Man admits to killing teen after political dispute

[el midgetron]

4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Well, the investigators have said there is no evidence this kid was part of an extremist group.  Heck, there is no evidence that he was conservative/republican at all.  They have also said there was no evidence that they had a politica dispute according to witnesses.

North Dakota official says 'no evidence' supports suspect's claim teen was Republican 'extremist' (msn.com)

The truth of matter is easy enough to find out, but strangely no one wants to wait and you get posters (like above) who are already making claims prematurely.

The “investigators” must be liberals…. I mean, was there ever a question that this teen was legitimately part of a “republican extremist” group? Of course not. It’s just the same delusion that majority of Democrats operate under. 
 

The only thing we know for use is the violent extremist in this case believes the same delusional rhetoric that the POTUS pushes. 
 

 

[Gromdor]

Just now, el midgetron said:

The “investigators” must be liberals…. I mean, was there ever a question that this teen was legitimately part of a “republican extremist” group? Of course not. It’s just the same delusion that majority of Democrats operate under. 
 

The only thing we know for use is the violent extremist in this case believes the same delusional rhetoric that the POTUS pushes. 
 

 

The investigators are not. liberals.  They are the local police/highway patrol of a deep red state.... 

See that's the problem of posting a conclusion before the facts that would logically lead to that conclusion are investigated and revealed.

[Gromdor]

Here, I'll post another article: Shannon Brandt's political affiliation: Man accused of fatally hitting teen with car over "political views" released (sportskeeda.com)

In a statement to the Associated Press, Highway Patrol Captain Bryan Niewind said:

"There has been no corroboration that this was even politically motivated at all."

Neiwind went on to say that besides Brandt, no witnesses at the scene could corroborate that politics was a factor in the argument between Brandt and Elingson.- from the article.

[el midgetron]

…….except the fact the violent extremist said he thought his teenage victim was a “republican extremist” that was out to get him. That is basically is an unavoidable political motivation. 

Basically Gromdor is reading what he wants in these statements. “No corroborating” evidence doesn’t negate the nutcase himself saying it was politically motivated. 

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, el midgetron said:

…….except the fact the violent extremist said he thought his teenage victim was a “republican extremist” that was out to get him. That is basically is an unavoidable political motivation. 

Basically Gromdor is reading what he wants in these statements. “No corroborating” evidence doesn’t negate the nutcase himself saying it was politically motivated. 

The violent extremist that you don't know the political affiliation of?  Who killed a kid who isn't a Republican? After arguing in front of witnesses that say that the argument wasn't political?

 

[el midgetron]

35 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

The violent extremist that you don't know the political affiliation of?  Who killed a kid who isn't a Republican? After arguing in front of witnesses that say that the argument wasn't political?

Neither of their political affiliations are even important, We have a psycho who by his own admission killed a 18 year old because he believed he was a republican extremist. That’s it. That makes it politically motivated. 
 

You desperately trying to make excuses for the murderer doesn’t change the fact the murderer’s delusional beliefs about the political affiliation of his victim make the killing inherently political. 
 

The people arguing this wasn’t  a politically motivated killing were the same ones arguing that the death of George Floyd was racially motivated. No evidence of racial motivation = racially motivated. The Murderer calling his victim a “republican extremist” = no political motivation. You do not traffic in reality, 

[Gromdor]

7 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Neither of their political affiliations are even important, We have a psycho who by his own admission killed a 18 year old because he believed he was a republican extremist. That’s it. That makes it politically motivated. 
 

You desperately trying to make excuses for the murderer doesn’t change the fact the murderer’s delusional beliefs about the political affiliation of his victim make the killing inherently political. 
 

The people arguing this wasn’t  a politically motivated killing were the same ones arguing that the death of George Floyd was racially motivated. No evidence of racial motivation = racially motivated. The Murderer calling his victim a “republican extremist” = no political motivation. You do not traffic in reality, 

Eh, you know what.  I am patient enough to wait a few more days for reality to bring it's truth bat in and sort stuff out.

But I have to say right off- you have some weird logic.  If I kill a white man while drunk and say, "it was because he was black", police might say I was racist, but more likely than not, they would think it was for another reason and I am just babbling excuses.

[preacherman76]

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Well, he just found guilty on seven counts.  I am curious on what the sentence is going to be.

But I see your point.  The guy's whole defense was that he was dumb, caught up in the moment, and mislead by Qanon and other fringe groups.  The jury still found him guilty- after all, it was he who did the crimes they are sitting on jury for and not the guys that brainwashed him.

Where was the trial, DC??

[Gromdor]

10 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Where was the trial, DC??

Eh strike that.  Yeah, it was DC.

Edited September 24, 2022 by Gromdor

[preacherman76]

Damn, most of the people just ended up with trespassing. He should have known better. Thinking about that day, I would have walked away soon as it got violent. 

[Gromdor]

He had Timothy Kelly as a judge.  A Trump appointee.

[el midgetron]

31 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Eh, you know what.  I am patient enough to wait a few more days for reality to bring it's truth bat in and sort stuff out.

But I have to say right off- you have some weird logic.  If I kill a white man while drunk and say, "it was because he was black", police might say I was racist, but more likely than not, they would think it was for another reason and I am just babbling excuses.

Exactly, because calling someone a “republican extremist” is just like calling a white person “black”. A better analogy to illustrate your position would be if he killed a black person and then told the police he killed the “N-word” and then you came out and claimed there was no evidence it was racially motivated. 
 

murderer: “I killed the “Republican extremist”

Gromdor: “I am going to wait for the facts to come out before deciding if it was politically motivated”.
 

Of course in reality, Democrats routinely accuse people of being Republican extremists. It no mystery where this nut job got the idea, 

[Myles]

3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Well, the investigators have said there is no evidence this kid was part of an extremist group.  Heck, there is no evidence that he was conservative/republican at all.  They have also said there was no evidence that they had a politica dispute according to witnesses.

 

I agree.   What we do know is that the killer said he thought he was ao he didn't have much of an issue running him down.   

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, el midgetron said:

The people arguing this wasn’t  a politically motivated killing were the same ones arguing that the death of George Floyd was racially motivated. No evidence of racial motivation = racially motivated. The Murderer calling his victim a “republican extremist” = no political motivation. You do not traffic in reality, 

Can you prove Captain Niewand argued the killing of Floyd was racially motivated?

[Gromdor]

35 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Exactly, because calling someone a “republican extremist” is just like calling a white person “black”. A better analogy to illustrate your position would be if he killed a black person and then told the police he killed the “N-word” and then you came out and claimed there was no evidence it was racially motivated. 
 

murderer: “I killed the “Republican extremist”

Gromdor: “I am going to wait for the facts to come out before deciding if it was politically motivated”.
 

Of course in reality, Democrats routinely accuse people of being Republican extremists. It no mystery where this nut job got the idea, 

Just out of curiosity, could you provide me the exact quote on what the deranged killer said?  I can't seem to find it and it's pointless to discuss hearsay.

[el midgetron]

5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Can you prove Captain Niewand argued the killing of Floyd was racially motivated?

I’m talking about people of a certain political persuasion, not specific individuals. 

[spartan max2]

 

Guess it's official. Jan 6th was Trump's fault. Going by the logic you all have that a lone psycho killer is Bidens fault lol

Quote

"If the president’s giving you almost an order to do something,” he said, “I felt obligated to do that.”

 

Mr. Thompson’s story is not unusual. At several points during the Justice Department’s vast investigation of the Capitol attack, many people charged with crimes have sought to blame Mr. Trump in various ways for their actions, mostly at pretrial bail hearings or at sentencings after pleading guilty.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/13/us/politics/jan-6-suspect-trump.html

I know I know. The mass organized planned event is totally not Trumps fault, but the random drunk killer of course did it because of Bidens one speech 

Edited September 24, 2022 by spartan max2

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

7 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Well, the investigators have said there is no evidence this kid was part of an extremist group.  Heck, there is no evidence that he was conservative/republican at all.  They have also said there was no evidence that they had a politica dispute according to witnesses.

North Dakota official says 'no evidence' supports suspect's claim teen was Republican 'extremist' (msn.com)

The truth of matter is easy enough to find out, but strangely no one wants to wait and you get posters (like above) who are already making claims prematurely.

Of bloody course he wasn’t a extremist Republican, he was a (probably drunk) teenager. The politics of the attacker is what is in question, and the motivation he had for the attack. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

4 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Just out of curiosity, could you provide me the exact quote on what the deranged killer said?  I can't seem to find it and it's pointless to discuss hearsay.

A North Dakota man who admitted to running over and killing a teenager says he did it because he thought the teen was part of a “Republican extremist group” that was out to get him, according to court documents...

...According to a probable cause affidavit published by Law & Crime, Brandt told investigators he and the younger man had a verbal altercation about politics at a local street dance. “Brandt indicated that the pedestrian called some people and Brandt feared they would come for him,” the affidavit states. “Brandt admitted to State Radio that he punched the pedestrian and that the pedestrian was part of a Republican extremist group.”

After Brandt allegedly ran down Ellingson, he left the scene and went home, but told police he later returned and called 911, telling the dispatcher that he “struck the pedestrian because the pedestrian was threatening him.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/north-dakota-man-shannon-brandt-released-after-running-over-teen-cayler-ellingson-court-docs-show

[Gromdor]

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

A North Dakota man who admitted to running over and killing a teenager says he did it because he thought the teen was part of a “Republican extremist group” that was out to get him, according to court documents...

...According to a probable cause affidavit published by Law & Crime, Brandt told investigators he and the younger man had a verbal altercation about politics at a local street dance. “Brandt indicated that the pedestrian called some people and Brandt feared they would come for him,” the affidavit states. “Brandt admitted to State Radio that he punched the pedestrian and that the pedestrian was part of a Republican extremist group.”

After Brandt allegedly ran down Ellingson, he left the scene and went home, but told police he later returned and called 911, telling the dispatcher that he “struck the pedestrian because the pedestrian was threatening him.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/north-dakota-man-shannon-brandt-released-after-running-over-teen-cayler-ellingson-court-docs-show

See that doesn't help.  That's just a report of what he allegedly said to the radio station and not even the quote.  And just a generalization of what the radio station thought he said at that.  Being a 9-11 call, it should have been recorded (North Dakota State radio handles the 9-11 calls)

The situation smells fishy to me.  The fact that it was reported to conservative media to spread, the fact that all the details are obscured even though it should be easily obtained/readily available, and the whole circumstances of the situation to begin with makes me think that is being stirred up to agitate the emotional and easily led (<cough> El Midget <cough>)

The investigators and witnesses describing the details of the event contradicting what the murder said raises my eyebrow as well.   But for some reason people here seem to think that the drunk murderer is more credible than the witnesses.  Why not wait a few days for the truth to come out?  Gromdor still could be wrong.

[Myles]

I think biden was in his head.

[+Link of Hyrule]

15 hours ago, Gromdor said:

See that doesn't help.  That's just a report of what he allegedly said to the radio station and not even the quote.  And just a generalization of what the radio station thought he said at that.  Being a 9-11 call, it should have been recorded (North Dakota State radio handles the 9-11 calls)

The situation smells fishy to me.  The fact that it was reported to conservative media to spread, the fact that all the details are obscured even though it should be easily obtained/readily available, and the whole circumstances of the situation to begin with makes me think that is being stirred up to agitate the emotional and easily led (<cough> El Midget <cough>)

The investigators and witnesses describing the details of the event contradicting what the murder said raises my eyebrow as well.   But for some reason people here seem to think that the drunk murderer is more credible than the witnesses. 

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:

Quote

North Dakota cops say 'no evidence' Cayler Ellingson was 'Republican extremist' or death 'involved politics'

"We have uncovered no evidence to support Mr. Brandt’s claim on the 911 call he made that Cayler Ellingson is a Republican extremist, nor that this incident involved politics," Niewind said. "This is a terrible tragedy for the Ellingson family. We continue to investigate what led up to the incident, the crash itself and the claim made by Brandt. But, at this time there has been no evidence to corroborate Brandt’s statement."

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:  

 

15 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Why not wait a few days for the truth to come out?  Gromdor still could be wrong.

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

Edited September 25, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[Gromdor]

1 hour 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

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.

[psyche101]

On 9/24/2022 at 11:57 PM, el midgetron said:

 

 

 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=cayler+Ellingson&oq=cayler+Ellingson+&aqs=chrome..69i57.9948j0j7&client=ms-android-vivo-rvo3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Just now, psyche101 said:

https://www.google.com/search?q=cayler+Ellingson&oq=cayler+Ellingson+&aqs=chrome..69i57.9948j0j7&client=ms-android-vivo-rvo3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

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