Man admits to killing teen after political dispute

[psyche101]

12 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

No evidence it was politically motivated…. Other than the alleged murderer’s statement, yes.

None at all. But the tweet on the post I replied to said mainstream media was keeping it under wraps. Because of politics. Not so. This is midge we're talking about remember. 

 

The guy was a nutcase with a reputation and record. Should have been at the funny farm instead of on the loose. 

 

Shannon Brandt known by neighbors for booze-fueled 'rampages,' being 'nuts his whole life'

Edited September 26, 2022 by psyche101

[+Paranoid Android]

52 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Ah, I see you didn't read my posts prior to our disscussion.  I linked the very same information you just did.  The whole crux of my argument was "How can you already decide that it is politically motivated when the victim wasn't even a Republican and the witnesses have said their argument wasn't about politics? Shouldn't we wait for more evidence to come out."  Both you and El Midget seem to think because something to that effect was said to the 9-11 radio dispatch (which hasn't released the official transcript) then it must be the truth.

I think he murdered the kid for some other reason and was just using the whole "He was a Republican Extremist" as a slur to try and demonize his victim (though I am doubtful that a drunk man was even use that terminology).   For all we know the murder could be a Republican himself.

But I have to say, the quickness you have placed motive and guilt based on a single unverifiable statement is amusing to me as you are usually the first to say "statement X was taken out of context" in regards to the many self incriminating statements a certain orange fellow habitually says.

You mean apart from North Dakota Patrol Captain Bryan Niewind stating in a press conference that Brandt admitted in a 911 call that he killed the guy because he belonged to an extremist Republican group! That sort of evidence sort of makes it clear that Brandt did in fact blame politics for the reason Ellingson is dead. Unless your argument is that Patrol Captain Bryan Niewind meant something completely different when he said "we have uncovered no evidence to support Mr Brandt's claim on the 911 call he made that Cayler Ellingson is a Republican extremist". I'm assuming you are not arguing that, for that would be ridiculous, but I need to clarify because that's how it sounds like it's coming across. 

Patrol captain Bryan Niewind's statement is confirmation from authority that Brandt blamed the politics of Ellingson for why he murdered him. There is no longer a "wait and see" game. But if there was, you don't get to play the card only when it suits. If this were a murdered democrat, I'd bet dollars to donuts that Joe Biden would have already made prime time speeches about the "MAGA Republicans" who are such a threat to your democracy! As it is, the media is silent. Because they don't like the mere possibility that someone on the left is  a violent bigoted extremist! 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

We must be reading different articles, as I just re-read it and the source explicitly acknowledges quotes from the killer calling Ellingson a member of a "Republican extremist group". There appears to be confusion in the reporting, the following Fox News article only came out 4 hours ago, I don't think this is "new" information, but it makes it crystal clear that the killer did in fact identify Ellingson's political affiliation as reason for the assault, despite the headline you need to read the actual article:

Emphasis mine!

The officer is admitting that the 911 call included accusations by the killer (Shannon Brandt) that Ellingson was a Republican extremist! Regardless of whether there is any evidence of Ellingson belonging to an extremist group, the fact is Brandt made the accusation as part of his reasoning in the 911 call. I think that qualifies now as "waiting for the evidence to come out", and thus makes your final sentences moot, but I would like to address it anyway:  

 

In principle, I agree with you. Wouldn't it be great if the media DID "wait a few days for the truth to come out" before printing any story. But this principle only works if the media is consistent in applying it. The fact is, that if the story ends up making right wing people look bad, the media will run with it and make right wingers look bad, and the principle of "wait a few days for the truth to come out" falls by the wayside. If the story makes progressives and the left wing look bad, suddenly the story becomes "let's wait a few days". 

It only takes a second to look at how the media reports on stories to confirm this. Consider the attitudes in the media towards the shooting of Sasha Johnson, the political activist and then-politician who was shot in the head at a house party in London. Due to her connection with BLM, when it first happened, there were front page articles running about how this was evidence of white supremacy and she was targeted for being black and for being a BLM activist. Within 48 hours of the shooting, it began to emerge that the killers may not be white, and the story was dropped like a hot potato. It no longer suited the narrative of the media, it no longer demonised white people, it no longer was a racial story that could stoke the hatred and division that already exists..... didn't stop the media from speculating and doing the exact opposite of "waiting a few days". 

Several of the black conservatives that I read or watch have made similar observations, it's one of the reasons they hate the left. To them, it appears that groups like BLM only care about black lives if the life was taken by a white person, and they won't respect BLM until BLM starts to stand up for the real violence against black Americans - the violence that occurs within their own community by other black people. The Sasha Johnson story could have been a watershed moment that shone light on the violence facing black communities. But BLM doesn't like that narrative. Despite Sasha Johnson being part the leader of the TTIP Party in England (which is closely aligned with BLM) the only thing BLM did was hold a candle vigil for her the day after her shooting, at a time when it was still largely reported in the media that the motive for the shooting was race-based. The moment it was black people, BLM left, and the media was only a step behind them. So people still get the impression in the media that the real threat to black people is white police officers! That is sickening, in my personal opinion!  And now the sad fact is, many people will be reading this post and thinking to themselves "Sasha Who"?

So with respect, asking to "wait a few days" is a load of bull! The same courtesy does not happen in reverse, and given the options of either "waiting a few days" or reporting every speculation beforehand, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as the saying goes. Saying "wait a few days" is just an excuse, and a very poor one at that!  

As I said, this is rather moot, as the article I linked confirmed that Shannon Brandt did in fact identify in his 911 call that the reason he ran over Ellingson was due to his alleged membership to a Republican extremist group, and the police have put out a statement saying that there is no evidence that Ellingson ever belonged to any such group. You can 100% report that as confirmed truth now based on the statement in the article from North Dakota Highway Patrol Captain Bryan Niewind.  

~ Regards, PA

Brandt looks like desperately trying trying to find an excuse to use as a defence.  Playing the game of identity politics and whattaboutism is doesn't serve a purpose other than flamebaiting.  Seriously, how is the anecdote from England relevant.

The statement from Niewand says there is no evidence the case was politically motivated.

[psyche101]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

As it is, the media is silent. Because they don't like the mere possibility that someone on the left is  a violent bigoted extremist! 

See post #99.

The guy has a history of violence and drunken behaviour. It doesn't matter whose side he says he is on, he is a human train wreck.

Making this political only illustrates that left vs right is now at a ridiculous level that is now a national security issue. Dumbass politics. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by psyche101

[+Paranoid Android]

Just now, Golden Duck said:

The statement from Niewand says there is no evidence the case was politically motivated.

Apart from Brandt's own words, I agree there is no evidence that it was politically motivated. I wasn't aware that someone's own words were so suspect in a case like this! If it was a murdered democrat, we'd be having a very different conversation about this whole thing! 

[+Paranoid Android]

Just now, psyche101 said:

See post #99.

The guy has a history of violence and drunken behaviour. It doesn't matter whose side he says he is on, he is a human train wreck.

Making this political only illustrates that left vs right is now at a ridiculous level that is now a national security issue. Dumbass politics. 

I'm not denying that he has a history of violence. You guys seem to be the ones denying that Brandt rang the cops and claimed he murdered Ellingson because he belonged to an extremist Republican group! He may have been drunk, he may have misunderstood him, he may be violent, but at the end of the day he has claimed that the reason he murdered him is because of politics, and you are glossing over that fact because you don't like the fact that someone on the left is a violent nutcase! 

[Gromdor]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

You mean apart from North Dakota Patrol Captain Bryan Niewind stating in a press conference that Brandt admitted in a 911 call that he killed the guy because he belonged to an extremist Republican group! That sort of evidence sort of makes it clear that Brandt did in fact blame politics for the reason Ellingson is dead. Unless your argument is that Patrol Captain Bryan Niewind meant something completely different when he said "we have uncovered no evidence to support Mr Brandt's claim on the 911 call he made that Cayler Ellingson is a Republican extremist". I'm assuming you are not arguing that, for that would be ridiculous, but I need to clarify because that's how it sounds like it's coming across. 

Patrol captain Bryan Niewind's statement is confirmation from authority that Brandt blamed the politics of Ellingson for why he murdered him. There is no longer a "wait and see" game. But if there was, you don't get to play the card only when it suits. If this were a murdered democrat, I'd bet dollars to donuts that Joe Biden would have already made prime time speeches about the "MAGA Republicans" who are such a threat to your democracy! As it is, the media is silent. Because they don't like the mere possibility that someone on the left is  a violent bigoted extremist! 

LOL, you really should have waited.  The facts are coming out and starting to bite you in the butt: Little evidence of political argument before teen’s death | FOX40

North Dakota Highway Patrol Capt. Bryan Niewind said Friday that authorities have talked to dozens of witnesses and plan to talk to more as they try to get a better picture of exactly what happened before the crash.

“I can’t get into details about what the witnesses are describing to us. But what I can tell you is that this is not political in nature at all,” he said, adding: “There is no evidence to support Brandt’s claim on the 911 call that Mr. Ellingson was a Republican extremist. There is no evidence to support that all through our continued investigation.”

Justin McDonald, owner of Buck-It’s Bar & Grill in New Rockford, North Dakota, said he knows the Ellingson family well, and that Cayler’s grandmother worked at the bar for about six years. He said Ellingson enjoyed autocross racing, hunting and being at the family cabin at Lake Juanita when he wasn’t studying to be an ultrasound technician.

McDonald said “there was absolutely nothing political in him that I’ve ever seen,” so he doubts Brandt’s claim that there was a political argument. - from the article

[+Paranoid Android]

7 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

LOL, you really should have waited.  The facts are coming out and starting to bite you in the butt: Little evidence of political argument before teen’s death | FOX40

North Dakota Highway Patrol Capt. Bryan Niewind said Friday that authorities have talked to dozens of witnesses and plan to talk to more as they try to get a better picture of exactly what happened before the crash.

“I can’t get into details about what the witnesses are describing to us. But what I can tell you is that this is not political in nature at all,” he said, adding: “There is no evidence to support Brandt’s claim on the 911 call that Mr. Ellingson was a Republican extremist. There is no evidence to support that all through our continued investigation.”

Justin McDonald, owner of Buck-It’s Bar & Grill in New Rockford, North Dakota, said he knows the Ellingson family well, and that Cayler’s grandmother worked at the bar for about six years. He said Ellingson enjoyed autocross racing, hunting and being at the family cabin at Lake Juanita when he wasn’t studying to be an ultrasound technician.

McDonald said “there was absolutely nothing political in him that I’ve ever seen,” so he doubts Brandt’s claim that there was a political argument. - from the article

Are you arguing that Brandt did not blame the murder on Ellingson belonging to an extremist Republican group as part of his 911 call? Or are you just trying to gloss over that inconvenient fact?  If he said it, then he's on record as using that as an excuse, regardless of what else happens.

"There is no evidence to support Brandt's claim on the 911 call that Mr Ellingson was a Republican extremist".

Wouldn't it have been nice if media did the same thing for every case? I mean, we still have no evidence that George Floyd's death was because of "racism", and yet we had months of riots based on that premise (edit: not saying Derek Chauvin was innocent, only questioning the motives that the mainstream media attributed to him). 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

Are you arguing that Brandt did not blame the murder on Ellingson belonging to an extremist Republican group as part of his 911 call? Or are you just trying to gloss over that inconvenient fact?  

"There is no evidence to support Brandt's claim on the 911 call that Mr Ellingson was a Republican extremist".

Like I said, that was merely a murderer trying to demonize his victim and had absolutely nothing to do with a political argument (which never happened) with a person who wasn't a Republican.  

Or do you think Patrol Capt. Bryan Niewind is lying when he said, “I can’t get into details about what the witnesses are describing to us. But what I can tell you is that this is not political in nature at all,” he said, adding: “There is no evidence to support Brandt’s claim on the 911 call that Mr. Ellingson was a Republican extremist. There is no evidence to support that all through our continued investigation.”?

[Gromdor]

In a way, you fell victim to a "false flag".

[+and-then]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Are you arguing that Brandt did not blame the murder on Ellingson belonging to an extremist Republican group as part of his 911 call?

Nah, he's just trying to say the clear admission doesn't matter in THIS case.  Typical hypocrisy.

[+Paranoid Android]

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Like I said, that was merely a murderer trying to demonize his victim and had absolutely nothing to do with a political argument (which never happened) with a person who wasn't a Republican.  

Or do you think Patrol Capt. Bryan Niewind is lying when he said, “I can’t get into details about what the witnesses are describing to us. But what I can tell you is that this is not political in nature at all,” he said, adding: “There is no evidence to support Brandt’s claim on the 911 call that Mr. Ellingson was a Republican extremist. There is no evidence to support that all through our continued investigation.”?

I never said he was lying. I 100% accept his words about what happened. However, that does not in any way change the fact that Brandt blamed his actions on the politics of his victim as part of his 911 call! That is 100% undeniable fact!  You just don't like that fact, so you gloss over it! 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[Gromdor]

4 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I never said he was lying. I 100% accept his words about what happened. However, that does not in any way change the fact that Brandt blamed his actions on the politics of his victim as part of his 911 call! That is 100% undeniable fact!  

Look, If you and I get into a fight over a woman, I kill you, and then call the police and say, "it was because you were an alien" would the crime be because of an interstellar dispute or would it be over a woman with me using the whole alien thing as a flimsy unrelated excuse?

Because people like El Midget- they have an agenda and they pushed it really hard in this case before the facts came to light: Biden's speech's fault, left wing extremist kills young Republican, etc...  All of which is being proven untrue. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Gromdor

[psyche101]

12 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm not denying that he has a history of violence. You guys seem to be the ones denying that Brandt rang the cops and claimed he murdered Ellingson because he belonged to an extremist Republican group! He may have been drunk, he may have misunderstood him, he may be violent, but at the end of the day he has claimed that the reason he murdered him is because of politics, and you are glossing over that fact because you don't like the fact that someone on the left is a violent nutcase! 

No, you're making the same mistake Brandt did and insisting it is political.

No comment on post #99 I see clearly illustrating that the mainstream media avoidance claim is horse hockey.

And politics don't matter. If you're over the limit and say you can drive, you won't be believed. Right wing ratbags are trying to say this drunk who was .08, which is considered intoxicated and not in control of faculties, should be offered that dubious option so they can reach for higher moral ground.

it's as pathetic and transparent as Brandt trying to paint this as political. 

[+Paranoid Android]

  

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Look, If you and I get into a fight over a woman, I kill you, and then call the police and say, "it was because you were an alien" would the crime be because of an interstellar dispute or would it be over a woman with me using the whole alien thing as a flimsy unrelated excuse?

Because people like El Midget- they have an agenda and they pushed it really hard in this case before the facts came to light: Biden's speech's fault, left wing extremist kills youn Republican, etc...  All of which is being proven untrue. 

So let's change tack, then. What evidence was ever presented that Derek Chauvin was a racist and the killing of George Floyd was motivated by Floyd's skin colour? 

When you have an answer, get back to me! Like I said, I agree in principle with the idea of "wait a few days and see". But only if that is equally applied across all stories. If not.... what's good for the goose is good for the gander... 

 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[Golden Duck]

9 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Apart from Brandt's own words, I agree there is no evidence that it was politically motivated. I wasn't aware that someone's own words were so suspect in a case like this! If it was a murdered democrat, we'd be having a very different conversation about this whole thing! 

It's what the highway patrol captain said. How can some of the Niewand's words, that you like, be right, while the words you don't like can be ignored?  What is that colloquial term for harvesting a small red stonefruit?

You know where counter-factual conditional arguments originate.  What you may, or may not, exclaim you choose to gamble on doesn't necessarily to reflect reality.  The NDHP website has been linked in this thread.  Other cases involving a pedestrian fatality aren't receiving the same level of media coverage.

His neighbours describe him as alcoholic nut-case prone to rampages.  He has obviously desperately dreamt up an excuse.  The unnecessary details raise the apprehension that it is a lie.  You want to take alleged words as gospel to keep playing identity politics.

[+Paranoid Android]

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No, you're making the same mistake Brandt did and insisting it is political.

No comment on post #99 I see clearly illustrating that the mainstream media avoidance claim is horse hockey.

And politics don't matter. If you're over the limit and say you can drive, you won't be believed. Right wing ratbags are trying to say this drunk who was .08, which is considered intoxicated and not in control of faculties, should be offered that dubious option so they can reach for higher moral ground.

it's as pathetic and transparent as Brandt trying to paint this as political. 

 

Gloss over the facts, that's your prerogative  

[psyche101]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I never said he was lying. I 100% accept his words about what happened. However, that does not in any way change the fact that Brandt blamed his actions on the politics of his victim as part of his 911 call! That is 100% undeniable fact!  You just don't like that fact, so you gloss over it! 

That's not anything to do with right vs left 

It's a clear indication that American politics are a huge failure and a broken system that is tearing America in two. 

It's a system that needs to be abandoned. 

People referring to Biden as a motivator only heavily support that conclusion. American politics are destructive. 

Undeniable fact is he was drunk. Not sure how drunk testimonials are regarded there in the states.

[Gromdor]

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

  

So let's change tack, then. What evidence was ever presented that Derek Chauvin was a racist and the killing of George Floyd was motivated by Floyd's skin colour? 

When you have an answer, get back to me! Like I said, I agree in principle with the idea of "wait a few days and see". But only if that is equally applied across all stories. If not.... what's good for the goose is good for the gander... 

 

Was Chauvin sentenced for being a racist?  I thought he went to jail for violating George Floyd's civil rights.

[Golden Duck]

26 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

... you are glossing over that fact because you don't like the fact that someone on the left is a violent nutcase! 

When there's nothing left, start projecting and flame-baiting.

[+Paranoid Android]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Was Chauvin sentenced for being a racist?  I thought he went to jail for violating George Floyd's civil rights.

We're talking about media representation now, not criminal proceedings! When Brandt is charged (and presumably convicted) of killing Cayler Ellingson, he won't be convicted for his politics, he'll be convicted for murdering another human being. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

Gloss over the facts, that's your prerogative  

Like the lie that the media is hiding this?

That's not true 

Like the fact that Brandt was well over the limit?

That's true.

You have glossed so much that you're now opaque.

[+Paranoid Android]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Like the lie that the media is hiding this?

That's not true 

Like the fact that Brandt was well over the limit?

That's true.

You have glossed so much that you're now opaque.

Like the fact Brandt blamed politics for the killing! 

And yes, the media IS hiding this. If it was a murdered democrat we would have already had prime time speeches from Joe Biden warning America about the "MAGA Republicans" who are such a threat to American freedom, regardless of the facts of the case. That's possibly more an indictment on Joe Biden than anything, for someone who ran on a platform of reuniting America he's done his very level best to divide it as far as he possibly can!  

But if so, then that's just more of what I said - what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[Golden Duck]

22 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Are you arguing that Brandt did not blame the murder on Ellingson belonging to an extremist Republican group as part of his 911 call? Or are you just trying to gloss over that inconvenient fact?  If he said it, then he's on record as using that as an excuse, regardless of what else happens.

"There is no evidence to support Brandt's claim on the 911 call that Mr Ellingson was a Republican extremist".

Wouldn't it have been nice if media did the same thing for every case? I mean, we still have no evidence that George Floyd's death was because of "racism", and yet we had months of riots based on that premise (edit: not saying Derek Chauvin was innocent, only questioning the motives that the mainstream media attributed to him). 

I think purporting the action of Brandt is analogous with the course-of-conduct of a person occupying a position-of-trust is perfectly valid and doesn't limp at all.

[psyche101]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

  

So let's change tack, then. What evidence was ever presented that Derek Chauvin was a racist and the killing of George Floyd was motivated by Floyd's skin colour? 

When you have an answer, get back to me! Like I said, I agree in principle with the idea of "wait a few days and see". But only if that is equally applied across all stories. If not.... what's good for the goose is good for the gander... 

 

Constitutional rights Mr YouTube law expert.

And the violation of the constitutional rights of a fourteen year old.