SUV plows down Wisconsin Christmas parade as children watch in horror

#376
#376
Milwaukee County DA admits it was a mistake to grant $1,000 bail to SUV-driving felon days before he smashed into Xmas parade: Darrell Brooks was freed after Running Over Mother Of His Child and is now charged with homicide after killing five

  • Brooks is said to have hunted her down in a hotel then followed her in the street in his car, demanding that she get in, before 'punching her with a closed fist' and then 'running her over'
Pictured: Driver of SUV that plowed through crowds at Waukesha Christmas parade | Daily Mail Online
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and VolnJC
#378
#378
SamRebel35 said:
Why is it so taboo to think that he may have actually carried out actions in accordance with his stated beliefs? He's a racist POS. We've got Dr. Phil out here spinning theories from whole cloth about being so upset about his home life that he just snapped and mowed down children and dancing grannies at a parade. Why not start your theories with the things we KNOW for a fact he believes?
Click to expand...
White kid kills white people with no history of racism = white supremacist.

Black criminal with long history of posts and comments hateful towards and threatening violence towards whites mowing down a bunch of elderly white women in a parade = eh, let's wait and see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GameTime, SlipKidVol, UT_Dutchman and 8 others
#379
#379
85SugarVol said:
Weren’t you pretty much positive about what Rittenhouse was up to?

Drawing reasonable inferences left and right if memory serves 🤔
Click to expand...


The judge in that case excluded evidence that Rittenhouse had previously made disturbing comments that he wished he had his rifle with him so he could shoot people. You were okay with that because you didn't want evidence of his past motive to affect judgment of his actions now.

But when the shoe is on the other foot, you want to start with assumptions about his motives based on things this guy said in the past.

This is just the beginning of the double standard you apply, as will repeat itself forever as long as you refuse to admit what you are really trying to achieve with your superficial logic full of subtext and hints.
 
#380
#380
50840283-0-image-m-20_1637620622654.jpg

Milwaukee DA freed Waukesha 'killer' two days before attack | Daily Mail Online
 
#385
#385
lawgator1 said:
The judge in that case excluded evidence that Rittenhouse had previously made disturbing comments that he wished he had his rifle with him so he could shoot people. You were okay with that because you didn't want evidence of his past motive to affect judgment of his actions now.

But when the shoe is on the other foot, you want to start with assumptions about his motives based on things this guy said in the past.

This is just the beginning of the double standard you apply, as will repeat itself forever as long as you refuse to admit what you are really trying to achieve with your superficial logic full of subtext and hints.
Click to expand...
Quick - go find one post from me in the Rittenhouse thread arguing that evidence should be out. I’ll time you.

What am I really trying to achieve?
 
  • Like
Reactions: joevol33
#386
#386
So are they just not going to look for the other guy(s) in the SUV with him because pinch to zoom on an Apple phone shows an arm attached to a passenger inside that yellow circle.

1637625359360.jpeg
Not talking about what is clearly the mirror, but the area above the mirror inside the SUV. Should have clarified.
 
Last edited:
#387
#387
lawgator1 said:
The judge in that case excluded evidence that Rittenhouse had previously made disturbing comments that he wished he had his rifle with him so he could shoot people. You were okay with that because you didn't want evidence of his past motive to affect judgment of his actions now.

But when the shoe is on the other foot, you want to start with assumptions about his motives based on things this guy said in the past.

This is just the beginning of the double standard you apply, as will repeat itself forever as long as you refuse to admit what you are really trying to achieve with your superficial logic full of subtext and hints.
Click to expand...

Uh...dont even start trying to compare the two. Read that of Kyle's comment in the context it was in - then look at this guy's postings - Brooks is flat out a racist and someone with a convicted history of violence. That equivalence is where you hang yourself counselor and lose all credibility. You know better. Do better. I know you can.

I do agree with you that too many are not consistent with their viewpoints though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#397
#397
lawgator1 said:
Because......
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't make sense to me. It would be slower to run through the parade rather than just go around it, so if he was trying to flee a crime, that isn't the optimal solution.

Also, if you watch the video the guy could've turned at multiple intersections but he didn't. He just continued to ram on through plastic barriers.

Based on the overhead video, he appears to turn his car to try and hit more people. There was no honking or anything to alert people he was coming through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#399
#399
Matt2496 said:
Because it doesn't make sense to me. It would be slower to run through the parade rather than just go around it, so if he was trying to flee a crime, that isn't the optimal solution.

Also, if you watch the video the guy could've turned at multiple intersections but he didn't. He just continued to ram on through plastic barriers.

Based on the overhead video, he appears to turn his car to try and hit more people. There was no honking or anything to alert people he was coming through.
Click to expand...


I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense. You might be right. We need to know more.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top