someone. Might be a better comparison.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-34 points
*

Perfect example. She shoots him with a gun she bought and then brought back home. To the people who think he’s a victim, you’re the one saying “well, she should have left him and certainly not brought the gun into the house!”

But I understand that the question will be avoided at all costs, because that’s the only way to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

It’s actually a pretty terrible example. A person has a right to be safe in their own home. Kyle had no reason to cross state lines with an illegally acquired rifle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

State lines means nothing when it’s a city on the border, and the illegal firearm charge was thrown out for, yk, not being true

permalink
report
parent
reply
-31 points

You’re avoiding the question. Would it be repulsive for abuse survivors to invite her to talk?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Kyle had no reason to cross state lines with an illegally acquired rifle.

They actually had more reason than the rest of the people he shot, because they at least worked on that town.

Also the rifle never made it across state lines, it was always there at dominick black’s home.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

You seem to be JAQing off here, but your straw man is pretty weak.

Let’s say instead the abused woman is safely away from her husband and he can’t harm her any more. Then she illegally obtains a firearm, drives 2 hours to the husband’s place of work, starts a fight with him, and when he starts to get violent with her she the shoots him.

Do you think this woman is justified in the shooting?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Hey - I’m past asking questions, I’m literally just masturbating.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points
*

But Rittenhouse neither illegally obtained the firearm nor drove two hours? And Rittenhouse had just as much a right to be there as the protestors

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

Why would I answer your unrelated question if you are unwilling to answer mine? Whether I think anyone is justified is not really the point of the analogy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

I’ll answer it by pointing out that you’re building a straw man. I would call you a goat fellating syphilis factory but I’m pretty sure that both goats and syphilis would hate to be inside you.

There is a clear difference between putting yourself in a situation by crossing state lines over some shit that has nothing to do with you and having to live with an abuser. She has to go home to a person. He could have stayed his ass home knowing what was happening and would have been just fucking fine. He was looking to kill, she’s trying to live. If she’s making a living on it, it’s making a living on surviving, not going to look for trouble. But you can’t see that, you slimy donkey fucking inbred.

I get that people like you argue in bad faith. I really don’t care and this response isn’t for you. In fact I’m blocking you after I make this because I have no interest in listening to a sniveling shit pile try to lawyer his way into making crossing state lines hoping to kill someone ok. I’m writing this so anyone confused about what kind of person you are can read and see that you’re looking to find a way to kill.

Go fuck yourself instead of forcing yourself on your sister-cousin again. I hope that last brain cell you’re clinging to falls out and knocks out that last tooth that’s holding on by a thread on its way out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-28 points

I love how you claim you are going to answer the question, and then simply insult me while not answering the question… And the telling me you’re blocking me.

You’re doing me a favor. Thanks.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 451K

    Comments