Avatar feed
Responses: 2
MAJ Ken Landgren
2
2
0
Yeah lets send more 17 year olds to protests and riots with guns. That sounds like a good idea. Forget the fact he killed 2 people and injured 1 more. That's just stupid.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Sgt James S.
Sgt James S.
>1 y
MAJ Ken Landgren - You're attempting to deflect, and failing. Again, it would help if you used facts to form your argument--but then you'd be agreeing with me and this would all be moot.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Sgt James S.
Sgt James S.
>1 y
MAJ Ken Landgren - his legal right to carry the rifle is in question (even that PolitiFact article you linked acknowledges that), his legal right to be where he was and doing what he was doing is not in question. The fact that he was open carrying the rifle in apparent violation of WI law does not necessarily bar him from legally using deadly force in a justified self-defense situation (as I've previously noted). They are two different issues. You keep missing that in your responses.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
MAJ Ken Landgren
>1 y
Sgt James S. - YOU MISS THE FACT IT WAS ILEGAL FOR HIM TO POSSESS A FIREARM AT HIS AGE IN WISCONSIN. ARE YOU BLIND OR HAVE LOW READING COMPREHENSION? He should have never had a weapon in the first place. You just can't get that in your hard head. Illegally possessing a weapon started a horrible chain of events.

Wisconsin law stipulates that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." On Aug. 27, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse with a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18, according to court records.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Sgt James S.
Sgt James S.
>1 y
MAJ Ken Landgren - "YOU MISS THE FACT IT WAS ILEGAL [sic] FOR HIM TO POSSESS A FIREARM AT HIS AGE IN WISCONSIN. ARE YOU BLIND OR HAVE LOW READING COMPREHENSION?" --- says the person who keeps missing the fact that I've both acknowledged and explicitly addressed that point multiple times. You should try reading the previous responses and ensuring that you actually comprehend them before replying again.

"Illegally possessing a weapon started a horrible chain of events."

No, rioters deciding to commit arson and getting mad when the militia put out the fire, and then deciding to chase down and attack an openly armed individual started a horrible chain of events. Him peacefully standing around with a slung rifle was neither cause nor justification for anyone to attack him. People putting out the fire the rioters started was not cause nor justification for anyone to chase him down and attack him.

You are wasting everyone's time with your nonsensical replies and willful ignorance.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
0
0
0
Great share brother SGT (Join to see)
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close