SUV plows down Wisconsin Christmas parade as children watch in horror

Sure he did. She started her rise to the top by going down on Willie Brown. Or Brown's Willie, whichever you prefer. She wouldn't have gotten anywhere in California without his support.

Problem was, he wasn't able to help her beyond that which is why she failed miserably once she hit the national level and bombed in the primaries.

 

You don't know that for she has continued her climb upward. And the help she got was 20 yrs ago.

 

The help she got was quid pro quo for sex.

lol, the democrat VP is literally a whore who never would have gotten anywhere were it not for her on her knees.

She is an affirmative action VP, selected only because she is female and not white, and because of her whore activities. Nothing about her actual leadership capabilities have served her well, just her sex, her color, and her ability to have sex.

 

She couldn't climb any further than California, and even that only with Willie. She bombed in the primaries - and without Willie helping her last year she got nowhere. I don't think you're from California, you may not know that Willie Brown ran a political machine here and a powerful one at that. He's often bragged that he was the one who installed Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, and Dianne Feinstein, among others - but his reach doesn't extend further than California. The only reason she was picked to be veep is because Robinette made a pledge to get a WOC as VP-nominee. There weren't relatively many out there that had name recognition after the debates, and Warren didn't count whether she thought so or not. In fact, failing at the debates may have been the only thing that GOT her the VP nod.

Y'know, when you think about it Kammalla is the total opposite of what a feminist is. She's never gotten anywhere unless a male got her there. That's not a good thing BTW, but for Kammalla, it's all she has. She could only last as long as she did WITH Willie, and couldn't survive long enough to get anywhere else without him until she failed in her 2020 prez run. She's a political version of a remora.

 

Yup. Willy brought her to his wife's birthday party while they were still married.

She also was.one of Montell Williams house.

 

Sadly so many think the way she got where she is, is admirable.

Imagine supporting her but hating right wing self made women lol. I can think of a few examples the left hated.

 

First you claimed there was no evidence he was a local. And as I said in my post I can only give you whats in the public domain which indicates (not proves) he lived locally. Now, apparently that is not good enough. You want a specific address OK, you find it! Because I certainly wont be able to. Now your claiming that since there was no active pursuit of his vehicle he wouldn't have been 'fleeing' (as if no-one would with his criminal record, on bail would ever leave a scene police had been called to in haste). Well news flash they do - frequently. Then we get to the route he took after he left there you are assigning arbitrary motives. Again without any evidence for why he took the turns he did.

Put simply you seem emotionally invested in proving a motive for the crime for which as yet you have no evidence. And I remind you Police and prosecutors still claim terrorism was not the motive. That can of course change at any time if new evidence comes to light but as of this date that hasn't happened. So officially (and unless you know better) your pet motive for this crime is off the table. If you want it back on? Prove it not with assumptions or speculation but with facts. Once again what you want to be true and what is true are not always the same thing.

And I remind you that in the coming days Police will go over every detail of Brook's life, his movements, activities, finances and interactions with associates, friends and family. All of it. And as they do they'll build up a case which, when it becomes public will tell us what his motive was.

Me? I'm not going to speculate, could be a whole range of things. Rage, fear, panic, politically motivated, something as humdrum as gross negligence and distraction while driving? How would I know? You don't either, difference between us is I realize it.

 

WAUKESHA: Ford Should Be Thankful They’re Not a Gun Maker.

“If Ford were a gun company, our betters in politics and the legacy media would be wringing their hands calling for accountability and liability right now. Against all rational thinking, they’d be shrieking on every cable news network that Ford should be sued by the victims of last weekend’s vehicular attack in Waukesha, Wisconsin, where a ridiculously powerful, high-speed Ford Escape killed six and injured at least 60 innocent Christmas parade goers.”

"Especially since many major media outlets blamed the SUV instead of the driver."

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/487635/

Even the title of this discussion focuses on the vehicle not the vehicle operator.

 

I think you are missing the point. Most white people do not belong to white supremist groups, or know that symbol to mean anything more than to mean OK. Most of us are not familiar with the fact that the symbol has been hijacked by a bunch bigots. We do not buy into, or accept, their ideology. As I said before, I was raised around these types of people. Yet, I have never seen them use the OK symbol. But then, even though I was raised around them, I did not really pay them much attention.

Funny story. The uncle that was a high up in the Klan is actually a great-uncle on my mother's side. Because, one of their ancestors did something famous, they traced the family line to a line of Jews that served as stewards to the Synagogues in Switzerland. In other words, that side of my family are Jews, and my Grand Wizard Great-Uncle is a Jew. He claimed that they only printed that to discredit him. They were tracing the family line from South Carolina. It wasn't until the second printing that they included our line in Georgia. So, they did not even know my Great-Uncle existed, or about his racist undertakings. True Story!!!!

 

If all he wanted to do was kill himself, he did not even need a cop. But someone that goes the suicide by cop route are inherently cowards. Further, I believe that Brooks saw himself as being a martyr. He might have envisioned himself going down in a hail of bullets. There is also the fact that he was unarmed. If he did not have a weapon to threaten the officers with, then they would have just overwhelmed him, and taken him into custody. His best bet was to keep driving and wait for the cops to kill him. That just didn't work out for him.

I have already debunked the panicking idiot theory. So, what other explanation could there be?

 

After running over a bunch of people do you think the cops would have not have shot an "armed" man who was pointing a gun at them and walking towards them while ignoring their orders to drop the gun and get on the ground? Any real looking toy gun would have done the trick especially when it comes to white cops and black suspects.

 

You need to go back and reread what we each have posted, because you are seriously confused. I never claimed he was local. I stated that we do not have evidence of the address of the domestic disturbance that he was involved in. Without that address we cannot know how far he travelled before he hit the barricades on Main St at White Rock. You might want to note that those barricades were set up a full block before the parade route started. For every block travelled, every mile, the panic scenario becomes less likely. Panic is not a permanent state. It wears off when no one is chasing you. So, the time and distance between the domestic disturbance and the barricades on E. Main St at White Rock is an important factor in determining if panic was the motivation.

Something that might help on the time issue is that a neighbor saw the ex-girlfriend run down the street with a black eye. So, did she call from home, or somewhere else. If she was not at home, then the police would not have treated it as an emergency call. Remember a large portion of the force was providing security for the parade and there was another call about a knife fight at a boat dock. So, we do not know how long it was before the police responded. We do know that they were enroute when they got redirected to the parade. If this had been an emergency call, the officers would not have been redirected. Being a non-emergency would have delayed the officers responding.

Another poster has used the word "shortly" to describe the time between the domestic disturbance and Brooks plowing through the parade. That is not something that we can know for a fact. That is what my posts are trying to point out. Think about this. At the point where Brooks hit the barricades it was only 1.4 miles in the opposite direction to I94. If he was panicked, then he would have headed in that direction. He would want to get out of the city as fast as possible. East of N. Main St would have been the shortest direction. But he was traveling west when he hit the barricades. In that direction he would hit Hwy 59 in two miles and I43 in 10 miles. Both of which are not straight shots from where he exited the parade route. Further, Hwy 59 would have taken him back to I94 at Main St. Neither of which makes no sense for a panicked person. You also have to consider that Brook's Ex might not live east of the parade. She may live north, south or west of the parade. Which would mean that he had to intentionally choose a route that takes him to the start of the parade. Then there is the fact that there are signs that announce road close parade ahead well in advance of the parade route.

The fact that there was no pursuit and the direction he was headed, disproves the panic scenario. You offered "Rage, fear, panic, politically motivated, something as humdrum as gross negligence and distraction while driving" as possible motivations. Fear and panic go hand in hand. So, that is debunked. In my opinion, rage and political motivation also go hand in hand and is the most likely motivation given what we know right now. The last one is pure bumpkiss. No one is distracted for more than half a mile while hitting nearly 70 people. It would seem to be that running through the barricades a block away from the start of the parade would have gotten his attention.

It is simple, ignoring the facts does not change them!!!!

 

Did he have a gun? Did he have any type of weapon at all? I have not seen anything that says he did. There was a report that he might have had a knife early in the reporting, but I think that was a convolution of two different police reports. One of the domestic disturbances and the other of a knife fight that Brooks may, or may not, have been involved in. The only thing I saw that the police found in the abandoned SUV was his coat shoes and ID. I have seen nothing about Brooks having a weapon. So, unless you have a source that puts those items in his vehicle or on his person when the arrested him, the question is mute.

I will say, that there is not much chance that the officers would shoot the suspect with so many innocent bystanders/witnesses.

 

I never said they were or that everybody know about it. I’m just explaining that signs cand be hijacked to mean something else. I gave two exemple and that’s it. I’m also not taking a pro or against position either.

 

No weapon was involved so clearly the guy wasn't looking to commit suicide by cop. He could have used his SUV to try to kill cops which would've most likely ended in his death by a bunch of angry cops.

 

You haven't stated any (unknown/new) facts. Just taken what is already known and put a spin on them that suits your preferred narrative, a narrative BTW that investigators, with access to all the currently available information have dismissed, at least for now. Presumably then you consider yourself better informed than they are! OK then produce the evidence proving all those seasoned investigators wrong Sherlock!

P.S. None of the possibilities I suggested like panic or distraction etc were meant to be taken as 'stand alone' issues but rather as potential emotional/psychological states working in combination. Likewise nowhere did I suggest that any or all of them would have been in play continuously from the moment the DV incident commenced through to the moment his car struck all the victims. In theory it would suffice that some or all of them were in play only at the time the crime was committed. But again, I don't know what his motivation was. You on the other hand seem certain. Perhaps yo should contact the authorities and provide them with your insights. I'm sure they'll appreciate your input.

 

That's because they don't. The whole thing started as a meme on 4chan, and like the gullible consumers of media they are, the left ran with it. Here's the thing: It was a meme. It still IS a meme. We literally live in a country where half of the nation is under a psychosis trance that thinks pinching your index finger to your thumb is a racist statement.

You know, rather than an actual derogatory racist remark, or a nazi swastika or something like that. It's humiliating. I want to wear a bag over my head and say "not my country". The proof of our educational decline is that you could revive any political figure from 1960's-onward, and you'd have to tell them that making the ok sign is 'proof of white supremacy'.

 

This was a black supremacist terror attack.

 

OK then prove it! Produce your evidence.

Oh, and after you've done that forward it to the FBI and local authorities asap. Because so far neither agency seems to thinks it was.

 

I will say this much @rkhames and @Monash - I've been enjoying your back and forth as I kinda think we're seeing a preview of his trial - assuming there is one.

 

Daniel Thompson, the black police chief of Waukesha, led a Black Lives Matter march in June 2020 and made his officers kneel in homage to the extremist movement. This is in a city that has been Republican my entire life. He should be fired for that subversive act. He should be fired for not parking large utility trucks at the point of entrance to the parade. He should be fired for his lack of candor about the terrorist's motives. Most of all he should be fired because his values do not align with the constituents of his community. They are completely trolling him on the Waukesha Police Department page. Not the smartest move on their part as they attached their names to their comments. That might not work out too well for them in the long term.



The bottom line is that if the Chief of Police has taken a knee for BLM, he is tainted goods and I have utterly no faith in him. I know from that single act that he is committed to a narrative that is toxic and harmful. I believe he is fully capable of withholding information from the population that hurts the narrative he is trying to protect. What he cannot hide is the interview with the terrorist. That will come out at trial. What he can't hide is that the suspect has been charged with intentional homicide..... the most serious charge available reserved for those who engage in premeditated murder. This means that the massacre was purposeful and not an accident... that the people killed were the primary target and the reason the perp broke into the parade. What he can't hide is that we have a perp who has written about wanting to harm white people on his social media. By Occam's Razor, if a person that hates white people runs over 70 of them, the motive must be terroristic racism. If you have an alternative as to why he engaged in a massacre of white people, we all are ears. I have not heard a single alternative so you can certainly enlighten us here.

NOTE: We know that he did not enter the parade because he was fleeing. We know he entered the parade because he wanted to kill people. That is beyond question given that he is charged with intentional homicide. So... why did he want to kill all those people aside from racism and leftist fascism?

 

I hope not. As I've said (repeatedly) I have no issue with racism/terrorism being ascribed by investigators as the motive for what was a terrible crime regardless of the cause. I do however have a problem with people randomly assigning motives, causes, intentions or plans etc to real world events just to make those events fit their worldview.

If the investigation says the motive was most likely terrorism then fine it was terrorism, no problem. My point all along is that so far investigators have been constantly stating this wasn't the case, presumably because the evidence doesn't support that contention. And of course the longer they go on doing so the less likely it becomes that the event was a premeditated act of terrorism.

IMO using events like this as ammunition for political debate contrary to the known facts is wrong. It weaponizes tragedies like this for partizan political advantage and its a major part of whats wrong with political debate in the US i.e 'the Facts don't mean what are, they mean what I want them to mean' etc. So I'll just keep bashing them out of shape unit they fit neatly into the nice little preconceived narrative I have about whats going on.'

And to many people on both sides of the divide keep doing it. (The above post being a good example. The local Police chief 'bends knee' and a BLM protest or whatever, therefore he's going to tamper with the investigation and you can't have any faith in the outcome.) And conspiracy land here we come....again .

 

This is the little girl who asked her surgeons to glue her back together.


11-year-old Waukesha Christmas parade attack victim clinging to life on ventilator

https://nypost.com/2021/11/26/waukesha-christmas-parade-victim-11-clinging-to-life-on-ventilator/

 

Correct. Its interesting that some people put in so much effort to deny that some people do it to say white power.

It still means OK in US in majority of cases. Context matters.

 

based on what we know, it was a man fleeing the cops (the man happened to be racist, but no signs that he planned to do this)

doesn't change how horrible what happened was, but it was not a terrorist attack that many of us at first thought it was

pretty sure any jury will find him guilty and he will never be on the streets again (he should not of been there to begin with, why he was on bail so cheap is beyond me)