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.

  • @[email protected]English
    6•9 months ago

    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

    • DaBabyAteMaDingo
      -6•9 months ago

      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’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”.

      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 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.

      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

      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.