SUV plows down Wisconsin Christmas parade as children watch in horror

Yeah Biden was making these statements before Rittenhouse bumped into some Proud Boys at a bar. Proud boys are multi-racial not a white organization. Proud boys are not a militia which Biden was associating Kyle with even though he's never been in a militia. Kyle has zero association with any white-supremacists so the President's comments were disgusting. Quit making excuses for Biden's terrible behavior. Biden should publicly apologize for nationally smearing Kyle's name and stirring up even more hatred among leftists.

 

I think in the killer's mind that's exactly what it was.

 

I encourage you to look more into the Proud Boys and their racial allegiances. Meanwhile, if Biden owes anyone an apology, so does everyone on this thread who has claimed that the crime in the OP was racially motivated.

 

No, again it's you being pedantic and dogmatic thst makes unable to understand human communication.

 

You are literally trying to claim that my argument is bad because I'm using words to argue it . . . while admitting you can't use words to defend your point. I'm used to this from the fringe left postmodernists, but it is weird to hear a conservative adopt the same disingenuous tactics.

 

You seem confused… first, I’m not the one who’s argument is that if someone doesn’t use the precise words and phrasing that YOU want, then they didn’t really meant what they said. It’s as if somebody said “the night is of an ebony hue” you wouldn’t understand that the person is saying the night is black even though ebony is black? Are you that linguistically challenge?

oh and calling me a left postmodernist is also wrong.

 

No problem, besides this discussion is off the thread's topic anyways.

 

You've done nothing but use leftist, postmodernist "tactics" of "Hey, man, what do words even, like, mean anyway?" I'll repeat, and you'll again run away: My statement was that I don't like to assume that crimes are racially motivated without witness testimony that testifies that this is the case. What problem do you have with that?

Why pretend that you are incapable of understanding such a basic concept? I refuse to believe that you are so deficient that you can conceive of this. Why should I assume so little of you?

 

I appreciate you taking the high road there. Well done.

 

I think at this point we can distill our differences down to more or less a single point - motive. Your prepared to assign a motive (terrorism) to Brook's actions based on speculation albeit reasoned speculation. As a rule in case like this I'm not. To summarize this is because;
1) Needless public speculation on events like this (especially in recent years) unnecessarily inflames tensions around issues of race religion and politics etc potentially to the point where tit for tat vigilantism becomes an issue ans the 'rumor mill' heats up. And that's true even when, as is often the case the 'popular theory' floating around on the internet turns out to be completely wrong! By then the damage is done anyway.
2) It can be hurtful for the victims families
3) It can and does often hamper any ongoing investigation.

That said in regards your 'theory' a lot depends on how aware he was of the parade i.e how much attention he'd paid to advertising/word of mouth prior to the event and how conscious he was of his route. i.e did he 'stumble' into the parade route or choose to go there. As always I have no idea what he was thinking. At this point perhaps only his lawyer does. Who knows? That said, based on the events as publicly known IMO it seems likely that in this case the motive will become clear and fairly soon not least because he survived to answer questions.

He'll be interviewed by Detectives, clinically assessed by mental health experts and have access to a lawyer, i.e. lots of opportunities to answer 'why'?. The vehicle will be forensically examined to eliminate mechanical fault as an issue, he'll have been tox screened and investigators will talk to everyone close to him they can reach (even hardened criminals will balk at 'helping him' by staying silent in this case if the questions are all around his actions on that day). So the motive will come out.

Lastly speculating about motive in crimes like this wouldn't be such a bad thing if it was broken down and laid out in detail as you (but not others have done) done in this thread just now. I would suggest you should have done it at the onset though. Problem is too many people here are just screaming 'THE MOTIVE WAS TERRORISM' in posts without bothering to think it through, assuming that is they bothered to think at all before posting.

 

In the *cough* press and online *cough* news sites, sure. But this forum? I doubt one in a hundred thousand politicians, law enforcement agencies that are involved in the case, lawyers, or press people even knows we exist. I doubt anything anyone posts here makes any kind of impact anywhere.

[quoteThat said in regards your 'theory' a lot depends on how aware he was of the parade i.e how much attention he'd paid to advertising/word of mouth prior to the event and how conscious he was of his route. i.e did he 'stumble' into the parade route or choose to go there. As always I have no idea what he was thinking. At this point perhaps only his lawyer does. Who knows? That said, based on the events as publicly known IMO it seems likely that in this case the motive will become clear and fairly soon not least because he survived to answer questions.[/quote]

I do haveta tell you that while - as I've stated elsewhere - I enjoyed reading your posts on this because you do have a reasoned opinion yourself, I'm kinda inclined to agree with @rkhames a bit more precisely because - whether he knew of the parade or not beforehand - once he got to a certain point, maybe a mile plus or minus, there were clear signs a parade was gonna be there - and especially when he sees actual paraders marching about. I mean, at that point he had to make a choice and the choices human beings make are usually based off of their own core beliefs - and we sorta know what his were. I'm not prepared to say it was terrorism - I actually think the suicide-by-cop motive has merit - but I'll also say hey, I could be wrong. Maybe we all are.

 

Also, it seems poor Darrell feels dehumanized right now. Poor guy.

 

PF only really matters in the context that something posted here or an another forum will spread across other forums then jump onto other social media platforms. Before to long its everywhere, digital rumor mongering.

I wasn't going to mention suicide by cop (and then losing your nerve) as a motive because again I would only be speculating but I agree that logically it would be on investigators 'short list'. As far as terrorism goes the only reason I have to discount that as a motive (and the one I keep going back to) is that so far at least both local and federal agencies are not saying that's what his motive was, at least publicly, even with time passing and the investigation gaining pace.

That said some media outlets have reported that he has an online history that includes making (some) calls for violence against both whites and apparently Jews???. But whether that's because he actually harbored deep seated and radical racist agenda motives or because he was a simply a wannabe wrapper? Who knows. Least ways no media site I can find is calling him a prolific poster of that kind of rubbish so again - back to square one. We don't know.

I also note there are reasons why authorities might stay silent even if they did believe terrorism was the motive. But again Occam's razor also tells you that the most likely reason is simply because it wasn't i.e. it's been eliminated based on statements made by Brooks when interviewed or some other evidence. But again I/we/all of us don't know.

 

His mother weighs in:

 

He is a monster
Now it's someone else's fault for not helping him. The death penalty would be too good for him.

 

Oh? Ok...

Some expert on BLM Fundraising capabilities gave it "good odds"

Who do you like for the Super Bowl?

Reach back far enough in the Archives of the last decade and you might be able to dig up some 5 1/2 Year Old "hey, what about this" material...

Anyway, I guess rumors of how "easy" it was going to be for BLM to raise the bail were greatly exaggerated?

In any event, once again, as I have said since the initial $5 Million Bail Amount was set, their is ZERO Chance that he makes bail.
Carry on.

 

Go play in the ignore bin.

 

You must have missed the line where I said: "The evidence does support that Brooks intent was to create a panic among whites, but I personally did not claim that this was a terrorist act. Not all hate crimes, even one as heinous as this, are terrorism." But I do disagree with you on a point. We are not the investigating officers. If the investigating officers allow themselves to be derailed by the court of public opinions, they should not be investigating anything more than petty crimes. They definitely should not be investigating anything of this magnitude. The families themselves, more than likely, are already speculating that this was a terrorist act. So, talking about the possibility will not hurt them. Finally, I cannot speak for Australia, but here, we don't have mobs show up at the police stations with torches and rope to drag out someone to lynch them. That only happens in Hollywood on the sets of Westerns. (Yes, we do occasionally have mobs outside of the police stations, but those mobs are more likely to support Brooks than they are to try to kill him.) So, vigilantism is really not an issue in this case. On the other hand, there is already a push by the media to hide the aspects of the case that does not fit their liberally biased political agendas. One source blaming the whole thing on the SUV. Other sources that have hid Brooks' criminal and mental health history. Some have even referred to the whole thing as an accident. Given their readers/viewers the impression that this was nothing more than a fender bender. When you allow the media to downplay the event, it allows people to forget the victims. Someone has to keep the real fact out there for all to see. So, the victims do not get lost in the equation. Please note that while investigations should not be derailed by the court of public opinion, justice can be. By allowing the media to distort the facts, justice for the victims will not be served. The worst thing that can happen here is for Brooks to be declared mentally unfit to stand trial and sent to a mental institute where he could be back on the streets in a few short months. There would be no justice in that. I strongly advocate that this is a hate crime, and that Brooks should either get the death penalty, or at least live in prison with no possibility for parole. In other words, either put him out of our misery, or lock him up and throw away the key.

For the record, I do research everything that I post. Sometimes, I do make mistakes. I am not infallible. (There are no holes in my hand.) If I make a mistake, feel free to point it out. If you are right, I will probably respond with the phrase, "I stand corrected". But understand that I do think everything through and do research it to the best of my ability. I do not limit myself to sources of a single political agenda. I read conservative, liberal and some of the few middle of the road sources. I look at things from all sides before posting. And I just love a good debate.

 

Briefly my comments re; vigilantism etc weren't meant to apply to the individual concerned directly just as a warning that rumors circulating on the internet can inflame tensions generally, leading to potential conflicts that are at first sight entirely separate in space and time to the original incident.

I also wasn't thinking in terms of rumors and allegations etc impacting the investigators directly i.e. influencing their decision making processes but rather more in terms of resources (especially time) having to be diverted to dealing with inquiries and 'tip offs' etc 'generated' by those rumors. And of course a stream of inquiries from media and 'concerned' public officials about the validity of those rumors. This last being something I have direct experience of BTW. I.e having to stop work on a case just to deal with media speculation and 'theories' which we know aren't correct but have to be addressed by the higher ups.

On the media itself? Both sides of politics have reason to try a push the narrative down lines that suit opposing political narratives. The left trying to ameliorate race for example as an issue. The right trying to do the opposite. Hence I concur with your policy of relying on multiple sources of information across the political spectrum. IMO To few people on PF make the effort.

On the issue of the Brooks mental health and based solely on whats in the public arena? Being found not competent to stand trail is probably his one shot at an 'out'. For that reason alone I would anticipate his defense counsel giving it the good old college try! But then of course it will also be glaringly obvious to the prosecution that it's probably Brooks only way out. So I would fully expect extensive pre-trial argument over his clinical assessment. We'll see.

As to the question how we started down this (entertaining) track I think it was your post (724?) where you stated (in part) 'I still believe the greatest likelihood is that he was triggered by the events that happened twenty miles away in Kenosha. If that is the case, then this would be a terrorist event.' followed by my first post about 'wanting something to be true and what actually is true' or whatever. And then it was on!

 

We keep hearing these violent voices from the Left.

ACTUAL TERRORIST INSURRECTIONISTS, WHO GET FAVORABLE MEDIA FOR THE MOST PART: Extinction Rebellions threatens to blow up pipelines, kill politicians.

Some US-Canadian pipelines could be targeted.

Violent Extremism, Again in service of the Left.

More folks on the Left dog whistling for more violent terrorism. We see what that got us WI.

But Dirtbag Garland only has time to set up snitch lines on parents that attend School Board meetings. When the GOP takes over Congress they should probably cut the DOJ budget by 5% every month until Dirtbag Garland resigns.

 

The Arizona socialists held a Kyle protest waiving signs saying death to America.

 

That's an incredibly stupid question. He avoided the police standing at the barricade.

He also fled from the vehicle and sought refuge in a residence to avoid the police.

 

Can you elaborate further?

 

Did Hitler mistreat Blacks like most of all of the American Presidents had done?