Citation needed. Be specific.It’s wild going back and reading this thread and seeing the lengths that Gdaddy went to defend these murderers, I can only think of one reason why.
You only hypothesized in the defense of the racist murderers and wasted a lot of energy doing it? Why? For the sake of argument?Citation needed. Be specific.
Go back and read what I posted at the outset of this case. I qualified my opinions every step of the way due to the lack of facts being reported about certain elements. A lot of "ifs".
"This is what could possibly have occurred at the scent or what can happen at trial" isn't an example of bending over backwards to defend the actions of the accused.
If they had the evidence to do it today then they should have done it 2 months ago.
Because politically driven prosecutions don't always return the desired convictions.
IRL, the authorities don't know anything more about this event now than they did a week after it occurred.
If if he was stealing sh!t, you don't track him down and shoot him.Do you assume they started off or intended to shoot him at any point prior to him turning into the shotgun?
Because other than that there are lots of people out there who might choose to follow/cut him off in order to (lawfully) detain him while waiting for the cops to arrive. At gunpoint, even. A former cop would be well aware of the lawfulness of that.
Once the fight breaks out all bets are off. If they have the wrong guy then they're instantly farked. And to be sure, the 20/20 on this guy is that he didn't have a significant criminal history or a pattern for burglary so at this point "wrong guy" is more likely than not. OTOH, there's apparently a home security video out there of one of the burglaries in progress as well as an eyewitness who saw someone at that construction site and made the phone call, so these can absolutely be compared for their similarities or their differences to the victim.
Moreover, the facts about whether or not these guys actually picked an innocent man are already known and have been known from the outset. But have not yet been released by the cops/DA or reported in the press. I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder why this is.
. You are getting destroyed.The positive declarations of how these events and trials WOULD turn out have a very poor track record. Me introducing you to some of the possible alternatives isn't "bending over backwards to the defense". It's just letting you know that you might want to hold off committing to one or the other until more info comes out.
The Waushega event is another example. There were a few people who were quick to start jumping to conclusions but facts are coming out now which show those conclusions were premature. So far the guy looks like just another nut fleeing a prior offense which had nothing to do the the KR verdict, not a planned attack. Saying "it could be something else" at that previous point doesn't make it a defense of this individual. It's just an acknowledgement of the other possibilities.
Exactly the same thing. Just the fact that someone died doesn't - by itself - prove it was the result of a criminal act.ok, now do the Rittenhouse case.