Image 01 Image 03

Leftist Student Orgs at Arizona State Demand School ‘Withdraw’ Kyle Rittenhouse

Leftist Student Orgs at Arizona State Demand School ‘Withdraw’ Kyle Rittenhouse

These people want ONLINE STUDENT Rittenhouse off the campus. He’s not even there!

Kyle Rittenhouse Derangement Syndrome is a thing. I laughed while I wrote the post.

Four student groups at Arizona State University want the school to withdraw Rittenhouse.

Guys, Rittenhouse enrolled as an online student.

I wonder how these students lean:

  • The Arizona State University Students for Socialism
  • Social Justice in Palestine
  • Multicultural Solidarity Coalition
  • MECHA de ASU

The groups call him “Murderer Kyle Rittenhouse.” The groups follow the typical leftist narrative with a list of demands littered with the phrase “white supremacy” and objects not associated with Rittenhouse.

Someone, PLEASE remind these people that a jury found Rittenhouse not guilty of shooting and injuring one man and fatally shooting two men. All three men are WHITE.

“Even with a not-guilty verdict from a ‘flawed’ justice system – Kyle Rittenhouse is still guilty to his victims and the families of those victims,” the groups concluded. “Join us to demand from ASU that these demands be met to protect students from a violent, blood-thirsty murderer.”

How much would you bet these people have posters of Che and Marx on their walls?

It gets better. The group’s spokesperson (yes, it has a spokesperson) spoke to Fox News:

A Students for Socialism at Arizona State University spokesperson told Fox News that the ultimate goal of the demands is to let the university administration know that they do not feel safe knowing that a “mass shooter” is admitted to the school.

“The goal of these demands is to let the ASU administration know that we as the ASU community do not feel safe knowing that a mass shooter, who has expressed violent intentions about ‘protecting property’ over people, is so carelessly allowed to be admitted to the school at all,” the spokesperson said. “Our campus is already unsafe as is, and we would like to abate this danger as much as possible.”

The Students for Socialism chapter spokesperson contended that the Rittenhouse trial “effectively gives right-winged individuals the license to kill other individuals who protest for human rights.”

“Rittenhouse took the lives of innocent people with the intent to do so—by strapping an assault rifle to himself in a crowd of unarmed citizens. That is the textbook definition of intention. The decision made by the court is one of thousands of cases that have been influenced by biased judges, predominantly white juries, and mistakes inherent in a judicial system founded off of injustice to begin with,” the spokesperson said.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I hope they remove him as a student. He can then add the school to his lawsuit against the MSM and Biden.

    Suing the organizations won’t get him much cash, but as it appears they all hold charters from ASU the school seems a good target,

    Hmm…. Full ride scholarship through his doctorate and ASU picks up the tab for his security team.

    Sounds fair.

Liberty University here he comes!

It seems like damages could be applied to these groups. What they are doing is totally wrong and I would be ready to file against the school if they they side with the students.

    Gosport in reply to MarkSmith. | November 30, 2021 at 8:04 pm

    Tortious interference maybe?
    A contractual relationship exists between Rittenhouse and ASU. Those groups are attempting to force ASU to break that.

Weird. Socialists on campus makes ME feel unsafe – given the history of that lying, thieving, murderous ideology.

“… outside the Nelson Fine Arts Center on campus…”

On campus. And the admin allowing it tells you all you need to know.

    Octavius A in reply to LB1901. | November 30, 2021 at 8:49 am

    It’s even worse than that. I believe he is an online student currently, meaning that he isn’t even physically present on the campus. Having taken online courses in the past, my advice to Kyle would to be to have fun with this and torment these slackers as much as he can.

These groups know nothing of actual justice as KR was found NOT GUILTY by a jury of his peers. Now if KR was a committed anarchist or Marxist like most of these groups are, then I’m positive none of those groups would have any apprehension of having KR over for a beer or 3 to celebrate his due process & the justice that found him not guilty.

It’s cool to be a lemming at ASU.

whoever wrote that statement got an F in Logic 101.

God, the lies! I can assure you one thing…these whiny little brats better wake up to what is coming.

These Leftist Arizona State U. groups don’t seem to have much regard for diversity and inclusion.

I’m really surprised that these Marxists operate so openly on college campuses. I would have thought a few well placed beat-downs would convince them to shut the fuck up and crawl back under their rock. Perhaps the time is coming.

Everything the “spokesperson “ said was a lie

    pst314 in reply to gonzotx. | November 29, 2021 at 4:27 pm

    Just emulating communist Lillian Hellman, of whom it was said “Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.”

>we as the ASU community do not feel safe knowing that a mass shooter…

Let me tell you something, “Students for Socialism”.

My uncle was killed by national-SOCIALISTS, a brother of my grand-dad was killed by international SOCIALISTS, same as a father of my step-father.
My step-father was not allowed to attend ANY university. His crime? yes, SOCIALISTS killed his father and were probably feeling UNSAFE to allow the son of their victim to get any education.

Overall, SOCIALISTS killed ten of MILLIONS more people than Kyle did. You want a “safe space”? I want one too. How about: “not a single SOCIALIST” should be allowed to attend an American university”. Like you said: ““Our country is already unsafe as is”.. Why tolerate mass murderers among us.

“Rittenhouse took the lives of innocent people with the intent to do so—by strapping an assault rifle to himself in a crowd of unarmed citizens. That is the textbook definition of intention.”

LOL, what “textbook” are you morons reading? Because any textbook that says that is full of sh*t.

Rittenhouse had the legal right under Wisconsin law to carry the gun. That is why the gun charge was withdrawn and never allowed to be submitted to the jury. Obviously, exercising a legal right to carry a gun is not the “textbook definition” of intent to murder.

Furthermore, Rittenhouse was not carrying his gun in a “crowd of unarmed citizens.” He was carrying his gun in a mob of violent felons, rioters, and arsonists, some of whom were themselves armed with guns.

For example, Gaige Grosskreutz, one of the violent felons who attacked Rittenhouse and whom he shot, was armed with a loaded Glock, that he was carrying concealed in his clothes, in violation of Wisconsin law. Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz when Grosskreutz removed the gun from his clothes, pointed it at Rittenhouse’s head, and started moving towards the fallen Rittenhouse (as Grosskreutz himself admitted in his sworn testimony). In other words, Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz in the “textbook definition” of legal self defense.

Maybe instead of putting up idiotic posters filled with lies and tired lefty memes, you ignorant, brainwashed dummies should instead spend your time reading and learning some actual facts about the world you live in and the cases you comment on.

    Interested Party in reply to Observer. | November 29, 2021 at 3:14 pm

    The idiot Binger pointed out repeatedly during the case that there were are large number of armed people walking around that evening and ONLY Rittenhouse shot anyone.

    If simply carrying a rifle signaled intent to murder, then it would have been a bloodbath. It wasn’t so their argument is proven false by their own prosecutor.

Good. These sort of demonstrations should make it easier for KR to demonstrate monetary damages if he chooses to go after media, politicians and the occasional ADA.

“Leftists demand…”

They are used to getting their way without doing any work or making any effort on their part to acheive it. No negotiating, compromising, or any effort involved other than to just sit there and make demands. That is the accepted way these days to get things done..

ObeliskToucher | November 29, 2021 at 2:46 pm

Once… just once… I’d like to see the University administration respond to demands like this by saying “These demands show that your organization does not comply with the University’s goal of a diverse experience. Therefore, all funding, accreditation, and support for your organization will be withdrawn, effective immediately.”

Never going to happen, but I can dream…

Interesting how aspiring Leftists with the desire to exert control over everybody they meet have no problems listing their real names on a petition that slanders an innocent person, while conservatives fear getting their names on anything overtly conservative online because various HR departments run by aspiring Leftists are more than happy to find their name on a Google search and cancel their employment application.

Which is why most people use an alias online for political or social postings. Leftists will use any tool to destroy their enemies, so we don’t like giving them metaphorical ammo.

Time for a hefty libel suit.. Their public statements are libelous.

    Milhouse in reply to lhw. | November 29, 2021 at 4:30 pm

    No, they really aren’t. They’re not making false statements of fact, they’re just expressing their very offensive opinions, and you can’t sue for that. But a university that truly believed in being a safe space for all students of good will would expel them. They are making the campus an unsafe and unwelcoming space for Rittenhouse and for all those who agree with him.

      Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 29, 2021 at 5:33 pm

      For those who think calling someone a white supremacist is actionable, here’s why you’re wrong.

        Danny in reply to Milhouse. | November 29, 2021 at 6:37 pm

        So White Supremacist doesn’t mean anything?

        Actually I am 100% certain it does.

        Furthermore in the state of NY it actually is actionable if you call someone a communist.

        AnAdultInDiapers in reply to Milhouse. | November 30, 2021 at 6:14 am

        Your source says that expressions of opinion are protected speech.

        Demanding someone be expelled due to the lies you’re maliciously shouting is not an expression of opinion.

        Falsely accusing Rittenhouse of intending to kill is defamatory, falsely accusing Rittenhouse of killing innocent people is defamatory, falsely accusing Rittenhouse of being racist is defamatory, falsely accusing Rittenhouse of being a murderer is defamatory and using all those false accusations to try and prevent his access to education is malice and damn fucking right it’s actionable.

          No, “Adult”, you are wrong. None of those things are defamation, because they’re all opinions, not false statements of fact.

          Demanding anything is not defamation; anyone is entitled to demand anything they like. They’re not entitled to get what they demand.

          Rittenhouse’s intentions are inherently a matter of opinion, since none of us are telepaths. Whether the people he killed were innocent is again a matter of opinion. Calling him racist or a murderer is again an opinion; not in any way actionable.

          Do you seriously think you know more about the first amendment than Eugene Volokh?!

        CaptTee in reply to Milhouse. | November 30, 2021 at 2:07 pm

        Couldn’t persecuting someone found innocent by a jury be interpreted as “contempt of court”?

IANAL, so could someone tell me: Is Rittenhouse’s agreement with ASU a contract, and do the groups’ actions constitute tortious interference?

BTW, I withdrew my support from an ASU science-teaching inititiative because it went “woke”.

    TargaGTS in reply to moonmoth. | November 29, 2021 at 4:33 pm

    I’m not a lawyer either. But, I did write the tuition checks for my three kids. All their schools had some kind enrollment agreement(s). I also noticed that all the agreements had lengthy arbitration clauses as well. I’d wager that if they’re not completely indemnified, their liability exposure in this kind of case is greatly limited.

Is publicly calling Rittenhouse a murderer defamation or slander?

    The statements went beyond that. White supremacist was one of the things they called him for instance.

      henrybowman in reply to lhw. | November 29, 2021 at 3:57 pm

      Oddly, white supremacist isn’t actionable, while murderer is.

        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | November 29, 2021 at 4:37 pm

        “Murderer” isn’t actionable either, if it’s based on known facts — even if those known facts make no sense. It’s only actionable if a reasonable listener would assume that the speaker is in possession of secret facts, which would support the conclusion that the subject is a murderer.

        If I say “Henry Bowman is a murderer”, someone who hears me would assume that I must know something. I surely wouldn’t say something like that without solid evidence, would I? So they’d think you’d actually and literally killed a person without justification. That is actionable. But if I say how I “know” it, e.g. “Henry Bowman is a murderer; he stepped on a crack, and at that very moment his grandmother dropped dead of a broken back”, or “…I saw it in the tarot cards”, or “…he voted for Trump, whose policies caused millions of deaths”, then it’s not actionable, because the listener will not think you had actually killed anyone.

          daniel_ream in reply to Milhouse. | November 29, 2021 at 5:28 pm

          I don’t understand this reasoning. I mean “murderer” is a pretty specific term, meaning someone who unlawfully killed someone. Rittenhouse was very publicly acquitted of the only deaths he’s ever been accused of causing, so it seems to me that calling him a murderer is at least civilly actionable.

          As an analogy, if I repeatedly call someone a child molester without any proof they’ve committed the crime, then surely that’s actionable libel. This is why newspapers always say “allegedly” when referring to someone on trial until the sentence is handed down.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 29, 2021 at 5:40 pm

          The fact that a jury acquitted him is irrelevant. A person is entitled to disagree with the jury finding. A person is also entitled to disagree with the law that permits killing in self defense. A person could know he’s a murderer in some other way, such as because he thinks he’s psychic and has read Rittenhouse’s mind and seen his guilt written there. Or a person could mean that he caused someone’s death in some indirect and unprovable way.

          The bottom line is that “murderer” is not a statement of fact, it’s a conclusion that is usually derived from facts. Asserting those facts is actionable, if they are not true. But asserting the conclusion is not actionable. The only loophole in that distinction is that asserting the conclusion in a way that implies there are facts, which if you knew would make you agree with the conclusion, is actionable not for the conclusion itself but for the implied facts.

          So I can call Milhouse a “child molester” and arrange it so every search engine shows that when your name is searched, and you can’t do jack? Never mind that most businesses will round file your resume as soon as they find it? Cool.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 30, 2021 at 11:00 am

          Whether someone is a child molester is a conclusion, which is a kind of opinion and therefore not actionable. But by calling someone that with no context, a reasonable listener would understand you to mean that you are in possession of hidden facts that would support your conclusion. That implied factual statement is actionable, if it’s false.

          But if the context does not imply any hidden facts, e.g. (1) there are well-known accusations that the listener is already aware of, or (2) you reveal the basis for your statement and it’s not something anyone would believe, then it’s not actionable.

          daniel_ream in reply to Milhouse. | November 30, 2021 at 7:00 pm

          The bottom line is that “murderer” is not a statement of fact, it’s a conclusion that is usually derived from facts. Asserting those facts is actionable, if they are not true.

          Okay, I think I’m following that. Do you have any references for this kind of libel law? (Canadian libel law is derived from British “the peasants aren’t allowed to say anything mean about the aristocracy” libel law so just about anything is actionable here).

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 1, 2021 at 12:55 am

          See the Volokh article I linked to earlier.

          English (and thus also Canadian) defamation law is more plaintiff-friendly than US law, but it too makes this distinction between opinion and false statements of fact. As a piece I once read in an English source put it: if a restaurant review says the food was awful, that’s an opinion and therefore not defamation; if it says the food was spoiled, that’s a statement of fact, and if it’s not true it’s defamation.

As for these groups… pure as the driven sand. i wonder how many are illegally in the country…. yes..yes… they forget the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo. Having won the war, the US paid Mexico $15 million and assumed debts of US citizens owned by Mexico.

“Someone, PLEASE remind these people that a jury found Rittenhouse not guilty”

Preferably someone serving them papers on Kyle’s behalf.

If I lived about 30 miles closer to the campus, I’d consider trolling these idiots by posting flyers on campus with Kyle’s photo on them that say, “KYLE RITTENHOUSE ENROLLED HERE! BE VIGILANT AND ON THE LOOKOUT WHILE ON OUR CAMPUS! IF YOU SEE THIS PERSON, REPORT HIM!” Let him live in their heads.

As for the MECHA thugs, these are the same jackasses (well, jennies) who followed Krysten Sinema into the loo to harass her.

The fact that a jury acquitted him is irrelevant. Nobody is required to agree with any jury decision. Juries acquitted OJ Simpson and Lemrick Nelson, but they were still guilty. Juries convicted many innocent people, but they were still innocent. So they’re entitled to their wrong opinion.

But their nonsense about how if Rittenhouse were to appear on campus they would feel unsafe, must be countered with the fact that if he were to appear there he would feel unsafe and unwelcome because of their words and actions, so by their own standard they should be expelled.

Mean girls!

    henrybowman in reply to JoAnne. | November 29, 2021 at 6:47 pm

    I was thinking just this week, in fact, that this is exactly the kind of society you would get by putting mean girls in charge of everything.
    Then I considered who the real string-pullers were behind Biden and realized we had.

Funding these public universities with my tax dollars, so they can brainwash our kids that the USA is rotten to its core, makes me feel unsafe. Can I stop paying?

    If you can figure out how to pull that off, share with the rest of us.

    The best my wife and I have been able to accomplish was getting our alma mater to stop calling us every year for a donation.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to jimincalif. | December 1, 2021 at 8:52 am

    Attacking funding is one of the best ways clip academia’s wings.

Supporters of the “Palestinian” cause and of MECHA calling anyone racist is some serious goddamn hypocrisy.

If the Admin of ASU had any spine whatsoever, they would come down hard in these fools, pointing out their factual mistakes and also explaining the concept of Not Guilty. Does ASAU really want to graduate these idiots??? Yeah, thety’ll do a lot for the reputation of the school!

    henrybowman in reply to CincyJan. | November 29, 2021 at 10:21 pm

    The president of ASU is a pretty well-established lefty. No hope there.

    University Drive in Mesa is a major town thoroughfare. It goes right through the campus of ASU (due to ASU historically having expanded onto property on both sides of the road). Arizona gun owners realized that anyone driving a car on this road was in technical violation of university regulations against campus carry (which under state law regulate all citizens). AzCDL introduced a law to exempt motorists and pedestrians using public roads through campuses from campus regulations. We got near zero pushback from legislators. This dipwad fought it, just to be a PITA.

“Students for Socialism” eh?
So supporters of the vile religion that replaced “God” with “the State” and murdered a couple of hundred million OF ITS OWN PEOPLE in around 50 years in the 20th Century – more than all God based religions killed in the last thousand years – as speedbumps on the highway to the Glorious Socialist Workers’ Paradise?

I don’t remember any rioting in the streets when OJ Simpson was found not guilty. What has changed in America?? (wink)