US suicides hit an all-time high last year; a main driver is the growing availability of guns

[jaeger19]

Just told you - there complete lack of credibility
But go on and produce a believer in them, if you can.

So in other words just typical rich bs.
Have a good evening.

 

[rahl]

So what?.

the law says he’s allowed to shoot, that’s what lol. It’s why he’s not in jail.

 

[jaeger19]

the law says he’s allowed to shoot, that’s what lol. It’s why he’s not in jail.

Nope. The law says you must have reasonable belief you are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

Are you contending that juries can never be wrong.?
Lol.

 

[Daddyo]

Let's get this straight. Now you are arguing that when Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse ( allegedly). He didn't immediately act on it. And Rittenhouse obviously didn't see it as a deadly threat. Then over the course of time Rosenbaum still doesn't act on his threat and from that ..later Rittenhouse should deduce that he plans on grabbing his rifle..

Okayyyyyyy. Lmao.
The absurdity that you will go to justify killing an unarmed man.

You keep saying that Rosenbaum was unarmed. We have repeatedly tried to educate you on how wrong this notion is. You claim to be trained in martial arts and wrestling yet you seem to have trouble acknowledging the violence you should be capable of causing another human. Perhaps you have marshmallow fists and feet. Maybe you have no teeth. Your elbows and knees soft like wet spaghetti? Two black belts and wrestling and no chokes or locks?

I don’t know bud. You just don’t make any sense. Your experience suggests you should know certain things but you just don’t know them.

 

[rahl]

Nope.

Yep

The law says you must have reasonable belief you are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

And all the evidence shows he was.

Are you contending that juries can never be wrong.?
Lol.

Why do you pretend like you actually think he was guilty? We both know you don’t. We both know you saw the same evidence everyone else did, and we both know it clearly shows he was justified. Do you think lying about it, fools anyone?

 

[CLAX1911]

He was assaulted. As all the evidence presented showed you. It’s why he’s not in jail.

No don't you see the jury was hypnotized by lizard people to see how cute baby faced boy and forget all about murder that's what happened it wasn't a jury trial.

The only thing I don't understand this what the reptilians interest is in keeping murderous 18-year-olds on the loose.

All joking aside the burden was on the prosecution to prove guilt they failed.

I imagine if Jaeger was in the jury there would have been a hung jury. I'm reminded of 12 angry Men. Loads of circumstantial evidence but nothing concrete

 

[Daddyo]

What second assault?
It appears Rittenhouse simply panicked and Rosenbaum followed him.

What was the second assault? Did Rosenbaum try to grab the firearm? No.
Did he try to grab Rittenhouse? No.
Did Rosenbaum tried to hit Rittenhouse?
Nope .
He went toward Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse panicked and ran..
Rosenbaum followed and then Rittenhouse turned and stuck his rifle into Rosenbaum face..and Rosenbaum tried to deflect the barrel to stop from being killed and Rittenhouse shot and killed him.

The child molester threatened to kill Kyle. He ran after a fleeing Kyle. He attempted to disarm Kyle. And thankfully he failed and was shot before completing his obvious attack.

The pathetic fantasy you posted above is so wrong that it’s beyond stupid.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nope. The law says you must have reasonable belief you are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

Are you contending that juries can never be wrong.?
Lol.

I think someone grabbing the barrel of your gun is reasonable belief that you're in danger death especially when they're with a group of people who interrupted in the commission of a felony.

No I'm not contending that juries can be wrong. You just don't have any evidence to support your claim that they were in this case.

You think threatening a person that interrupted your felony doesn't merit that person pointing a gun at you. I think that it does. It's reasonable to assume someone who is trying to commit arson is willing to commit other felonies against you.

If you don't think that's reasonable you'll have to explain.

 

[jaeger19]

You keep saying that Rosenbaum was unarmed. We have repeatedly tried to educate you on how wrong this notion is. You claim to be trained in martial arts and wrestling yet you seem to have trouble acknowledging the violence you should be capable of causing another human. Perhaps you have marshmallow fists and feet. Maybe you have no teeth. Your elbows and knees soft like wet spaghetti? Two black belts and wrestling and no chokes or locks?

I don’t know bud. You just don’t make any sense. Your experience suggests you should know certain things but you just don’t know them.

I understand the violence another person can inflict.
On the other hand..that does not mean you can gun down anyone you get in an argument with because " but they could".
See. What you don't get is this..
You go on about " what an unarmed person can do.
What about a person armed with an AR 15?
You keep forgetting that.

What did Rosenbaum do that indicated that he was going to kill Rittenhouse with his vare hands.

What credible threat?

He grabbed for the gun only after Rittenhouse pointed it at him.

See..I know what it takes to kill someone with your bare hands.
I also know what it takes to kill someone with an AR 15..

I also know the law. And you don't get to instigate conflict..then kill anyone who argues with you because " but but he might".


The only people that died that night of " riots".
Died by rittenhouses hands.

 

[jaeger19]

The child molester threatened to kill Kyle. He ran after a fleeing Kyle. He attempted to disarm Kyle. And thankfully he failed and was shot before completing his obvious attack.

The pathetic fantasy you posted above is so wrong that it’s beyond stupid.

He allegedly threatened Kyle earlier. And Kyle stuck around..indicated either the threat didn't happen..or Kyle didn't believe it was serious.

He ran after a fleeing Kyle? So. ?
Where is the imminent deadly threat?

He attempted to disarm Kyle AFTER KYLE POINTED A LOADED RIFLE AT HIM.

Which in the eyes of the law is perfectly legal under self defense statutes.

The only one with fantasies is you.

So again..tell ys all how you would " defend private property ".

You have your ar 15 and a person starts to break a car window.
You tell him to stop and he ignores you. Now what?

You keep avoiding this.

Surely your gravy seal training should help you out. Let's hear it.

 

[jaeger19]

I think someone grabbing the barrel of your gun is reasonable belief that you're in danger death especially when they're with a group of people who interrupted in the commission of a felony.

No I'm not contending that juries can be wrong. You just don't have any evidence to support your claim that they were in this case.

You think threatening a person that interrupted your felony doesn't merit that person pointing a gun at you. I think that it does. It's reasonable to assume someone who is trying to commit arson is willing to commit other felonies against you.

If you don't think that's reasonable you'll have to explain.

Someone pointing a rifle into your face us indication that you have a reasonable belief of imminent death and thus you are justified in defending yourself.

Rosenbaum grabbed for the muzzle AFTER Rittenhouse pointed it at him..constituting a deadly threat.

Rosenbaum in no way was in commission of a felony.
But you are welcome to quote the law code..

In fact under Wisconsin law..Rosenbaum could have smacked Rittenhouse across the face and it would still only be misdemeanor battery.
But he didn't even Attempt to strike him

 

[CLAX1911]

Someone pointing a rifle into your face us indication that you have a reasonable belief of imminent death and thus you are justified in defending yourself.

so you just going to ignore everything that happened before that point because it doesn't affirm something you believe?

Before Kyle pointed the gun at him he had interrupted their felony. And when he did that this is even on video the man he shot was approaching him in a threatening manner demanding that Kyle kill him.

Let's keep in mind Kyle is 17 years old at this point enough for Kyle to point the gun at him.

Note to the wise if you're going to run around threatening 17-year-olds after they interrupted your felony don't run up to get in their face and tell them to kill you and scream over and over at them and then grab the barrel of the rifle when they pointed at you it's probably not going to end well for you and they're probably not going to get charged with any crime.

Rosenbaum grabbed for the muzzle AFTER Rittenhouse pointed it at him..constituting a deadly threat.

I think he was completely justified in pointing the rifle at Rosenbaum and the first place. Kyle had interrupted them in the commission of a felony. And he behaved aggressively toward Kyle for interrupting his felony.

I just knowing this would probably agree with a jury and so it must other people and that's why the jury voted the way they did maybe they were biased but please provide me some evidence that Kyle had no need to fear serious energy from a person who just committed a felony in front of him.

Rosenbaum in no way was in commission of a felony.
But you are welcome to quote the law code..

you don't have all the facts I don't need to quote lock code it's perfectly reasonable to understand that arson is a felony. I heard the testimony the prosecution didn't contest it they just said it's just not that big a deal to commit arson.

In fact under Wisconsin law..Rosenbaum could have smacked Rittenhouse across the face and it would still only be misdemeanor battery.

yeah this is why I think Rosenbaum what's suicidal getting into a man's face that's holding a gun screaming at him kill me kill me kill me after he interrupted your arson and then grabbing the barrel of the rifle it just screams that you want to die.

But he didn't even Attempt to strike him

So you have to wait for someone to strike you possibly fatally before you can defend yourself from the strike?

No it's reasonable to assume someone who was in the commission of felony (that's established you can't argue against that the prosecution didn't argue against it) but then approaches you aggressively without immediately attacking you may soon attack you.

I'm sorry if you don't think this is reasonable maybe you're not a reasonable person it doesn't seem like you are.

 

[rahl]

I understand the violence another person can inflict.
On the other hand..that does not mean you can gun down anyone you get in an argument with because " but they could".
ou because " but but he might".

We know this isn’t what happened. We know Kyle was assaulted and in danger of bodily harm, which is why he was justified in shooting. All the evidence shows this.

 

[Rich2018]

So in other words just typical rich bs.
Have a good evening.

Quite the reverse
Typical bogus jaeger tall tales.

 

[jaeger19]

Quite the reverse
Typical bogus jaeger tall tales.

Rich..you make claims of tall tales..
But you cannot substantiate it nor even articulate your theory.

I really do feel sad for you rich.

 

[CLAX1911]

The child molester threatened to kill Kyle. He ran after a fleeing Kyle. He attempted to disarm Kyle. And thankfully he failed and was shot before completing his obvious attack.

The pathetic fantasy you posted above is so wrong that it’s beyond stupid.

In all fairness Kyle didn't know he was a child molester so you can't factor that into the motivation for shooting him.

But the things we do know is Rosenbaum as well as some others were attempting to commit arson. Rittenhouse interrupted it. Rosenbaum became angry and combative it's perfectly reasonable to assume that he's a threat.

Jaeger is trying to argue that Kyle didn't interrupt him in the process of an arson as if he can just magically delete those facts from the case.

He doesn't like that because it's inconvenient to what he wants to believe. So you just ignores it or pretends that it's not part of the facts and argues that Kyle pointed a gun at him for throwing a plastic bag at him.

I remember The Young Turks repeating that falsification of fat when they were reporting on it.

So this poster has a version of events that doesn't match up with the evidence. You can't argue with him about the facts if he doesn't accept the facts.

 

[RF667799]

What second assault?
It appears Rittenhouse simply panicked and Rosenbaum followed him.

What was the second assault? Did Rosenbaum try to grab the firearm? No.
Did he try to grab Rittenhouse? No.
Did Rosenbaum tried to hit Rittenhouse?
Nope .
He went toward Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse panicked and ran..
Rosenbaum followed and then Rittenhouse turned and stuck his rifle into Rosenbaum face..and Rosenbaum tried to deflect the barrel to stop from being killed and Rittenhouse shot and killed him.

You said the death threat was an assault. The second assault was when Rosenbaum threw something at Rittenhouse.

Rosenbaum "followed"? More accurately, Rosenbaum was running in pursuit of KR, and in fact caught up to him.

 

[RF667799]

Yeah..you do understand that the rifle can become a club real quick. It can be used to jab. The butt can be used to knock you out or kill you.
You would wager very wrong if you think you could wrestle my weapon away as I have been taught weapon retention..and I am a big guy.

Rosenbaum only tried to put his hand " on the gun"..
When he tried to grab the muzzle of the firearm after it had been pointed at him.

If someone put a firearm to your face and you knew they were going to kill you..would you try to defend yourself..perhaps by pushing the muzzle away???
Lmao. Of course you would.

The true deadly threat was Rittenhouse.

But you can't see that fact because you think he is a " good guy" and every else there pieces of crap.

Rittenhouse who was doing his best to retreat by running away, was the "true deadly threat".

If Rosenbaum hadn't assaulted him twice and then chased him as he tried to flee, then he likely would not have been shot that night.

 

[RF667799]

Attacks him how again?
Yelling.?
Throwing a plastic bag.?
Following him around.?

Two assaults and a pursuit of a fleeing person, culminating in lunging at him. Just engaging in a pursuit of someone who is trying to flee from you is not "following him around".

You are the one with fairy tales of beatings..
" nails teeth and feet"
" vengeful buddies".
"Thrown objects"
" attacks".

Nothing I've said is false or characterized in a misleading manner.

See..you are portraying exactly why non gun owners are fearful of gun owners particularly those that carry.

**** 'em.

You have reduced the threshold for shooting someone down to an argument.
" But but they could"

That's what Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse were doing? Having an argument?

And here is the thing..

Yes..a person can kill someone with " teeth hands and feet"..
But you ignore that they can kill with an AR 15!!.

Nonsense. We're discussing an event where two people were killed by someone shooting them with an AR-15. I absolutely defy you to show where I have claimed differently.

Daddyo is worse.. he is even arguing that when he is carrying a gun..everyone around him becomes a threat be abuse they "could grab for the gun".

And he keeps reminding everyone about " how violent people can be"..

But what about him? If everyone should be watching out for unarmed people wanting to suddenly kill people...shouldn't people be doubly wary of people that are armed?

According to his logic..absolutely..
In fact he is telling them..." make a move that I don't like and I could legally kill you".

I don't like the "let's you and him fight" routine. I will say it looks like you're falsely characterizing some of his arguments, and that wouldn't be surprising to me.

People don't want to feel like it's justifiable to be shot be abuse you get into an argument .

Your claim that Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum were merely arguing is laughable.

Rittenhouse went there to seek.conflict.
How else was he going to protect private property?

By his presence. Nobody forced the people he shot to attack him.

 

[Daddyo]

Yeah no. The facts say i am right. The law says I am right . Which why is why he was charged and why the judge allowed it to go to trial. I suppose you can try to argue that the DA and the judge know the law less than a hiry off the street...but.

I was a LEO.
It's pretty clear from my posts.
Face facts.
You are biased against the protesters and for rittenhouse. The facts don't matter to you.

If the protesters had been anti abortion protesters outside a medical facility..
And Rittenhouse " liberal filth"..
You would be calling Rosenbaum and the others shot " heroes stepping up to stop " leftist aggression".
And you would be calling for the death penalty for rittenhouse.

LEO lol and you don’t know the legal use of deadly force OR the dangers of a violent adult male OR the danger of allowing a violent adult male threatening to kill you to grab your gun. I call bullshit.

I am bias. I don’t like child molesting rioting pieces of shit who try to kill Good Samaritans.

You are bias. You don’t like Good Samaritans got it.

 

[RF667799]

Biased jury

Biased on the side of truth?

 

[RF667799]

No don't you see the jury was hypnotized by lizard people to see how cute baby faced boy and forget all about murder that's what happened it wasn't a jury trial.

The only thing I don't understand this what the reptilians interest is in keeping murderous 18-year-olds on the loose.

All joking aside the burden was on the prosecution to prove guilt they failed.

I imagine if Jaeger was in the jury there would have been a hung jury. I'm reminded of 12 angry Men. Loads of circumstantial evidence but nothing concrete

A defense of justifiable homicide is going to consist of a lot that is circumstantial. His defense wasn't contending that KR hadn't shot three people. They began with that premise being admitted.

 

[Daddyo]

He threw a plastic bag..not " something..
Sheesh.
Rosenbaum followed Rittenhouse to keep yelling at him
And it's not just intend harm".

It's a reasonable belief that you are in IMMINENT danger OF DEATH or GRAVE BODILY HARM.

And reasonable people, the jury, who saw the same ****ing video you saw, agreed with the defense that Rosenbaum was trying to kill or gravely injure Rittenhouse.

Funny how you think you are some gift to law interpretation yet the jury ALL saw your version as complete and utter bullshit lol.

 

[RF667799]

Someone pointing a rifle into your face us indication that you have a reasonable belief of imminent death and thus you are justified in defending yourself.

Rosenbaum grabbed for the muzzle AFTER Rittenhouse pointed it at him..constituting a deadly threat.

Rosenbaum in no way was in commission of a felony.
But you are welcome to quote the law code..

In fact under Wisconsin law..Rosenbaum could have smacked Rittenhouse across the face and it would still only be misdemeanor battery.
But he didn't even Attempt to strike him

The jury was convinced that it was reasonable for KR to think that Rosenbaum meant to do more than slap him. That because of his escalating actions, there was an indication that Rosenbaum intended harm to KR. You've previously claimed that Rosenbaum only meant to yell at KR some more. How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[jaeger19]

The jury was convinced that it was reasonable for KR to think that Rosenbaum meant to do more than slap him. That because of his escalating actions, there was an indication that Rosenbaum intended harm to KR. You've previously claimed that Rosenbaum only meant to yell at KR some more. How did you come to that conclusion?

Yeah.
Try explaining the " escalating actions".

He allegedly made earlier death threats. Which Rittenhouse ignored.
Then later he yells at rittenhouse..yells more.. throws plastic bag.. yells more then chases Rittenhouse when he runs away.

How thr heck to you go from that to...imminent death?
Cripes he didn't even attempt any physical contact much less slap him..

How did I arrive at Rosenbaum likely meant to yell at Rittenhouse? Rosenbaums actions or lack there off. Basically he just kept yelling. He never attempted any physical contact that I saw. Even though he had multiple opportunities.
Even when chasing Rittenhouse...Rosenbaum could clearly have closed the distance and tackled or grabbed Rittenhouse when he was running.
Cripes clearly he could have closed the distance preventing Rittenhouse from even turning. But Rosenbaum didn't..he kept yelling and appeared to keep some distance between Rittenhouse and him.
Which allowed Rittenhouse to turn and point the rifle at..Rosenbaum. causing Rosenbaum to try and divert the muzzle.

There simply is no evidence of this " escalation" that takes it Rosenbaum from yelling to imminent causing death or grave bodily harm.