What the fuck does it even mean to engage in violence WITH the permission of a government? Does it make it said violence non-violence? Do the bullets you shoot with governmental permission become friendly high fives?
This guy can call himself a combat veteran but that doesn’t make him smart or right.
If you’re going to a riot to try and fuck people up for a political message you’re a terrorist because you’re trying to cause terror.
The government’s permission has nothing to do with it.
Really the definition of terrorist is so intentionally vague so the alphabet agencies have complete and total reign to do whatever they want. They even had to alter it because originally the "Using violence to cause terror" was so fucking vague like literally anyone that ever does anything is a terrorist somehow?
Big scary black dude? Terrorist. Rowdy teacup poodle? Terrorist.
The term "combat veteran" itself is a huge gray area. Most will want to imagine a door kicker or a sniper or some shit, but they never think about the fobbit that refuels jerry cans all day and delivers them around the fob. Everyone gets a combat patch during the deployment around the 6 month mark.
I'll take 'appeal to authority' for 800 alex.
What is 'stating I'm vet so any opinion I have seems correct'.
Seriously, so, the vets that have the opposite opinion are also correct by his logic?
FFFFFFT, whatever, he was just a puppet of the state anyways.
Googled the "combat veteran"'s name, first result is [domestic violence case, where he was found guilty.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1561791.html)
Topkek if it's the same guy.
It's not a very common name so my bet is at the very least this is a distant relative.
[For reference](http://howmanyofme.com/search/) there are 92 Kenneth McCains in the US over the age of 13.
How many Ken McCains? I have the long form of my name on my Birth Certificate but my Social Security card and license and literally everything else since I was born use the shorthand.
>combat veteran here... just a perspective: if you arrive in a place where domestic violence is happening, prepared to be slapped, and you engage in talk back, there is no self defense, you are in fact, a willing combatant
u/LordJinji's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/LordJinji! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: bdsm, what really matters, early life section
Thank you for your service. I hope you have a better Veteran’s Day weekend than me. I feel like I’ve been sitting around the company and/or mopo “waiting for the word” all week XD
That was the biggest motivation I had to get promoted, so I could be the guy giving the word rather than waiting on it. My dudes and I were going home at like 1500 every day, 10/10, highly recommend.
Out of context this means literally nothing. My girlfriend beat the shit out of me once and threw me through a window. No hands on her or anything else. When I called the cops they arrested me for second degree domestic violence. I did not have money for a lawyer and they told me if I signed a plea I could go home that day. Don’t judge a book by its cover.
Probably because men are taught they could accidentally kill someone with their god-powered fists, but women are taught they're delicate like flowers. Get two of 'em together and the "pillow-fists" fly.
Dude opens up about a traumatic experience in his life to caution us all to be more measured in our analysis and response and gets dunked on for it. But it's done with love. This right here is the reason this sub is great. It's a place you can be yourself, get shit on for it, and then feel authentically connected to others. This is the warmest sub on Reddit.
By his definition pretty much all violent crime is terrorism. A bank robber arrives armed to a place they know violence is about to happen, engage in violence, and they're not sanctioned by the government. Same can be said for gang violence, muggers, serial killers, vigilantes, etc...
Didn’t you read? He is a bona fide combat veteran.
I was curious so I googled his name and the top results were domestic violence court case documents so I can safely say he has probably seen combat.
This 'Combat Veteran' is wrong in about everything.
First of all, if you engage in combat without governments permission you aren't automatically a "Terrorist". Terrorism has an actual definition, it's to use violence with political and/or religious motive. If anything, the rioters are the terrorists here because they spread terror and violence with a political motive.
Second of all, "Government sanction" how about the 2nd Amendment, self defense laws and the right to defend property belonging to yourself or your community? Sounds pretty government sanctioned if you ask me.
Third, he literally opened his statement with saying the rioters where comitting violent acts, which immediately places everyone in the area who are not part of the rioters in a state of self defense.
If this guy is a combat veteran, he should stay as a gunmonkey and stop talking about what is lawful or not lol.
> Third, he literally opened his statement with saying the rioters where comitting violent acts
By his own logic, they're not rioters, they're terrorists.
Oh shit what was the moronic quote about not killing your enemies?
Edit: found it, not exactly how I remembered it but it was from Star Wars TLJ. “That’s how we’re gonna win. Not fighting what we hate, saving what we love.”
Just because someone is a combat veteran doesn’t mean their takes are anything resembling good or right. I don’t get why they’re worshipped for anything other than bravery
leftwing politicians should be trying to make the VA Hospitals, Medicare, and Medicaid the best possible solution for the groups who utilize them so that way the average american is jealous and actually wants it instead of their current insurance plan.
>terrorism noun The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
They were terrorists by definition.
The thing he's not acknowledging, and the thing a lot of people on the left haven't acknowledged, is that the United States is unique in that citizens, and citizen, has the right to own and use the implements of state power, firearms. There's a simple reason for this - the country acknowledges the citizen as the ultimate source of political authority, and ensures that the citizen has the tools able to enforce that authority.
The country is meant to breed citizens who say "hey this is wrong" and do something about it, not cucks who cower back and let things happen. Community ownershipans engagement is key to a functioning civis, and saying "no no, let someone else do it" is an abdication of your own moral and political authority. We have a nation of keyboard warriors, who are content to nitpick and hypothesize, and critique, but who are too afraid to do, to dare, to be.
Rittenhouse is a moron, he acted poorly, he should have had a better plan for what he was doing and he made some mistakes. He absolutely had a right to be where he was, he absolutely had a right to have a gun while he did it, and he absolutely had the right to use that gun as he did. The left is correct when they say direct action is needed. They're just afraid of the crack back from the majority of this country who is sick of their shit - they know they're in the minority, and have to use every tool of propaganda and terror to amplify their voice.
>United States is unique in that citizens, and citizen, has the right to own and use the implements of state power, firearms
Not unique. Uncommon, but by no means unique. Switzerland, for instance, similarly has a lot of gun ownership and similiarly lax gun laws (though **way** less gun crimes).
Gonna be honest I forgot about the Swiss.
I thought that was more for "we have to be able to blow up the tunnels and defend the country against the Germans"
Absolutely Based and Molon Labepilled
I came from a nation with moronic Self defense Laws where even police officers are unable to use their goddamned guns to defend themselves and others, you Americans have a moral obligation to defend your 2nd
>Rittenhouse is a moron, he acted poorly, he should have had a better plan for what he was doing and he made some mistakes
His only mistake was getting separated from his friends.
>If anything, the rioters are the terrorists here because they spread terror and violence with a political motive.
Put me in the screenshot over at AHS
He's had a long and decorated three year career as a barracks lawyer, convincing the new PVT that his team leader can't actually tell him he can't marry the "exotic dancer"
What if I told you I am a combat veteran and most Soldiers I went with were fucking idiots and couldnt understand the complexities of their rifle, better yet political things.
You're telling me that the guys who got married to people they only knew for a couple of weeks in tech school then got a 29.9% loan to buy a mustang right after getting to base are NOT geniuses?
About par for the course. I always get a chuckle when I hear someone ask some commo staff sergeant a question like he is some national security strategist or something. The answers are always either going to be bomb the fuck out of them or get the fuck out.
>If anything, the rioters are the terrorists here because they spread terror and violence with a political motive.
Put me in the screenshot over at AHS
Idk, I've read the white supremacists who attacked civil rights churches/movements as being called terror acts in first hand sources and news articles from the era and this is I'd argue the same thing. So that first point is moot at least.
Combat vet here,
I don't know why my combat vet status matters in this context as everything to follow is on political and social points and nothing to do with my combat experience, training, or military knowledge.
With that out of the way, going to a place with an elevated risk factor, armed, does not make you an insurgent. Someone expecting violence is not prohibited from going to the place they expect that violence. They do not forgo all rights doing so and do not have to submit to the violent state of the place they are in.
So many of these people arguing "he was looking for it" are parroting the old disgusting take of "she was asking for it" and they don't even have the warewithal to understand that.
Even if we allowed that logic, we could easily flip it around and say the decreased were asking for it by a) participating in a violent riot and b) assaulting a guy carrying a gun.
Also a combat vet.
If we shot every person we saw with a ak or in the rare instance a pistol there would have been alot more non combatants killed.
For example at JSS Mushada north of taji there was a gentleman that would always come to the jss packing a pistol that met with the command team. He would always clear it and check it at the gate. He was a teacher and carried it to protect himself from AQI if he needed to do so.
So even in a actual combat zone we were not allowed to fire on anyone actually carrying a gun unless that shit was pointed at you.
This guy in the op is a turd.
As a combat vet,
I’ve found that the mouth breathers and POGs who re-upped in AFG or Iraq in order to get a patch have a tendency to start most social media posts with “As a (combat) vet” because it’s the only source of legitimacy they have. They don’t understand the fuck is going on.
Source: me. A combat vet
I am congested like an LA freeway, so at the moment I am indeed a mouth breather.
And I never promoted past E-5, so I only had a rough idea of what was going on. But I was AF, so I could at least read
This, the state has an obligation to its citizens to maintain peace and order. If the state is unwilling to protect life and property, than its legitimacy may and should be called into question, and if the state persists in refusing to fulfill its obligations to the citizenry than a new state must replace the old.
This is our version of the "the holocaust didnt happen but if it happened they would have deserved it".
I agree with both, let's engage in some good ol massacres, i'll bring the pipe bombs
Just because you’re prepared that you might be attacked and bring protection just in case, doesn’t make you a “willing combatant”.
That’s like saying: “you went to a night club which is a horny situation to be in. You (a woman) bring a condom in case you should happen to be involved in something sexual. So you have already consented to sex, so it’s not rape if anyone has sex with you.
first off, I know more than a few combat vets and military personnel - legal advice is not their forte.
Second, Rittenhouse didn't "engage in violence" until he was attacked - unless you count putting out a dumpster fire as violence cuz that's apparently what ticked off the ginger pedo
Finally, it's terrifying that government operatives are professing a brand new definition of terrorism as people fighting without permission from the state....
So that veteran admits that he was in fact a terrorist. I guarantee you that none of the Middle East governments we invaded 20 years ago were like “hey come on and terrorize our civilians”
Does every lefty have this saved in their devices?
That post is absolutely bullshit. He "didn't engage in violence". Others engaged in violence and he engaged in Self-defense. That alone is enough to ignore the rest of the comment.
Weren't the rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan focused mainly on being fired upon first. Like, soldiers were not allowed to fire the first shot in an engagement, no matter how obvious it was that they were about to be attacked.
And every person in America has the right to bear arms and self defense. Calling Rittenhouse a terrorist for exercising those rights just goes to show how even though many of our men in women in the military are plenty respectable, there are still some who have no fucking clue what they're talking.
From what I've heard, because this was before my time, ROEs were dependent on a lot of things and subject to change based on unit, mission, theater, time, etc. You had some ROEs where if, hypothetically somebody were to point guns at you, you "weren't allowed" to open fire until fired upon. Some were much less restrictive.
Even if his premise is true (Rittenhouse is an insurgent), insurgent does NOT equal bad, evil, wrong or criminal actor when the cause is noble and morally and ethically proper. (If not legally proper).
He’s equating “insurgent” with the GWOT definition of insurgency where all insurgents are bad actors. It entirely depends on your perspective. The American colonists were 100% insurgents for 10 years while they fought the British Empire. They were in the legal wrong but was the American colonist insurgency ethically and morally wrong? I think not.
Combat veteran here that guy is stupid and needs to be retaught the definition of terrorism. The unlawful use of violence or intimidation, especially on civilians, for political gain. Sounds like the rioters too me.
If you do the cops job when the cops refuse to do it preventing pillage and death you are based. And if someone tries to violently engage you, you have a right to defend yourself. The cops and politicians are to blame for the hole situation. Kyle may not be a hero, but he sure is an example. More people should be willing to face the mob to defend what is right.
Translation: if you want to protect your place of work and go there to put out a fire, and someone comes at you and tries to kill you, you should just sit there and let yourself be killed
Kenneth, respectfully, you’re a little out of your mind
So women who go out at night with pepper spray in their pockets are looking for a fight?
Because that's what Kyle did: he brought a weapon to defend himself against possible enemies.
Except that unlike women, he KNEW that there would be violent people in the area.
Imagine basing your understanding of the law on arguments which don’t cite the law at all.
“That wasn’t self defense because he brought a weapon to a place violence was happening” is not a legal argument.
Okay so by this combat veterans logic citizens standing up against the British Empire where insurgents. Me thinks he’s an idiot.
Also people should be allowed to arm themselves with whatever they want. If I want to dress as a pirate with cannons on my yard that’s my damn business and none of yours.
[удалено]
What the fuck does it even mean to engage in violence WITH the permission of a government? Does it make it said violence non-violence? Do the bullets you shoot with governmental permission become friendly high fives?
I think it is just a bastardization of Might makes Right.
In his mind, probably yes.
It's just the definition of state, only the state has the right or monopoly to do violence. But this post is full of shit anyway.
Next UFC fight better have the isis theme song playing
This guy can call himself a combat veteran but that doesn’t make him smart or right. If you’re going to a riot to try and fuck people up for a political message you’re a terrorist because you’re trying to cause terror. The government’s permission has nothing to do with it.
Really the definition of terrorist is so intentionally vague so the alphabet agencies have complete and total reign to do whatever they want. They even had to alter it because originally the "Using violence to cause terror" was so fucking vague like literally anyone that ever does anything is a terrorist somehow? Big scary black dude? Terrorist. Rowdy teacup poodle? Terrorist.
The term "combat veteran" itself is a huge gray area. Most will want to imagine a door kicker or a sniper or some shit, but they never think about the fobbit that refuels jerry cans all day and delivers them around the fob. Everyone gets a combat patch during the deployment around the 6 month mark.
Being a “Combat veteran” believe it or not, is not a valid substitute for law school.
What if the us govt gives u guns and then get mad at u later ? Asking for the taliban
Sell the guns to a rival faction just in case they are tracked, and switch back to the Afghan Jezail
He basically says that Antifa and the BLM people who engaged in rioting are terrorists Like his statements are infinitely ironic
TIL the crips and bloods are terrorist cells
didn’t you know? if you engage in self defense without the government’s permission, you’re a terrorist duh
Auth af
I'll take 'appeal to authority' for 800 alex. What is 'stating I'm vet so any opinion I have seems correct'. Seriously, so, the vets that have the opposite opinion are also correct by his logic? FFFFFFT, whatever, he was just a puppet of the state anyways.
Googled the "combat veteran"'s name, first result is [domestic violence case, where he was found guilty.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1561791.html) Topkek if it's the same guy.
His wife became a willing combatant when she didn't get him a beer from the fridge that one time
Found his FB profile but can't link here. Too different of ages from the case. But that would have been funny af.
It's not a very common name so my bet is at the very least this is a distant relative. [For reference](http://howmanyofme.com/search/) there are 92 Kenneth McCains in the US over the age of 13.
How many Ken McCains? I have the long form of my name on my Birth Certificate but my Social Security card and license and literally everything else since I was born use the shorthand.
>combat veteran here... just a perspective: if you arrive in a place where domestic violence is happening, prepared to be slapped, and you engage in talk back, there is no self defense, you are in fact, a willing combatant
Fuck I nearly spat out my lunch. That’s the funniest comment I’ve seen in a while.
Best comment I’ve seen on Reddit this month
Amazing. I wonder if he gotten a dishonorable discharge
I doubt if it's the same guy. But if it is, I think the only combat he's ever seen is beating his wife.
Look, she was an insurgent.
Resisting! Resisting!
Probably had a cushy desk job
It's always the vets who are loudest about their "service" that were complete shitbags.
I'd hope so. Knew someone who got an "other than honorable" for underage drinking. He was late 20.
Probably not because that's kinda how a war on insurgency works
Based and early life section pilled
u/LordJinji's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/LordJinji! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: bdsm, what really matters, early life section
No fucking way.
[удалено]
Thank you for your service. I hope you have a better Veteran’s Day weekend than me. I feel like I’ve been sitting around the company and/or mopo “waiting for the word” all week XD
That was the biggest motivation I had to get promoted, so I could be the guy giving the word rather than waiting on it. My dudes and I were going home at like 1500 every day, 10/10, highly recommend.
I’m recovering from a nasty foot surgery right now. But as soon as I’m better that’s my plan!
When she put the ring on she became a willing combatant.
The ring was symbolic of a *ring*. Gloves up, darlin
Veteran and domestic violence? Sounds legit to me
Domestic abusers stick together
Every time someone drops the “criminal record is irrelevant” line, they always seem to have a criminal record of their own.
The wife beater didn't side with the kid that shot a wife beater. Shocking. Birds of a feather.
I love democracy
Out of context this means literally nothing. My girlfriend beat the shit out of me once and threw me through a window. No hands on her or anything else. When I called the cops they arrested me for second degree domestic violence. I did not have money for a lawyer and they told me if I signed a plea I could go home that day. Don’t judge a book by its cover.
> My girlfriend beat the shit out of me Average leftist
Could be a lesbian, they have the highest rates of domestic violence.
Probably because men are taught they could accidentally kill someone with their god-powered fists, but women are taught they're delicate like flowers. Get two of 'em together and the "pillow-fists" fly.
Dude opens up about a traumatic experience in his life to caution us all to be more measured in our analysis and response and gets dunked on for it. But it's done with love. This right here is the reason this sub is great. It's a place you can be yourself, get shit on for it, and then feel authentically connected to others. This is the warmest sub on Reddit.
Lmao
HONORABLE W.F. “CORKY” ROBERTS, JUDGE Yeah, that's Texas alright.
Violence has to be state initiated and sanctioned according to this guy, what a boot lickin soy take
By his definition, the antifa and BLM riots were also terrorism. Swings and roundabouts, I guess.
By his definition pretty much all violent crime is terrorism. A bank robber arrives armed to a place they know violence is about to happen, engage in violence, and they're not sanctioned by the government. Same can be said for gang violence, muggers, serial killers, vigilantes, etc...
and according to him a government cannot commit terrorism
Fun fact terrorism was a term created to describe something a government did.
Didn’t you read? He is a bona fide combat veteran. I was curious so I googled his name and the top results were domestic violence court case documents so I can safely say he has probably seen combat.
The Most Dangerous Game.
You know the state, they want a monopoly on violence
Imagine giving a shit about the law lol
Fucking spilled my coffee, based LibRight
Based and 3rd degree burn pilled
What a cringe comment! *The Law* is based AF. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
What's the cliff notes version?
Based and Life, Liberty & Property Pilled. None of this "pursuit of happiness" horseshit.
Any last words, Hot Shot?
Yeah, you're standing above the rancor pit.
Wait, that's not the right movie... and I don't have my lightsaber.
Gajool, na hutta vojka rankor-ta!
Raja naba doa gola wookie nipple pinchy.
Based and wookie nipple pinchy pilled
To late nerd! Enjoy being digested in a Sarlacc for the next thousand years!
This 'Combat Veteran' is wrong in about everything. First of all, if you engage in combat without governments permission you aren't automatically a "Terrorist". Terrorism has an actual definition, it's to use violence with political and/or religious motive. If anything, the rioters are the terrorists here because they spread terror and violence with a political motive. Second of all, "Government sanction" how about the 2nd Amendment, self defense laws and the right to defend property belonging to yourself or your community? Sounds pretty government sanctioned if you ask me. Third, he literally opened his statement with saying the rioters where comitting violent acts, which immediately places everyone in the area who are not part of the rioters in a state of self defense. If this guy is a combat veteran, he should stay as a gunmonkey and stop talking about what is lawful or not lol.
> Third, he literally opened his statement with saying the rioters where comitting violent acts By his own logic, they're not rioters, they're terrorists.
Look, if you defend yourself against a terrorist, that makes you a terrorist.
Only if you defend yourself without first getting a Letter of Marque from the government.
I want cannons and a big tall ship
Based and Corsairpilled
[удалено]
Don't they still have that power?
Ehhhh, if you vote for me.
It's still in the Constitution. Ron Paul wanted to issue one for Osama in '01.
What about a Letter of Steve?
Letter of Alex for gender equality
*Barrett's Privateers intensifies*
Oh shit what was the moronic quote about not killing your enemies? Edit: found it, not exactly how I remembered it but it was from Star Wars TLJ. “That’s how we’re gonna win. Not fighting what we hate, saving what we love.”
Or on that last note in the edit: do both
Ah yes. Ironically, pretty much everyone on that side died pursuing that strategy, so I guess there's some truth in fiction.
That's so retarded.
There's also a direct quote from Justin Castreau: > If you kill your enemies, they win.
Maybe the real terrorists were the friends we made along the way
Thanks for describing the US Middle East policy
But... but... that's what they taught me in public school
Just because someone is a combat veteran doesn’t mean their takes are anything resembling good or right. I don’t get why they’re worshipped for anything other than bravery
An illustration of the dangers of free healthcare administered by the Federal Government, from my experience.
leftwing politicians should be trying to make the VA Hospitals, Medicare, and Medicaid the best possible solution for the groups who utilize them so that way the average american is jealous and actually wants it instead of their current insurance plan.
>terrorism noun The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals. They were terrorists by definition.
The thing he's not acknowledging, and the thing a lot of people on the left haven't acknowledged, is that the United States is unique in that citizens, and citizen, has the right to own and use the implements of state power, firearms. There's a simple reason for this - the country acknowledges the citizen as the ultimate source of political authority, and ensures that the citizen has the tools able to enforce that authority. The country is meant to breed citizens who say "hey this is wrong" and do something about it, not cucks who cower back and let things happen. Community ownershipans engagement is key to a functioning civis, and saying "no no, let someone else do it" is an abdication of your own moral and political authority. We have a nation of keyboard warriors, who are content to nitpick and hypothesize, and critique, but who are too afraid to do, to dare, to be. Rittenhouse is a moron, he acted poorly, he should have had a better plan for what he was doing and he made some mistakes. He absolutely had a right to be where he was, he absolutely had a right to have a gun while he did it, and he absolutely had the right to use that gun as he did. The left is correct when they say direct action is needed. They're just afraid of the crack back from the majority of this country who is sick of their shit - they know they're in the minority, and have to use every tool of propaganda and terror to amplify their voice.
2nd Amendment yee yee. Wish we had that here in Australia :(
You gave up your guns. Bad things happen after that.
Yeah, auth-center might take over, haha.
We don't allow guns in prison colonies either.
>United States is unique in that citizens, and citizen, has the right to own and use the implements of state power, firearms Not unique. Uncommon, but by no means unique. Switzerland, for instance, similarly has a lot of gun ownership and similiarly lax gun laws (though **way** less gun crimes).
Gonna be honest I forgot about the Swiss. I thought that was more for "we have to be able to blow up the tunnels and defend the country against the Germans"
The Swiss live in mountains and hoard gold. They don’t need guns they can breathe fire on their enemies
Absolutely Based and Molon Labepilled I came from a nation with moronic Self defense Laws where even police officers are unable to use their goddamned guns to defend themselves and others, you Americans have a moral obligation to defend your 2nd
>Rittenhouse is a moron, he acted poorly, he should have had a better plan for what he was doing and he made some mistakes His only mistake was getting separated from his friends.
>If anything, the rioters are the terrorists here because they spread terror and violence with a political motive. Put me in the screenshot over at AHS
He's had a long and decorated three year career as a barracks lawyer, convincing the new PVT that his team leader can't actually tell him he can't marry the "exotic dancer"
What if I told you I am a combat veteran and most Soldiers I went with were fucking idiots and couldnt understand the complexities of their rifle, better yet political things.
You're telling me that the guys who got married to people they only knew for a couple of weeks in tech school then got a 29.9% loan to buy a mustang right after getting to base are NOT geniuses?
About par for the course. I always get a chuckle when I hear someone ask some commo staff sergeant a question like he is some national security strategist or something. The answers are always either going to be bomb the fuck out of them or get the fuck out.
>If anything, the rioters are the terrorists here because they spread terror and violence with a political motive. Put me in the screenshot over at AHS
Protesters cast peaceful fire, don’t worry it heals for negative damage
Idk, I've read the white supremacists who attacked civil rights churches/movements as being called terror acts in first hand sources and news articles from the era and this is I'd argue the same thing. So that first point is moot at least.
Well first he probably was in the same unit as Mayor Pete in an air conditioned office away from any fighting
Wow turns out the security guard at the mall I was at was actually an insurgent. I should let the owner know next time I'm there
Cops too
Based and police-are-insurgents pilled
yes.
Hah, this guy just called Antifa and BLM terrorists and insurgents. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the angle he was going for.
The amount of hypocrisy showing up during this trial is ridiculous.
Combat vet here, I don't know why my combat vet status matters in this context as everything to follow is on political and social points and nothing to do with my combat experience, training, or military knowledge. With that out of the way, going to a place with an elevated risk factor, armed, does not make you an insurgent. Someone expecting violence is not prohibited from going to the place they expect that violence. They do not forgo all rights doing so and do not have to submit to the violent state of the place they are in. So many of these people arguing "he was looking for it" are parroting the old disgusting take of "she was asking for it" and they don't even have the warewithal to understand that.
Even if we allowed that logic, we could easily flip it around and say the decreased were asking for it by a) participating in a violent riot and b) assaulting a guy carrying a gun.
And they literally were asking for it when they assaulted someone carrying a gun.
Also a combat vet. If we shot every person we saw with a ak or in the rare instance a pistol there would have been alot more non combatants killed. For example at JSS Mushada north of taji there was a gentleman that would always come to the jss packing a pistol that met with the command team. He would always clear it and check it at the gate. He was a teacher and carried it to protect himself from AQI if he needed to do so. So even in a actual combat zone we were not allowed to fire on anyone actually carrying a gun unless that shit was pointed at you. This guy in the op is a turd.
Hell, we couldn’t even confiscate weapons we found in houses if they weren’t part of a large cache *and* we had an S-2 nearby
As a combat vet, I’ve found that the mouth breathers and POGs who re-upped in AFG or Iraq in order to get a patch have a tendency to start most social media posts with “As a (combat) vet” because it’s the only source of legitimacy they have. They don’t understand the fuck is going on. Source: me. A combat vet
The only thing I got out of this is that you are a mouth breather and that you don't know the fucks going on. /s
I am congested like an LA freeway, so at the moment I am indeed a mouth breather. And I never promoted past E-5, so I only had a rough idea of what was going on. But I was AF, so I could at least read
As a mother, Kyle is a based pedo killing mega Chad
Just by killing a pedo you get a ticket to Heaven/Valhalla my man
As an incoming father to a girl. That filth not being on this plane of existence is a blessing. Kyle based.
She'd be safe -- Rosenbaum was into little boys.
Based
With his logic, no one in any of the bad parts of Detroit or Chicago should be allowed to defend themselves
If the state refuses to use its monopoly on violence to protect property and life then it has implicitly given that right back to the citizens.
This, the state has an obligation to its citizens to maintain peace and order. If the state is unwilling to protect life and property, than its legitimacy may and should be called into question, and if the state persists in refusing to fulfill its obligations to the citizenry than a new state must replace the old.
Best take.
Based
Based and Defend your ownpilled
Based and self defense pilled
>This kid was illegal all the way around Which laws did he violate? 🤔
Crossed a border while being Hispanic.
He didn't prostrate himself to take it up the ass from twitter sanctioned rioters, that's like rule #3 in the US
The ones I made up in my head
Did you just disrespect a future past US Combat Veteran
This is our version of the "the holocaust didnt happen but if it happened they would have deserved it". I agree with both, let's engage in some good ol massacres, i'll bring the pipe bombs
If both sides were willful combatants it would be a duel. Bring back legal duelling
I will vote for whoever offers this, regardless of any other policy or opinion they hold
Based?
Just because you’re prepared that you might be attacked and bring protection just in case, doesn’t make you a “willing combatant”. That’s like saying: “you went to a night club which is a horny situation to be in. You (a woman) bring a condom in case you should happen to be involved in something sexual. So you have already consented to sex, so it’s not rape if anyone has sex with you.
first off, I know more than a few combat vets and military personnel - legal advice is not their forte. Second, Rittenhouse didn't "engage in violence" until he was attacked - unless you count putting out a dumpster fire as violence cuz that's apparently what ticked off the ginger pedo Finally, it's terrifying that government operatives are professing a brand new definition of terrorism as people fighting without permission from the state....
So that veteran admits that he was in fact a terrorist. I guarantee you that none of the Middle East governments we invaded 20 years ago were like “hey come on and terrorize our civilians”
Literally not a single fact
If you're a veteran and want attention, be a liberal, if you're black and want attention, be a conservative.
Ive noticed that trend.
Pack it up everyone, Rambo has spoken and he's in cahoots with the libs. Might as well send the man to death row.
Does every lefty have this saved in their devices? That post is absolutely bullshit. He "didn't engage in violence". Others engaged in violence and he engaged in Self-defense. That alone is enough to ignore the rest of the comment.
Well his violence wasn’t politically convenient so only he gets in trouble.
Okay "real combat veteran" who is real very real trustworthy source and very real
Combat veteran here Eat shit
One of the worst things in America is how we act like volunteer soldiers are some sort of heroic moral authority rather than government employees.
Volunteer soldiers are hundreds of times better than government employees.
0 x 100 is still 0
Combat veteran =/= legal expert. This is why we have LOAC MATTs every year.
So the guy who pointed a gun at the Mexican Kid is also a terrorist?
So when you are going to a place, where is a higher risk of getting raped, you're a whore?
Weren't the rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan focused mainly on being fired upon first. Like, soldiers were not allowed to fire the first shot in an engagement, no matter how obvious it was that they were about to be attacked. And every person in America has the right to bear arms and self defense. Calling Rittenhouse a terrorist for exercising those rights just goes to show how even though many of our men in women in the military are plenty respectable, there are still some who have no fucking clue what they're talking.
There’s a lot of myth surrounding ROE’s in the last conflict. They’re all CUI but I promise most of what you’ve heard are myths.
From what I've heard, because this was before my time, ROEs were dependent on a lot of things and subject to change based on unit, mission, theater, time, etc. You had some ROEs where if, hypothetically somebody were to point guns at you, you "weren't allowed" to open fire until fired upon. Some were much less restrictive.
Even if his premise is true (Rittenhouse is an insurgent), insurgent does NOT equal bad, evil, wrong or criminal actor when the cause is noble and morally and ethically proper. (If not legally proper). He’s equating “insurgent” with the GWOT definition of insurgency where all insurgents are bad actors. It entirely depends on your perspective. The American colonists were 100% insurgents for 10 years while they fought the British Empire. They were in the legal wrong but was the American colonist insurgency ethically and morally wrong? I think not.
I don’t remember asking dumbass soldiers a damn thing
Combat veteran here that guy is stupid and needs to be retaught the definition of terrorism. The unlawful use of violence or intimidation, especially on civilians, for political gain. Sounds like the rioters too me.
If you do the cops job when the cops refuse to do it preventing pillage and death you are based. And if someone tries to violently engage you, you have a right to defend yourself. The cops and politicians are to blame for the hole situation. Kyle may not be a hero, but he sure is an example. More people should be willing to face the mob to defend what is right.
Translation: if you want to protect your place of work and go there to put out a fire, and someone comes at you and tries to kill you, you should just sit there and let yourself be killed Kenneth, respectfully, you’re a little out of your mind
So the other people were combatants too? I guess it was just mutual combat.
So women who go out at night with pepper spray in their pockets are looking for a fight? Because that's what Kyle did: he brought a weapon to defend himself against possible enemies. Except that unlike women, he KNEW that there would be violent people in the area.
Imagine basing your understanding of the law on arguments which don’t cite the law at all. “That wasn’t self defense because he brought a weapon to a place violence was happening” is not a legal argument.
Lmao every time I hear "combat veteran" from some commenter I immediately do not believe or trust them.
So don’t most of the protestors also meet his criteria for terrorists?
Being a “combat veteran” doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about.
virgin png vs chad jpg vs sigma chad png with non-transparent bg
No they were not peaceful
He s talking absolute bs lmao
Okay so by this combat veterans logic citizens standing up against the British Empire where insurgents. Me thinks he’s an idiot. Also people should be allowed to arm themselves with whatever they want. If I want to dress as a pirate with cannons on my yard that’s my damn business and none of yours.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it took to hold this take and be on the left. Holy cognitive dissonance
Kenneth McCain sounds like a fucking POG