pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 71,605
- 27,716
- 2,210
What’s stopping you from making a decision did you see the video?That he could be guilty of a crimeSo no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? LolAnswer the questionSo no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? LolWho’s your “source” Stevie wonder?No it doesn't.Re-read the thread, jackass....So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?No it isn't.This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.More than you do apparently.Not so.What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.Why is it racist to call this wrong?He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.His life didn't matter.Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life
A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.www.foxnews.com
Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.
D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.
Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.
Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.
Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming
Look at who is defending him, more racists.
To call what exactly wrong?
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?
What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.
When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence
You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.
Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.
Which is how the argument has went.
"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".
Why doesnt that argument work here?
(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)
What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.
Its in the article.
There is no evidence cited at all.
So you had your answer already.
Why would you do that?
Lied about what?
What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?
Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.
You are lying.
The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.
The link you provided. Fox News.
You condemn me for not reading the link but you are then asking me questions about what is in it?
Read your link.
WHat decision did I make?
I never made that decision.
I don't have all the evidence.