Was it on purpose?

[WellPreserved]

It would depend on whether or not that background information was relevant to establish a trackable pattern of law breaking, and mental state considering he was just released from the hospital that day on a psychiatric hold- but couldn’t get his stabilization medication because all the pharmacies were closed because of riots, and whether or not that would lead a rational person to assume they would need to utilize deadly self defense.


George Floyd wasn’t actively trying to harm someone. Rosenbaum was.

I don’t know why they would be comparable. His background wouldn’t matter.

"he was just released from the hospital that day on a psychiatric hold- but couldn’t get his stabilization medication because all the pharmacies were closed because of riots, and whether or not that would lead a rational person to assume they would need to utilize deadly self defense." That would lead someone to believe that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, which the jury did. Why Rosenbaum was in the hospital should have had no bearing and I'm not sure it did. I still think Rosebaum's family as well as Huber's family have a strong case for a civil suit which is probably why a judge last year ruled that it could proceed.

ETA: The victim's background or whether or not Rittenhouse acted in self-defense does not erase the fact that the three victims were BLM protesters.

It was mentioned in the trial because the mental state of someone who is suggested to have irrational behavior is relevant… that’s why it was mentioned in the trial.



And maybe we just have different opinions on what a protester is.

In my definition, it’s someone who supports a cause and shows up to March in solidarity with that cause.

I do not define protesters as those who show up to a protest, cause havoc, interrupt the protest so badly they create a riot and start setting fires that destroy innocent people’s homes and businesses, then attack children. They do not get the honor of being called a protester in my book.

Well, that's your opinion. Many people believe, especially those who support the BLM movement, value the statement by BLM regarding Rittenhouse:

"Black Lives Matter Statement on Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict
November 19, 2021
We are not shocked. Today’s not-guilty verdict is expected when white supremacy lives and breathes within our institutions. It is a reminder of how our legal systems are deeply rooted in white supremacy.

It was a set up from the beginning. The police, the judge, the court, mainstream media, and every single system involved all wrapped their arms around Kyle Rittenhouse from the very beginning — from even before the murders he committed. What this verdict reminds us of is that this is a nation deeply rooted and still very committed to white supremacy, and we must continue to fight against it.

What sparked this movement over 8 years ago in the acquittal of George Zimmerman is the same vigilante, state-sanctioned violence that we saw in Kenosha. Let this be a reminder that the system is working exactly the way it has been intended to.

We have much work ahead of us. We cannot continue to accept a system that protects white supremacy."

So do you think having Rittenhouse speak at University of Memphis's campus was intentionally polarizing or as TPUSA stated, just trying to "educate" the campus community?

[Slimshandy]

That’s definitely an opinion I hold…

And I know, it’s an opinion a lot of Liberals don’t share. They believe any kind of civil unrest is a protest.


I’m not really seeing where white supremacy comes into play here though, being that it was a white shooter and white gunshot victims in altercations that involved all white people simply because they all showed up at the same place that a protest was going on to cause trouble….OTHER than the fact that we let those white males completely overshadow a movement about Black Lives Mattering…that’s more than a travesty, that’s a disgrace.

"he was just released from the hospital that day on a psychiatric hold- but couldn’t get his stabilization medication because all the pharmacies were closed because of riots, and whether or not that would lead a rational person to assume they would need to utilize deadly self defense." That would lead someone to believe that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, which the jury did. Why Rosenbaum was in the hospital should have had no bearing and I'm not sure it did. I still think Rosebaum's family as well as Huber's family have a strong case for a civil suit which is probably why a judge last year ruled that it could proceed.

ETA: The victim's background or whether or not Rittenhouse acted in self-defense does not erase the fact that the three victims were BLM protesters.

It was mentioned in the trial because the mental state of someone who is suggested to have irrational behavior is relevant… that’s why it was mentioned in the trial.



And maybe we just have different opinions on what a protester is.

In my definition, it’s someone who supports a cause and shows up to March in solidarity with that cause.

I do not define protesters as those who show up to a protest, cause havoc, interrupt the protest so badly they create a riot and start setting fires that destroy innocent people’s homes and businesses, then attack children. They do not get the honor of being called a protester in my book.

Well, that's your opinion. Many people believe, especially those who support the BLM movement, value the statement by BLM regarding Rittenhouse:

"Black Lives Matter Statement on Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict
November 19, 2021
We are not shocked. Today’s not-guilty verdict is expected when white supremacy lives and breathes within our institutions. It is a reminder of how our legal systems are deeply rooted in white supremacy.

It was a set up from the beginning. The police, the judge, the court, mainstream media, and every single system involved all wrapped their arms around Kyle Rittenhouse from the very beginning — from even before the murders he committed. What this verdict reminds us of is that this is a nation deeply rooted and still very committed to white supremacy, and we must continue to fight against it.

What sparked this movement over 8 years ago in the acquittal of George Zimmerman is the same vigilante, state-sanctioned violence that we saw in Kenosha. Let this be a reminder that the system is working exactly the way it has been intended to.

We have much work ahead of us. We cannot continue to accept a system that protects white supremacy."

So do you think having Rittenhouse speak at University of Memphis's campus was intentionally polarizing or as TPUSA stated, just trying to "educate" the campus community?

[WellPreserved]

That’s definitely an opinion I hold…

And I know, it’s an opinion a lot of Liberals don’t share. They believe any kind of civil unrest is a protest.


I’m not really seeing where white supremacy comes into play here though, being that it was a white shooter and white gunshot victims in altercations that involved all white people simply because they all showed up at the same place that a protest was going on to cause trouble….OTHER than the fact that we let those white males completely overshadow a movement about Black Lives Mattering…that’s more than a travesty, that’s a disgrace.

It was mentioned in the trial because the mental state of someone who is suggested to have irrational behavior is relevant… that’s why it was mentioned in the trial.



And maybe we just have different opinions on what a protester is.

In my definition, it’s someone who supports a cause and shows up to March in solidarity with that cause.

I do not define protesters as those who show up to a protest, cause havoc, interrupt the protest so badly they create a riot and start setting fires that destroy innocent people’s homes and businesses, then attack children. They do not get the honor of being called a protester in my book.

Well, that's your opinion. Many people believe, especially those who support the BLM movement, value the statement by BLM regarding Rittenhouse:

"Black Lives Matter Statement on Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict
November 19, 2021
We are not shocked. Today’s not-guilty verdict is expected when white supremacy lives and breathes within our institutions. It is a reminder of how our legal systems are deeply rooted in white supremacy.

It was a set up from the beginning. The police, the judge, the court, mainstream media, and every single system involved all wrapped their arms around Kyle Rittenhouse from the very beginning — from even before the murders he committed. What this verdict reminds us of is that this is a nation deeply rooted and still very committed to white supremacy, and we must continue to fight against it.

What sparked this movement over 8 years ago in the acquittal of George Zimmerman is the same vigilante, state-sanctioned violence that we saw in Kenosha. Let this be a reminder that the system is working exactly the way it has been intended to.

We have much work ahead of us. We cannot continue to accept a system that protects white supremacy."

So do you think having Rittenhouse speak at University of Memphis's campus was intentionally polarizing or as TPUSA stated, just trying to "educate" the campus community?

I believe the claims about White supremacy come from the motivation Rittenhouse had to travel armed to Kenosha, Rittenhouse's treatment by police while in Kenosha, the embrace of Rittenhouse by White supremacist groups before/during/after the trial, Rittenhouse's flashing of white power signs, etc. ACLU states it pretty succintly:

“The situation also represents an outrageous failure to protect protesters by the Kenosha Police Department and the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Office. Months of research and open records requests have uncovered many incidents in which police enabled white militia members to become armed vigilantes in the street due to their failure to control the crowd. They also created an environment where protesters, many of whom were people of color, were not protected and treated as the enemy. At the same time, white militia members were welcomed with open arms. We need a system of public safety that protects the lives of the entire community."

https://www.aclu-wi.org/en/press-releas ... house-case

Again, you are free to disagree but this is how many people view the events that led to Rittenhouse shooting three people, killing two of them and this is why I think the families of those killed will prevail in their civil case. I think many people at Memphis didn't appreciate the idea of TPUSA and Rittenhouse trying to "white 'splain" why their views of the events were unjustified.

I'm a liberal and I believe strongly in the right of people to civilly protest and feel that protesters, regardless of what/who they are protesting should be protected. I believe that individual protesters lose that right to protest when they engage in criminal unrest. Few of the BLM protesters engaged in illegal activity, so I'm a little weary of giving Kenosha or any other police department a pat on the back for engaging with White supremacist groups and private militia groups in order to intimidate and quell protesters.

But again, back to the question in the OP, "Did TPUSA move to have Rittenhouse speak at U of M in order to claim discrimination?"

[SouthernIslander]

I am not sure what is so complicated about this.

Rittenhouse has made offensive comments about Black people and got confronted about it by Black students. That was his own dumb ass fault for letting that group use him to troll a group of people who don’t want to be bothered with him.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want and no one is allowed to question it. People will have to either get over the feedback they get or leave people alone.