Well, that's your opinion. Many people believe, especially those who support the BLM movement, value the statement by BLM regarding Rittenhouse:Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:51 amIt 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.WellPreserved wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:22 pm"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.Slimshandy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:07 pm
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.
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.
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.
"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?