Shannon Brandt, ring any bells?

[Bus Driver]

Oh....A dead kid.

You clearly don't understand the concept of evidence, especially regarding that which supports a claim.

Simply restating the claim and pretending it supports.....the claim is circular.

Do you have a tendency to run in circles?

 

[Dog 2.0]

You clearly don't understand the concept of evidence, especially regarding that which supports a claim.

Simply restating the claim and pretending it supports.....the claim is circular.

Do you have a tendency to run in circles?

Dude...The man said he ran down the kid killing him. That the kid had indeed been run down and killed is evidence in support of his claim.

 

[Raz'r]

Dude...The man said he ran down the kid killing him. That the kid had indeed been run down and killed is evidence in support of his claim.

Yep, a drunk killer. Not sure why you care.

 

[Bus Driver]

Dude...The man said he ran down the kid killing him. That the kid had indeed been run down and killed is evidence in support of his claim.

No one is disputing that he ran down a kid and killed him.

You are on record, in the OP repeating what the driver gave as his reason for running down the kid - "because he was a Republican".

Before you started the thread, that had been roundly discounted, as no evidence to support it has been provided.

You claim Mr. Brandt's statement is evidence. It's not.






You Trumpophiles (and, you are most definitely one) seem unfamiliar with the concept of "evidence".

I would love to see such "evidence" introduced at trial -

Prosecutor - "Mr. Brandt, why did you run down and kill Mr. Elingson?"

Defendant - "He was a Republican."

Prosecutor - "What evidence can you provide the court to support your statement?"

Defendant - "I said he was."

 

[βhyde]

Yep, a drunk killer. Not sure why you care.

Because if he can find just one incident where a liberal killed a RWNJ, then everything RWNJ's do is justified. Pretty mindless.

 

[Bus Driver]

Yep, a drunk killer. Not sure why you care.

He wanted to say people are being killed "because he was a Republican".

It's the ultimate in victimhood.

 

[Olsonist]

Little evidence of political argument before teen's death

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — There is little indication that an 18-year-old who died after...

www.registercitizen.com

(They would say there's no evidence except for @Dog 2.0's boy Shannon, you know, the drunk murderer with the DUI prior saying something entertaining. @Dog 2.0 really, really believes his boy, the drunk murderer.)

 

[Raz'r]

So, the drunk claims a political argument and that the victim was rallying folks to attack him, all so he can use the SYG or "run them over first" defense.

Why does Doggie want this guy to get away with murder?

 

[solosailor]

What if he DID kill him for his political beliefs? Are non-republicans not allowed to be batshit crazy like so many from the cult-GOP. I mean he is a wussy Democrat and ONLY killed one..... nothing that will out-crazy your brethren. Notify me when thousands storm the capital to stop the electoral count or when the scheme to overturn the election with FLASE-electors happens or even something as mundane as driving through a whole crowd of people.

 

[Raz'r]

What if he DID kill him for his political beliefs? Are non-republicans not allowed to be batshit crazy like so many from the cult-GOP. I mean he is a wussy Democrat and ONLY killed one..... nothing that will out-crazy your brethren. Notify me when thousands storm the capital to stop the electoral count or when the scheme to overturn the election with FLASE-electors happens or even something as mundane as driving through a whole crowd of people.

Well, if he killed him per @Dog 2.0 's stated opinion, he seems to have a good case for SYG.

Yep, checked, NorDak is a SYG state.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Well, if he killed him per @Dog 2.0 's stated opinion, he seems to have a good case for SYG.

Yep, checked, NorDak is a SYG state.

So, Dog2 is actually arguing that the driver (and/or killer) should be innocent?
Typical step-on-rake RWNJ behavior.

 

[Raz'r]

So, Dog2 is actually arguing that the driver (and/or killer) should be innocent?
Typical step-on-rake RWNJ behavior.

Yep, that's his schtick.

 

[βhyde]

Well, if Dog is right (that would be new), then we need to talk about extending the 2A to include cars.

Scary black assault wagon?

 

[Deleted member 149385]

Well, if Dog is right (that would be new), then we need to talk about extending the 2A to include cars.

Scary black assault wagon?
View attachment 543414

Volvo 245 - dangerous liberal weapon,, prolific in the Northeast

 

[billsreef]

Do you have a tendency to run in circles?

That is usually what happens when dogs chase their tails.

 

[Dog 2.0]

No one is disputing that he ran down a kid and killed him.

You are on record, in the OP repeating what the driver gave as his reason for running down the kid - "because he was a Republican".

Before you started the thread, that had been roundly discounted, as no evidence to support it has been provided.

You claim Mr. Brandt's statement is evidence. It's not.






You Trumpophiles (and, you are most definitely one) seem unfamiliar with the concept of "evidence".

I would love to see such "evidence" introduced at trial -

Prosecutor - "Mr. Brandt, why did you run down and kill Mr. Elingson?"

Defendant - "He was a Republican."

Prosecutor - "What evidence can you provide the court to support your statement?"

Defendant - "I said he was."

That part is bullshit. An absence of supporting evidence is just that, an absence of evidence. It tells us nothing. We are left with Brandt's statement which, like it or not, is evidence.

 

[Bus Driver]

That part is bullshit. An absence of supporting evidence is just that, an absence of evidence. It tells us nothing. We are left with Brandt's statement which, like it or not, is evidence.

Bullshit. Contrary to your namesake's policy, an investigation occurred before a conviction. There is no evidence to support his claim.

His claim cannot be cited as evidence to support his claim, no matter how often you say it. That's just absurd.

Even the real Dog would've given up this argument and changed the subject, by now.

 

[Dog 2.0]

Bullshit. Contrary to your namesake's policy, an investigation occurred before a conviction. There is no evidence to support his claim.

His claim cannot be cited as evidence to support his claim, no matter how often you say it. That's just absurd.

Even the real Dog would've given up this argument and changed the subject, by now.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

 

[Bus Driver]

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

A claim cannot be cited as evidence to support that very claim.

Why is this so hard for your to understand?



Prosecutor - "Mr. Brandt, why did you run down and kill Mr. Elingson?"

Defendant - "He was a Republican."

Prosecutor - "What evidence can you provide the court to support your statement?"

Defendant - "I said he was."

 

[Dog 2.0]

A claim cannot be cited as evidence to support that very claim.

Why is this so hard for your to understand?



Prosecutor - "Mr. Brandt, why did you run down and kill Mr. Elingson?"

Defendant - "He was a Republican."

Prosecutor - "What evidence can you provide the court to support your statement?"

Defendant - "I said he was."

Brandt ran Ellington down and killed him because he believed he was a Republican. That was his stated motivation.
Ellington's political affiliation is beside the point and the lack of corroboration for Brandt's stated motivation is irrelevant.