Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Man admits to killing teen after political dispute


el midgetron
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

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. 

There should be no difference.

In Chauven's case, he went to jail because he treated George Floyd as someone with "lesser rights" than a citizen should be granted up to the point of murdering him..  

I'm not exactly following what you are trying to equate here-  This current murder seems to be fueled by alchohol and an argument over something other than politics. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

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.:rolleyes:

I'm talking about media portrayal of events. Did the media portray the killing of George Floyd as an act of racism? What evidence was ever presented (apart from the skin colour of those involved) that racism played ANY PART at all in the story? 

And yet we now have the words of a murderer blaming politics, and you're ready to say "well the guy said it was politics, but there's no evidence of that so let's ignore that and say that this is just a violent individual whose actions have no bearing on any other group". 

Bull! You don't get to play that card after all the media misrepresentations! I'll repeat the phrase, so you get the point - what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Oh, and in case it wasn't obvious, George Floyd/Derek Chauvin is the goose in this analogy, and Cayler Ellingson/Shannon Brandt is the gander. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

Like the fact Brandt blamed politics for the killing! 

And? 

If you get caught drink driving and say you had not consumed a drop you can say what you want. Other factors indicate otherwise. 

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

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!  

BS.

Check the link post #99. It's not being hidden. That's a lie PA.

Right vs left is destroying America. Trump sent the country on a downward slope and it never recovered.

This is the fallout and animosity from lies like a stolen election, setting citizens against each other. 

American politics are a failure. A you have done is illustrate that. 

If you're trying to blame this on Biden's speech, I expect most people would consider you as well balanced as Brandt. Facts do anyway.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

There should be no difference.

In Chauven's case, he went to jail because he treated George Floyd as someone with "lesser rights" than a citizen should be granted up to the point of murdering him..  

I'm not exactly following what you are trying to equate here-  This current murder seems to be fueled by alchohol and an argument over something other than politics. 

Was Chauvin murdered because of his skin colour? If no, then why did we have months of riots fueled by the media telling us that Black Lives Matter???? If yes, what evidence was presented that Chauvin is a racist and the murder of Floyd occurred because he was black? '

Edit: Just a hint for you - no evidence was ever presented that Floyd was killed because of his skin colour, that didn't stop the media turning it into a race fuelled nightmare. So - goose and gander again! 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Was Chauvin murdered because of his skin colour? If no, then why did we have months of riots fueled by the media telling us that Black Lives Matter???? If yes, what evidence was presented that Chauvin is a racist and the murder of Floyd occurred because he was black? 

We can't discount that.  Based on the conviction we can determine that Floyd was treated with less rights than what is granted to all people.  One would have to infer by the facts of the case and general statistical numbers that it was because of his race.

His case is pretty much the opposite of this one.  Chauven never said he did it because of his race, but all the evidence seems to indicate that it was the most probable cause.

Whereas in this case, a drunken murderer makes a claim but all the evidence shows that he lied.

Edited by Gromdor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm talking about media portrayal of events. Did the media portray the killing of George Floyd as an act of racism? What evidence was ever presented (apart from the skin colour of those involved) that racism played ANY PART at all in the story? 

And yet we now have the words of a murderer blaming politics, and you're ready to say "well the guy said it was politics, but there's no evidence of that so let's ignore that and say that this is just a violent individual whose actions have no bearing on any other group". 

Bull! You don't get to play that card after all the media misrepresentations! I'll repeat the phrase, so you get the point - what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Oh, and in case it wasn't obvious, George Floyd/Derek Chauvin is the goose in this analoyg, and Cayler Ellingson/Shannon Brandt is the gander. 

I see you want to get all Old Covenant; or, is that you lack integrity so you adopt the standards of  "the other" to keep playing identity politics and whattaboutism.

Chauvin plead guilty to and was convicted of denying Floyd his Civil Rights.  Is that what you are predicting for Brandt?

I'm as certain as any member of the public that Brandt was lying.

I'll play the cards as I see them.  I'm not playing with a loaded deck or dealing from the bottom.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

17 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

We can't discount that.  Based on the conviction we can determine that Floyd was treated with less rights than what is granted to all people.  One would have to infer by the facts of the case and general statistical numbers that it was because of his race.

His case is pretty much the opposite of this one.  Chauven never said he did it because of his race, but all the evidence seems to indicate that it was the most probable cause.

Whereas in this case, a drunken murderer makes a claim but all the evidence shows that he lied.

Let's just say I disagree with everything you wrote. It is certainly NOT "the most probable cause", unless you already believe police are predisposed to be racist to black people. Which, I might add, is  a form of racism in itself. Honestly, I cannot help but read this entire post as a giant sidestep of the question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I see you want to get all Old Covenant; or, is that you lack integrity so you adopt the standards of  "the other" to keep playing identity politics and whattaboutism.

Chauvin plead guilty to and was convicted of denying Floyd his Civil Rights.  Is that what you are predicting for Brandt?

I'm as certain as any member of the public that Brandt was lying.

I'll play the cards as I see them.  I'm not playing with a loaded deck or dealing from the bottom.

I'm talking about attitudes in the media, not results of court cases. Chauvin's court case never touched on racism and yet we had months of riots all based on the media's claims that George Floyd was dead because of the colour of his skin. And now you are handwaving that away because it's inconvenient. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

And yet we now have the words of a murderer blaming politics, and you're ready to say "well the guy said it was politics, but there's no evidence of that so let's ignore that and say that this is just a violent individual whose actions have no bearing on any other group". 

 

No, the Highway Patrol Capt. Bryan Niewind said there's no evidence of politics.

 

There has been no corroboration that this was even politically motivated at all,” North Dakota Highway Patrol Capt. Bryan Niewind told The Associated Press.

 

https://apnews.com/article/biden-homicide-bismarck-north-dakota-accidents-fe2f02bfbee3c00b35c23d2a80884960

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

  

Let's just say I disagree with everything you wrote. It is certainly NOT "the most probable cause", unless you already believe police are predisposed to be racist to black people. Which, I might add, is  a form of racism in itself. Honestly, I cannot help but read this entire post as a giant sidestep of the question. 

Then since you disagree, tell me your most probable reason why Chavin treated Floyd (and was convicted because of it) as a person with less rights that everyone else?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm talking about attitudes in the media, not results of court cases. Chauvin's court case never touched on racism and yet we had months of riots all based on the media's claims that George Floyd was dead because of the colour of his skin. And now you are handwaving that away because it's inconvenient. 

What's to handwave? Chavin is in jail after being convicted.  He did a crime, people rioted, and then he was jailed for his crime.  The mere fact that he is guilty shows that the rioter's outrage was justified.

Compare it to what is happening here.  We have people trying to stir outrage (and maybe riots because of the way you are bringing Chauvin and George Floyd in?) over something that has turned out to be a lie.  Are you perhaps being like El Midget and still desperately trying to stir outrage and somehow reshape the facts back towards your preformed vision of the events?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm talking about attitudes in the media, not results of court cases. Chauvin's court case never touched on racism and yet we had months of riots all based on the media's claims that George Floyd was dead because of the colour of his skin. And now you are handwaving that away because it's inconvenient. 

Chavin's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 242 wasn't dependent on "animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim."  Why would a court case need to establish a motivation by race?  You're building a strawman.

A reasonable person doesn't have to cop these fallacies you are trying to present.  I'm not sure you know what handwaving means. 

Let me know when Brandt's defence lawyer brings up Chauvin as some form of precedent.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Chavin's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 242 wasn't dependent on "animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim."  Why would a court case need to establish a motivation by race?  You're building a strawman.

A reasonable person doesn't have to cop these fallacies you are trying to present.  I'm not sure you know what handwaving means. 

Let me know when Brandt's defence lawyer brings up Chauvin as some form of precedent.

I'm talking about media response,  not judicial results.   Pretty sure that was obvious, since I've literally said that over and over again!!!

Are you denying the media painted the story as motivated by race?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Then since you disagree, tell me your most probable reason why Chavin treated Floyd (and was convicted because of it) as a person with less rights that everyone else?

I watched the trial in depth. I would say the most likely reason is human error! Chauvin messed up,  big time.  Possibly/probably due to negligence.

In my opinion,  the prosecution only proved manslaughter,  so I have no opinion on the jury finding guilt for murder!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

What's to handwave? Chavin is in jail after being convicted.  He did a crime, people rioted, and then he was jailed for his crime.  The mere fact that he is guilty shows that the rioter's outrage was justified.

How the hell is that rational? I

That is NOT the logical conclusion to draw!

 

21 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Compare it to what is happening here.  We have people trying to stir outrage (and maybe riots because of the way you are bringing Chauvin and George Floyd in?) over something that has turned out to be a lie.  Are you perhaps being like El Midget and still desperately trying to stir outrage and somehow reshape the facts back towards your preformed vision of the events?

All I see is you minimising Brandt's 911 call!

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I watched the trial in depth. I would say the most likely reason is human error! Chauvin messed up,  big time.  Possibly/probably due to negligence.

In my opinion,  the prosecution only proved manslaughter,  so I have no opinion on the jury finding guilt for murder!

Ah, that isn't the crimes Golden Duck and I were talking about.  We were talking about  18 U.S.C. § 242 which is deprevation of civil rights.  He was found guilty of treating Floyd as a "lesser human".

Edited by Gromdor
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

How the hell is that rational? I

That is NOT the logical conclusion to draw!

 

All I see is you minimising Brandt's 911 call!

His statement is a proven lie.... He didn't have a political argument with the kid and the kid wasn't a Republican.   What more needs to be discussed about it?

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Ah that isn't the crimes Golden Duck and I were talking about.  We were talking about  18 U.S.C. § 242 which is deprevation of civil rights.  He was found guilty of treating Floyd as a "lesser human".

If I kidnap a human being,  it's fair to say I am depriving them of their civil rights.  If I murder someone,  I am depriving them if their civil rights.   Their skin colour is irrelevant to the deprivation of liberty! I therefore see no reason why the civil rights Chauvin denied him were because of racism!

And plenty of reasons why I believe it's not due to race. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

If I kidnap a human being,  it's fair to say I am depriving them of their civil rights.  If I murder someone,  I am depriving them if their civil rights.   Their skin colour is irrelevant to the deprivation of liberty! I therefore see no reason why the civil rights Chauvin denied him were because of racism!

And plenty of reasons why I believe it's not due to race. 

True, it could be because of personal dislike.  Unfortunately, people who identify with George Floyd and have shared similar experiences thought otherwise and rioted.  Next time a police officer violates  18 U.S.C. § 242, he should perhaps say, "Hey, I'm breaking the law and treating you as a sub-human because of X instead of your race!" and people with similiar skin color would be less inclined to riot.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm talking about media response,  not judicial results.   Pretty sure that was obvious, since I've literally said that over and over again!!!

Are you denying the media painted the story as motivated by race?

Your words were...

42 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Chauvin's court case never touched on racism...

What significance do you think your memory of the media coverage plays?

It would be a more relevant question be to ask about the finding by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights in their Investigation into the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department.  The MDHR state in the first paragraph of their findings

Quote

The Minnesota Department of Human Rights finds there is probable cause that the City and MPD engage in a pattern or practice of race discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

https://mn.gov/mdhr/assets/Investigation into the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department_tcm1061-526417.pdf

However, obvious your claims may appear to you, or how convincing they may appear to others clouded by a similar bias - they simply don't have any significance. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

His statement is a proven lie.... He didn't have a political argument with the kid and the kid wasn't a Republican.   What more needs to be discussed about it?

I'll agree with you when the mainstream media stops painting left wing stories in fake lights! Until then... what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

If I kidnap a human being,  it's fair to say I am depriving them of their civil rights.  If I murder someone,  I am depriving them if their civil rights.   Their skin colour is irrelevant to the deprivation of liberty! I therefore see no reason why the civil rights Chauvin denied him were because of racism!

And plenty of reasons why I believe it's not due to race. 

As explained earlier to find someone guilty of violation 18 U.S.C. § 242 - "It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.".  Why would a lawyer spend time trying to establish something that is not necessary?

You can have as a many reasons as you feel like.  The investigation has been completed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

'll agree with you when the mainstream media stops painting left wing stories in fake lights! Until then... what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Has that day not arrived? 

The mainstream media is jumping in this blaming Biden. Yet it's not politically motivated according to ensuing investigation. 

They are outright making stuff up to demonize the left. I'd have thought you would be cracking champagne. So now what?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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 young Republican, etc...  All of which is being proven untrue. 

Then he probably shouldn't have made the claim, huh?  The fact of WHY he did it is drawn totally from the man's own words.  I don't understand what's so complicated about it.  For my part, the issue is his attitude at the time these events occurred.  Drunk or NOT, the man chose a "reason" for his actions that he believed would JUSTIFY THEM.  Now, apparently he was drunk, had a history of being a belligerent drunk, and acted out of a hatred for this kid.  I think the most important aspect of this tragedy is that Brandt's mindset was that he was JUSTIFIED in killing this kid because he was perceived as a "Republican extremist"

Our president made the case that "MAGA Republicans" were in fact a danger to the nation and to our institutions.  I'd be much surprised if many here didn't agree with him.  It certainly looks like Brandt believed the rhetoric.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.