Homicidal Liberal Out On Bail

[Ouroboros]

Yes. I agree, Rittenhouse acted very badly.

Ho hum. It's amazing how much energy Mad Libs devote to defending the three (really four) yinyangs who took the law-- or what they thought of as law, since it was not-- into their own hands. Idiots like The View harpies tried to make it sound as if acquitting Rittenhouse would be like declaring open season on poor, mistreated Lib protesters. Well, he was acquitted and Libs are still protesting. However, they may be a little less given to dispensing violence after losing one of their number.

 

[roguenuke]

Is there any indication of either the killer's or the victim's political views? Perhaps he is a card-carrying socialist or Elizabeth Warren progressive who hates all Republicans to the point of murder. Or perhaps he is a Trump supporter and the young man was a moderate Republican who incensed the older man when told him he did not think the 2020 Election was stolen. Are we just assuming that because because the young man was some form of Republican, the killer must be a liberal?

Too many unanswered questions to leap to any conclusion. But a man who would kill someone over an argument should not be walking the streets free.

I think another issue is that it is strange that the kid would call his mother either during or just after their discussion to ask if she/his parents knew the guy, the drunk likely angry guy, he had been having some sort of conversation with. That indicates to me a possibly more personal connection, at least to the family. What sort of a conversation/argument involves someone indicating they know your parents in some way, and prompts such a phone call, especially after 1 in the morning?

 

[LouC]

I think another issue is that it is strange that the kid would call his mother either during or just after their discussion to ask if she/his parents knew the guy, the drunk likely angry guy, he had been having some sort of conversation with. That indicates to me a possibly more personal connection, at least to the family. What sort of a conversation/argument involves someone indicating they know your parents in some way, and prompts such a phone call, especially after 1 in the morning?

McHenry has a population of 28 people, Glenfield a population of 103, they are only 9 miles apart. There was a good chance Cayler's parents knew Brandt and from what I have read Cayler's mother indicated she did.

How connected any of them were is still to be divulged.

Still so tragic.

 

[roguenuke]

McHenry has a population of 28 people, Glenfield a population of 103, they are only 9 miles apart. There was a good chance Cayler's parents knew Brandt and from what I have read Cayler's mother indicated she did.

How connected any of them were is still to be divulged.

Still so tragic.

It's the calling at 1 am to ask. Why was that important? Why would it need to be answered at that time? It was also reported to be a dance, party, fair of some sort when started, so there's a good chance there was more people there than from just those 2 places.

Additionally, it was said that both families showed up to the incident, the place where it happened while the police were still searching for the killer.

 

[LouC]

It's the calling at 1 am to ask. Why was that important? Why would it need to be answered at that time? It was also reported to be a dance, party, fair of some sort when started, so there's a good chance there was more people there from just those 2 places.

Additionally, it was said that both families showed up to the incident, the place where it happened while the police were still searching for the killer.

It doesn't surprise me Cayler would call his parents at that hour in such a small community. Why was it important? Perhaps we will never know, perhaps Cayler was wanting to find out what sort of drunk he was dealing with? He may have been trying to do a risk assessment on Brandt? Yes, police have been interviewing multiple witnesses that were present at the time of their apparent altercation and that is why police are saying it, the altercation, does not appear to have had anything to do with politics. As far as both families showing up, not that big of a deal. The parents knew where Cayler was when his phone went dark and Brandt had time to, in an inebriated state, drive the 12 miles home, then drive back, call 911, then drive back home again where he was eventually arrested. Lord knows he had plenty of time to have contacted someone in his own family.

 

[Maidenrules29]

He is out on bail

Is he a flight risk?
Is he likely to commit another crime

If no, then bail is appropriate. He has not been convicted of any crime

NO ONE who runs someone over and kills them, especially if they ADMIT to doing so, should get bail. Of course he is a flight risk. Anyone who is staring life in prison in the face is a flight risk. People like you who coddle criminals are the problem.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes. I agree, Rittenhouse acted very badly.

You seem really anxious to defend a pedophile over his minor victim. Can you explain why that is?

 

[Logician Man]

You seem really anxious to defend a pedophile over his minor victim. Can you explain why that is?

Can you explain as to how stating "Rittenhouse acted very badly" equates to "anxious to defend a pedophile."

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

NO ONE who runs someone over and kills them, especially if they ADMIT to doing so, should get bail. Of course he is a flight risk. Anyone who is staring life in prison in the face is a flight risk. People like you who coddle criminals are the problem.

Coddle?

Did i nor say if the judge feels his is a flight risk no bail at any level?

 

[Superfly]

You seem really anxious to defend a pedophile over his minor victim. Can you explain why that is?

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Have another drink.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Have another drink.

It makes perfect sense, you are just ashamed to explain your position when it is defined in the simplest possible terms. You are advocating for the interest of a child rapist, over a child who he attacked.

 

[Superfly]

It makes perfect sense, you are just ashamed to explain your position when it is defined in the simplest possible terms. You are advocating for the interest of a child rapist, over a child who he attacked.

This is probably one of the most disingenuous posts I’ve seen from you, and that’s saying something, as you are the king of bullshit.

I feel like Rittenhouse should have stayed his ass at home, therefore I am advocating for a pedophile instead of his victim?

I’d ask you how you came to that conclusion, but I don’t really care, because you’re an idiot, and I don’t really deal with idiots until I’ve had at least one cup of coffee.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is probably one of the most disingenuous posts I’ve seen from you, and that’s saying something, as you are the king of bullshit.

I feel like Rittenhouse should have stayed his ass at home, therefore I am advocating for a pedophile instead of his victim?

I’d ask you how you came to that conclusion, but I don’t really care, because you’re an idiot, and I don’t really deal with idiots until I’ve had at least one cup of coffee.

But you aren’t stating that the people who attacked KR should have also stayed home? Can you be sure they would not have simply attacked someone else, even someone who didn’t carry a weapon that “provoked” them?

 

[Superfly]

But you aren’t stating that the people who attacked KR should have also stayed home? Can you be sure they would not have simply attacked someone else, even someone who didn’t carry a weapon that “provoked” them?

Show me where I said that the looters and rioters had the right to loot and riot.

Please.

 

[Ouroboros]

Show me where I said that the looters and rioters had the right to loot and riot.

Please.

What’s the point of Rittenhouse staying home unless you’re assuming the troublemakers would have made no trouble without his presence?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

This is probably one of the most disingenuous posts I’ve seen from you, and that’s saying something, as you are the king of bullshit.

I feel like Rittenhouse should have stayed his ass at home, therefore I am advocating for a pedophile instead of his victim?

And all this time you’ve steadfastly refused to utter a word of condemnation for the pedophile who shouldn’t have been there either and who attacked him

I’d ask you how you came to that conclusion, but I don’t really care, because you’re an idiot, and I don’t really deal with idiots until I’ve had at least one cup of coffee.

By your simply writing only condemning Rittenhouse by name for doing literally nothing at all wrong, your opinions on what he “should” have done not withstanding he did nothing wrong legally or morally, and never condemning the violent thugs who attacked him who absolutely committed criminal assault which is illegal and immoral

 

[Superfly]

What’s the point of Rittenhouse staying home unless you’re assuming the troublemakers would have made no trouble without his presence?

Show me where I said that the looters and rioters had the right to loot and riot.

Please.

Once you can show me that, we can continue the conversation.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Show me where I said that the looters and rioters had the right to loot and riot.

Please.

Once you can show me that, we can continue the conversation.

You can start by unambiguously condemning them without qualifying by saying bad things about Rittenhouse. Liberals seemingly are unwilling to do this. Instead they play word games like you are. “Oh I never said the looters and arsonists were right but let me sit here and pass harsh moral judgment on people who were protecting property from said rioters and looters”

It’s old and everyone knows the game, which is you politically identify with the rioters, and in Carl Schmitt’s worldview, see them as friend and people defending property from them as enemy.

 

[Grand Mal]

Ho hum. It's amazing how much energy Mad Libs devote to defending the three (really four) yinyangs who took the law-- or what they thought of as law, since it was not-- into their own hands. Idiots like The View harpies tried to make it sound as if acquitting Rittenhouse would be like declaring open season on poor, mistreated Lib protesters. Well, he was acquitted and Libs are still protesting. However, they may be a little less given to dispensing violence after losing one of their number.

You woudnt know a liberal if one helped you tie your shoes and led you across the street.

 

[Grand Mal]

You can start by unambiguously condemning them without qualifying by saying bad things about Rittenhouse. Liberals seemingly are unwilling to do this. Instead they play word games like you are. “Oh I never said the looters and arsonists were right but let me sit here and pass harsh moral judgment on people who were protecting property from said rioters and looters”

It’s old and everyone knows the game, which is you politically identify with the rioters, and in Carl Schmitt’s worldview, see them as friend and people defending property from them as enemy.

Neither would you.
See above.

 

[Ouroboros]

Show me where I said that the looters and rioters had the right to loot and riot.

Please.

Once you can show me that, we can continue the conversation.

That wasn’t what I said, so I don’t have to justify it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Neither would you.
See above.

The difference is, on this issue I am right. Rittenhouse had every legal and moral right to be doing what he was doing where he was doing it, and the kiddie rapist and domestic abuser and wierd commie illegally carrying pistol after his license was revoked were all in the wrong.

So a leftist condemning the former while airbrushing the latter three is simply acting on politics disconnected from any moral principles

 

[Ouroboros]

You woudnt know a liberal if one helped you tie your shoes and led you across the street.

Sure I’d know a Liberal. He’d be the guy defending scumbags who attacked a guy minding his own business.

 

[Grand Mal]

Sure I’d know a Liberal. He’d be the guy defending scumbags who attacked a guy minding his own business.

Bullshit.
Like I said to someone else here, you lot are tripping over yourselves trying to outdo each other in the simpleminded dumbassery category.

 

[Ouroboros]

Bullshit.
Like I said to someone else here, you lot are tripping over yourselves trying to outdo each other in the simpleminded dumbassery category.

Dumbassery is trying to find reasons to condemn an innocent victim because his action triggers you into thinking hordes of gun-nuts are going to shoot up protesters. No, I know you didn't say that, but I think that's the real reason Libs wet their panties about Rittenhouse.