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.
“Charlie Kirk has said a lot of racist things,” said a student addressing Rittenhouse from the audience.
“What racist things has Charlie Kirk said?” Rittenhouse challenged. “We’re gonna have a little bit of a dialogue of what racist things that Charlie Kirk said.”
The student responded of Kirk: “He says that we shouldn’t celebrate Juneteenth, we shouldn’t celebrate Martin Luther King day—we should be working those days—he called Ketanji Brown Jackson an affirmative action hire, he said all this nonsense about George Floyd, and he said he’d be scared if a Black pilot was on a plane. Does that not seem racist?”
“I don’t know anything about that,” Rittenhouse said from the stage, prompting jeers among the audience.
“Does that seem racist is a yes or no question, Kyle,” yelled one attendee.
“Well, after all the things I just told you, would you consider that hate speech,” the student asked Rittenhouse, who had a dog with him onstage.
“I’m not gonna comment on that,” Rittenhouse said, sparking more noise from the crowd.
Seconds later, Rittenhouse abruptly exited the stage to cheers from the crowd. The attendees were then promptly ordered to depart the venue.
They fly him around the country, but the media outfit he’s working for didn’t bother to invest in media training for their homicidal poster boy?
So much for standing your ground.
Or seat fillers.
Fuck yeah, make that piece of shit feel bad. Pure uncut Colombian schadenfreude.
“I don’t know anything about that,”
This seems to be the canned response to all “uncomfortable” topics.
It seems that right-wing “debates” are not about arguing a point or another, but bringing up the “right” talking points, and backing out the wrong ones.
Please don’t normalizing hating on people for not knowing something. If you think he actually knows kirk said these things, then please provide the proof. But if you are simply attacking him for admitting he doesn’t know something, then you’re part of the problem.
There’s a very simple way to answer this sort of question that was posed — by condemning the blatant racism of the statements themselves while acknowledging he didn’t know if Kirk had said them — and he decided not to do that.
The issue is he couldn’t know at that moment if what the students said or their portrayal of it is accurate. Furthermore, people can’t just instantly reach informed conclusions about things, a lot of people need, yk time to think. If I try to think about something on the spot I’ll just stutter and not make any sense
“I am not aware of these comments or their context, but if said—yes, I agree they are racist.” Not hard.
That’s easy to say in retrospect, it’s hard for a lot of people to answer something they didn’t expect on the spot, even if they know the answer
Rittenhouse isn’t some random dipshit that got cornered (ironically, a favourite of the likes of Crowder and Shapiro until they realised even students embarrass them) - he’s the Daily Wire’s spokesperson for crossing state lines to manufacture a situation to murder your political opponents. He chose to speak in front of that crowd, chose to field questions, and chose to run (presumably because he didn’t have a gun to kill those he disagrees with).
I think you have a point. However, you’re referring to later in the exchange. The poster imt responding to is attacking him for claiming he didn’t know whether Kirk had said those things. But if multiple people were shouting at him at that point, I can see why he reverted back to “no comment.”
Asking whether those things are hate speech is a yes/no question. Pretending to not know Kirk is a racist sack of shit was obvious deflection. Good on the students for calling out this bs.
“We’re gonna have a little bit of a dialogue of what racist things that Charlie Kirk said.”
“I don’t know anything about that,”
Not much of a dialogue lol
Someone taught him how to have the aesthetics of a rational argument, but forgot the part about the substance.
Benny bitch-boy’s made a whole career out of doing that.
You’re telling me that the guy who showed up to counter protest with a gun, who provoked protestors while holding a gun, is actually a coward who’s too afraid to comment on the racist remarks of his shitty friend.
Who’da’thunk’it
lol.
What a bitch.
They haven’t yet taught him how to deflect the truth. Teach him that what he believes is bullshit, but profitable. Teach him how to understand and ignore the truth. Teach him how to just be louder than opposition. Have him memorize talking points and teach him to always retreat to them (especially when not appropriate). Give him 15 years of practice doing that, then he’ll be great at owning college libs, preferably on camera.
I mean that seems fair that he wouldn’t comment on something he doesn’t know about
“I haven’t heard those quotes before. Presented without context, they sound pretty bad but I will reserve judgement until I’ve had a chance to do more research.”
That wasn’t that hard of a question to duck.
That’s easy to say in retrospect but a lot of people can’t think of something to say when asked something unexpected on the spot. Even if they know the answer.
I’m sure the people he killed would disagree
What?
It’s a good point. On one context he was quite willing to take human life but he definitely doesn’t want to get misquoted so he takes the time and energy to get it right.
Oh I see, idk, seems like he’s just someone who gets scared under pressure
Exactly the kinda person who shouldn’t have a gun.
Also exactly the kinda person who might need a gun to defend themselves.
You know at work when I can’t give a firm answer to a question I will just say so and promise to find out. Turns out when you are not a murderer people cut you slack
deleted by creator
Yea, I bet he wished he could have illegally crossed state lines with a firearm he wasn’t legally allowed to have again to protect himself from these organized students
This joke gets extra dark when you realize he has another speaking engagement next month at Kent State University.
Even if you don’t think it was murder, it’s repulsive that he is trying to make a career out of killing two people.
I don’t think he gets many other job offers
Racist murderer? Does that not sound like American cop material to you?
just watch how many will refute being “racist” or a “murderer”
not both; because that would be messed up
I’ll have a go! He may well be racist but he killed white people, and was legally found to have acted in self-defence. So all we can really say is he’s a killer. I’m not planning on being friends with the guy, but I do like a little precision in my speech.
He’s a mascot for the GOP - I doubt he’d have that hard a time getting a job at Fox or some other misinformation distributor.
Who the fuck would listen to him? He’s got all the charisma you’d expect a snot-nosed faux-crying-at-trial murderous teenager would have. Playing the “victim” of the “woke leftist mob” only gets you 15 minutes- just ask that dipshit AR-wielding ambulance chaser and his mustard-covered wife in Missouri how famous they are these days.
He’s got all the charisma you’d expect a snot-nosed faux-crying-at-trial murderous teenager would have.
Isn’t that like every rightwing talking head under the age of 40? The red team eats that shit up.
Makes it all the more impressive that he ain’t got what it’s takes to be an entertainer for the right
Maybe he should get the tucker carlson hairdo. That might help his chances.
To be a fox news anchor, you have to have a personality. I mean, it can be one where you scream and yell, but you can’t walk off the stage—because the show must go on. He’s annoying, even to his own, and a liability.
because the show must go on
>>>
Until they have no use for you and then it’s back to the streets
I can’t help but think if he ever was offered a job even if it was back end not front of shop that they would ask him to not tell anyone that he worked there.
-
TPUSA is running the show, not Rittenhouse. They recruited him like an intelligence asset by showering him with praise and “favors” in a time where he was (deservedly) receiving national ire.
-
People need to understand that the American right has a pervasive violent ideation. His actions are repulsive to you, but they are normal, necessary, and a sign of strength to the gun-owning right. Many, many Americans love what he did.
These people Want. To. Kill. You.
-
The guy who stalked and shot treyvon Martin sold the gun at auction
I think the debate is nuanced so I’m not trying to say it’s absolutely equatable, I’m more trying to feel out your actual position.
If a woman was being abused by her husband, stood up to him and killed him in self defense…if domestic abuse/survivor groups invited her to speak, would it be also repulsive?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cool, no one had any reason to be there. That doesn’t make it ok for some dipshit to shoot them.
The gun that his friend bought for him because he couldn’t buy it himself, and he never had it at his own house? There’s so much convoluted bullshit wrapped around trying to justify his ownership of that gun…
That doesn’t make it ok for some dipshit to shoot them.
Yes it does, it was either let him be attacked by rosenbaum or the crowd (which the crowd actually began hitting him anyway lol) or defend yourself.
This isn’t even a stand your ground case because rittenhouse tried to flee in every case lol.
The gun that his friend night for him because he couldn’t legally buy it himself, and he never had it at his own house? There’s so much convoluted bullshit wrapped around trying to justify his ownership of that gun…
You said that he crossed state lines with the rifle.
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
State lines means nothing
“Laws don’t matter as long as some shit bag gets to shoot liberals.”
Fuck off.
That’s not what I said, but iirc he didn’t cross the gun with state lines- I may be misremembering though.
Fuck off.
Please read the rules if you care so much about laws.
You’re avoiding the question. Would it be repulsive for abuse survivors to invite her to talk?
Maybe people are avoiding it because it has fuck all to do with Rittenhouse.
Then just move on if you don’t see the point. The fact that everyone who has responded has blatantly misrepresented my point or asked a question back without answering mine tells me a lot about how the avoidance isn’t because it supposedly has nothing to do with the topic.
Because it’s an irrelevant strawman.
Hang on - in your analogy, the 17 year old kid is the battered wife and the black strangers - miles away and across state lines - are his abusers? Suggesting the kid was somehow a victim here? Like he spent his whole life being tortured by his abusive spouse (black strangers)?
da fuq?
I’m feeling out the position. These people think he legitimately acted in self defense. Just like we might all believe she acted in self defense. My position isn’t about equating these two things, I even explicitly said so. It’s about whether its “repulsive” to invite someone because they acted in self defense.
You’re avoiding the question. Would it be repulsive for abuse survivors to invite her to talk?
Because it’s transparently obvious that you want folks to go “of course that wouldn’t be repulsive” so you can go “AH HA!” when in reality this tortured attempt to equate the two has no value aside from disingenuous rhetorical plays as you are attempting.
Remember this all comes from someone saying that even if you don’t think he’s guilty of murder, it should still be repulsive that he’s being invited to and going to talks, because he killed some people.
I’m trying to get people to realize that if you think he’s innocent, you wouldn’t find this repulsive. there is nothing disingenuous about that.
What is disingenuous is misrepresenting my position in an attempt to avoid facing this contradiction, which is what you are accusing them all of doing.
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.
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.
judging by the votes, you are deluded
I feel bad for people who think that popularity is the same as correctness. You are basically doing the equivalent of “wow, this influencer has a lots of followers. They can’t be wrong!” Lol
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?
Hey - I’m past asking questions, I’m literally just masturbating.
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
He also wasn’t married to an abusive man. What’s your point?
Well why mention that for the analogy then?
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.
With Rittenhouse it’s more like a woman was being abused by her husband, she tried to hit him back him in self defense, but then he killed her and then made a career out of giving talks about how brave he was for defending himself.
Why the fuck is this person on a stage to begin with?
“Everyone, Kyle Rittenhouse is here to tell us about indiscriminately provoking people and killing them. Round of applause, please.”
Pretty sure he does discriminate
Is Kyle Rittenhouse racist? Who’s to say? Who could know such a thing?
Confronting Kyle Rittenhouse? Be careful, no sudden movements. We wouldn’t want him to feel threatened, now would we?
Don’t drop any acorns and cut all trees in the surrounding area
We should start throwing acorns at murderous dumbshits
Jeff Goldblum: “Don’t move! He can’t see us if we don’t move.”
Hide all the plastic bags.
I mean, based on history so long as you don’t chase him down and try to take his gun, knock him to the ground and move to bludgeon him, or try a false surrender with intent to shoot him you’re probably fine.
But seriously, if you think he just started shooting at the drop of a hat, watch the trial footage.
He’s a dumbass kid who should never have gone to the protest in the first place (but had every legal right to be where he was) turned right wing grifter because no one else will have him, but all three of his shootings definitely fall under self defense.
I’ll take my downvotes now for not expressing views that contradict trial evidence now, thanks.
Yeah, I feel like most people didn’t watch the full trial. You can have the opinion he shouldn’t have been there, but putting yourself in a dumb situation doesn’t automatically forfeit your right to self defense
I dunno about that. If you needlessly insert yourself into a dangerous situation and you kill people in self defense, there should be consequences.
He went looking for violence. He found it.
I don’t agree, that seems like it would be giving official journalists for example special privileges over citizen journalists. Give free reign to racists to lynch counter protestors, etc.
Do most journalists carry illegal guns in the course of their work?
I don’t think it was illegal, or at least the court didn’t.
Do most journalists carry illegal guns in the course of their work?
Well that’s what our legal system is for, to hash out individual cases. If someone’s going as a citizen journalist that’s very different from going to “keep the peace and shoot looters” and very intentionally bringing along long guns, vs pistols.
He couldn’t legally own a pistol. He was determined to have legally possessed a rifle.
If I’m on my way to sell crack and I get attacked by some psycho do I lose my right of self defense?
If I’m breaking curfew and I get attacked by some psycho do I lose my right of self defense?
At some point you will see that it makes no sense, the legal system already forbids killing looters, so you want them to lose their right of self defense because you don’t like them.
Nah, he is a murderer. Shitty laws in a shithole state does not change that fact.
In what state are there laws that would lead to his conviction for double homicide?
Nah, he is a murderer. Shitty laws in a shithole state does not change that fact.
What shitty laws are we talking about? He made a pretty basic and straightforward self defense defense. He didn’t invoke Stand Your Ground, in no small part because WI doesn’t do Stand Your Ground (and all Stand Your Ground generally means is that you don’t have a duty to try to flee from an attacker if possible, and it was only really possible for Rosenbaum and he did try to flee from Rosenbaum).
The only case where he got off on a charge because of “shitty laws” I can think of would be the weapons possession charge and that’s because WI has different ages for different classes of guns, and the kind of gun he had was in the 16+ rather than 18+ category. Ironically, there was at least one person with an illegal gun on the scene, and it was Grosskreutz, and then it was because it was a concealed carry with an expired permit.
I can go into detail if you’d like to know why I agree with the self defense argument made for each of the shootings, but for now I’ll leave you with the point where I knew Rittenhouse would be found not guilty for Grosskreutz, since that one had a single question that changed everything:
“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him — advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” the defense said.
“Correct,” Grosskreutz replied.
Because that question was the difference between self defense or not self defense.
I watched the trial, and I saw the footage. I don’t agree with the verdict one bit, but we live in a society and I just have to accept that outcome.
However, I don’t have to change my opinion about the guy just because he was acquitted in court. He went out looking for trouble, found it, and two people died because of it.
Context matters. He went looking for a fight and found one. One lawyer I heard pointed out that had he lost the fight and died whomever killed him would have been able to argue, probably successfully, the same thing. Self-defense.
Why should the law support murder if the murderer is better at it?
Grosskreutz (the one who survived) could have shot Rittenhouse and justifiably claimed self-defense under the law. He had a gun pointed at him by a dude who had just wasted two other men with it. The law’s fucked.
Last man standing justice system.
You’re not wrong on this. And Rittenhouse mostly got off with a self defense claim on shooting Grosskreutz because Grosskreutz approached in a false surrender, lowered his hands and pointed his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. Grosskreutz answered a question to that effect during the trial, and that answer was likely the deciding point on that charge.
Just like the Heard vs Depp case, people have already decided on the truth and they don’t care that the evidence at trial painted a very different story than the one liberal media told you to believe.
Like you said, Kyle was a dumb kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he was retreating every single time he shot someone. I hate this case because I’m left in the awkward position of defending a rightoid but that trial was very thorough and those are the facts.
So if I enter your house with a gun and you “threaten” me, I have the right to shot you “in self defense”, right?
You don’t grab a rifle, drive to another state, go to a rally that you gate and then day “they were threatening me”. That’s the equivalent of Russians saying now “Ukrainians are threatening us”.
Just about everything you wrote shows a complete lack of understanding of the evidence presented at trial.
Gun never crossed state lines. If it had, they could have busted him for a firearms possession charge in IL. The gun was kept in WI because of differences in gun laws between WI and IL.
Driving to another state is such a nothing. It’s phrased this way to make it sound like he took some massive journey, but Kenosha and Antioch are just on opposite sides of the state line from each other. The distance is about 20 miles, about half an hour by car. He worked in Kenosha as well.
He didn’t just show up and declare people were threatening him and then start shooting at them. He got into an argument with Rosenbaum when Rittenhouse tried to put out a fire and Rittenhouse tried to flee him. Someone else fired a shot, at which point Rittenhouse stopped and turned and Rosenbaum was within arms length and reached for Rittenhouse’s gun. Rittenhouse fires.
Then Rittenhouse starts heading for the police line. He gets knocked to the ground, and Gruber moved to start beating him with an improvised weapon. Rittenhouse shoots him too.
Then Grosskreutz approaches him in a false surrender,.gets close, lowers his hands and points his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shoots him. Grosskreutz’s own testimony said as much.
Kyle works in that state and did not “bring the rifle across state borders” which just cements to me that so many of you did not follow the trial. You’re speaking from a position of ignorance.
You don’t grab a rifle, drive to another state
This did not happen, the rifle was always there and rittenhouse was there the day before as they worked there, at least read the damn wikipedia article of the kenosha unrest before making up such blatant lies.
edit: And to give you an example, lets say you rob a house and then flee, you can actually defend yourself if the home owner starts chasing you after you left the home.
Here they couldn’t even demonstrate a “crime” or something that rittenhouse did that would have given them a reason to chase him, all we know is that Rosenbaum was going around threatening people before he began to chase rittenhouse and tried to take their weapon, also the moment right before someone shot their pistol into the air which was what made rittenhouse turn around when Rosenbaum was chasing him.
Maybe - and I’m just spitballing here - a parent should have done something different about their stupid underage failure of a son.
Things you should not do if you are the parent of a dumb kid.
- Give them a gun.
- Let them take a gun or any weapon out of the house unsupervised.
- Let them go to another state at night unsupervised.
- Let them go to a violent protest alone.
Let them take a gun or any weapon out of the house unsupervised.He didn’t take it out of his home. The gun was never in his home. This was covered in the trial, because if he had had the gun at home, it would have been illegal due to differences in firearms possession laws between WI and IL. That’s why the gun was kept in WI.
Let them go to another state at night unsupervised.This is such a nothing, but it makes it sound like a big deal. Kenosha is right by the state line, he lived in a town just on the other side of the state line. So, what you are saying is you think parents shouldn’t allow kids in their late teens to go to the next town over unsupervised. The distance is ~20 miles, about half an hour in a car.
So, what you are saying is you think parents shouldn’t allow kids in their late teens to go to the next town over unsupervised. The distance is ~20 miles, about half an hour in a car.
Regular kids? That’s fine.
Dumb kids like this joker? Hell no.
who was in the wrong place at the wrong time
Why was he at that place at that time? He didn’t just stumble into the area unaware.
What liberal media is this?
I would also like to point out after Rittenhouse had murdered two people, he was photographed flashing a white power symbol wearing a “free as fuck” t-shirt with the Proud Boys.
There isn’t a doubt in my mind he went to that protest to murder.
I had to look up that hand gesture because I’d never heard of it, and finding out what is pissed me off. Are they fucking serious? The O-K hand gesture??
It’s so evil and rotten to try to corrupt such a common, useful, and benign hand gesture and to try to turn that into a symbol of hate. Absolutely enraging
If Rittenhouse hadn’t even murdered or physically harmed anyone, I’d still say he’s worth society’s most energetic condemnation on his views alone.
It’s called, “plausible deniability.” The in-group knows what they’re doing and they can gaslight the out-group.
It’s a brilliant but sinister tactic.
It was supposed to be a troll post from 4chan, but they actually used it for that afterwards, so yes, we are looking at the evolution of dog whistles and the blurred lines of hate speech on the internet.
Yes it’s a White Power Gesture now.
The most hilarious part is that it was originally a 4chan joke, and now they’ve accepted it as a real symbol. It’s like the flat earth. You joke and the crazies take it seriously.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/18/ok-sign-white-power-symbol-or-just-right-wing-troll
Yeah, I don’t dig deep into all this culture war nonsense, but I got informed of this after giving one my buddies the ok sign. They explained it to me but I don’t care, I am taking the OK back, they cannot have it, it belongs us to us normal loving folks, not the toxic hate filled mongrels.
what mind?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I feel like the right will abandon him completely someday soon. He keeps messing up, and has zero charisma to really be a figurehead or an icon.
He will then attempt to find himself and show so much remorse in an attempt to grift the left side of politics. Something something “what happened was awful, and a 17 year old should have never been allowed to have a weapon” - and it will all be said without ever taking responsibility or admitted to wrongdoing.
Removed by mod
“I think it’s funny how everyone’s saying I got booted off stage, when in reality, we just did a hard cutoff time and just happened to leave at that time…”
Lmfao solid save
“I think it’s funny how everyone’s saying I got booted off stage, when in reality, we just did a hard cutoff time and just happened to leave at that time…”
Press (X) to doubt
Roll Insight (DC 5)
Crit fail
Dm: you know he is full of shit.
x
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.
He was a fucking murderous snowflake then and he’s still a pathetic fucking snowflake now.
Backstage footage…
The face of an Ethnic Cleanser when he’s not holding a gun
He looks like Cartman
mods removed my comment for saying this guy is a murderer, cause he killed people.
Apparently, that is equivalent to hate speech.
Last I checked taking a gun to a place specifically to kill someone is murder, yup, even if our jurors decided they are not criminally liable , still a murderer, just not convicted.
I had a related conversation not long ago with a friend that took exception to me saying US troops “murder” people. His argument was that its a legal term and not accurate in that context. Which is probably true, but i dont think Im ever going to let go of killing people= murder regardless of what the law says.
Killing people = homicide
i dont think Im ever going to let go of killing people= murder regardless of what the law says.
Not trying to change your mind one way or the other, but could I ask clarifying questions?
I’m sure you have a definition for what “killing” is to justify your beliefs, but like what is it?
Are drunks that kill people while they are blacked out murders?
What about giving someone peanuts that die from allergies? Does it matter if they didn’t know about the allergy?
What about doctors killing people in the OR?
Or a baby killing their mom during childbirth?
Are all these people murders because they killed someone?
Wanted to edit real quick. I’m not trying to claim Rittenhouse didn’t have a mindset to murder someone. Idk about what the legal definition is, he went there trying to kill someone so I could agree calling him a murder.
The definition is “unlawful and premeditated”. So for people in the military, definitely premeditated. Unlawful raises the interesting concept of “unlawful according to who”. IMO, someone out there deems it unlawful.
If you pay taxes then you might be considered an accessory to murder. Unless you consider taxes to be theft, of course.
deleted by creator
Ban log? Where can I look at that? Never been banned anywhere as far as I can tell. Seems you’re making things up. If you’re referring to the Mod log, yeah there are some boneheaded mods removing 3 of my posts/comments for random reasons that — to my view don’t make any actual sense. Even if they did make sense, it’s 3 out of hundreds of comments, so I think I’m doing fine.
deleted by creator
What ban log? There is no such thing… there is a mod log. I have not been banned anywhere per the mod log. So, it seems you’re making things up.
Also, when I look up your mod log entries, I actually see more removed comments and posts than myself, so I guess take your own advice?
Sorry, okay yes.
It’s a mod log that has entries in it when you’re banned or have comments removed. My bad for using the word ban.
But regardless, the log exists.
And the log says nothing about me being banned or evading bans, so you’re lying.
And the log says nothing about me being banned or evading bans, so you’re lying.
I’m assuming the filtering is working correctly and Lemmy is showing all the entries that are related to your user id.
If you have an issue with with how the mod log is filtered and displayed to users, I would suggest you go speak with the Lemmy mods.
Also, when I look up your mod log entries, I actually see more removed comments and posts than myself, so I guess take your own advice?
I saw that too, and decided Lemmy was correct in displaying them as such, and that they were comments linked in some way to your account. I can only assume that is correct, as I do not work with the Lemmy code.
What? You make no sense.
IP Address linking, etc.
I pay taxes to pay for bombs that murder thousands. Am I a murderer?
Careful, he may feel the urge to self-defend again from hecklers.
Can’t wait for him to wrong-turn himself into a random driveway and get a taste of his own medicine from one of his own.
He crossed state lines to hunt people, and now has a taste for human blood.
Your warning is legitimate.
He has as much charisma as a Twilight vampire.
Like George Zimmerman, but less enchanting.
Aww, does little Kyle need a safe space?
Prison cells are pretty safe.
Removed by mod
Rittenhouse is a murderer!
