Jump to content

Darrell brooks and the nature of evil


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In this day and age, there’s no excuse for making assumptions and remaining uninformed about almost any subject. In this particular case, all one has to do is perform a Google search under the search terms “Darrell Brooks racist” and scores of articles and ‘search hits’ appear that combine to leave little doubt in one’s mind that Brooks was motivated to deliberately plow into that Christmas parade crowd because it was mostly composed of white people. After learning about Brook’s virulently racist history and the fact that Waukesha, Wisconsin is only 3% black (another thing I looked up), it seems highly unlikely his attack wasn’t motivated by his hatred of white people.

Did you watch the trial? It doesn’t appear so. This murderer is a narcissist who enjoys hurting anyone and everyone. Including POC. Including family members. He definitely hates white people, it’s abundantly clear in his past social media posts, and in his behavior over past years. But he mowed down people at the parade because he was pissed off at the mother of one of his children, and made a deliberate decision to use his vehicle as a weapon to kill people. He didn’t give a damn what color they were. You yourself stated that Waukesha is only 3% black, so the skin color of his victims was dictated by that. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It seems that good and evil acts are easy to identify. Good or evil people would require Godlike knowledge not available to mere mortals IMO. 

Agreed.  And yet, here in our mortal probation, with systems of justice run by fallen error-prone agenda-driven sinful humans, judges and juries are forced to grapple with such things and do their best. 

For years, I've yearned to see pure Godly justice up close and personal.  I figure I've seen something pretty close, at times when forgiveness and repentance meet in this world.  But for times when forgiveness can't be given in this life (because folks who would need to extend it were killed)?  Justice gets so much harder.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Did you watch the trial? It doesn’t appear so. This murderer is a narcissist who enjoys hurting anyone and everyone. Including POC. Including family members. He definitely hates white people, it’s abundantly clear in his past social media posts, and in his behavior over past years. But he mowed down people at the parade because he was pissed off at the mother of one of his children, and made a deliberate decision to use his vehicle as a weapon to kill people. He didn’t give a damn what color they were. You yourself stated that Waukesha is only 3% black, so the skin color of his victims was dictated by that. 

Yeah, not sure if some of his more racist anti-white rants and history made it into the trial or not.  I watched highlights, not the entire thing, so I may be incorrect.  

Does anyone know if this tweet of his was entered into evidence?

darrell-brooks-social-posts-01.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1536

 

Does anyone who followed the trial, know if they mentioned this timeline?
- 19 November 2021: Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges.  Media frenzy and social unrest starts up again.  People are mad at the system, mad at cops, mad at what they consider racist America with it's racist systems and racist justice and white privilege. 
- 20 November 2021: Brooks ran down all the white folks at the parade.

Heck, does anyone besides me remember what the evening of 19 November looked like in Wisconsin? 

Anyone remember this quote from the Wisconsin director of the ACLU?  "Rittenhouse’s trial highlights an urgent need for reform for both police and the criminal legal system. The system is broken, and it desperately needs to be fixed”

Anyone remember the NAACP's tweet?  

Yeah, I'm not impressed by the legal analysis of folks who just can't for the life of them see what race might have had to do with Darryl Brooks' actions that day.

 

 

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, not sure if some of his more racist anti-white rants and history made it into the trial or not.  I watched highlights, not the entire thing, so I may be incorrect.  

Does anyone know if this tweet of his was entered into evidence?

darrell-brooks-social-posts-01.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1536

 

Does anyone who followed the trial, know if they mentioned this timeline?
- 19 November 2021: Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges.  Media frenzy and social unrest starts up again.  People are mad at the system, mad at cops, mad at what they consider racist America with it's racist systems and racist justice and white privilege. 
- 20 November 2021: Brooks ran down all the white folks at the parade.

Heck, does anyone besides me remember what the evening of 19 November looked like in Wisconsin? 

Anyone remember this quote from the Wisconsin director of the ACLU?  "Rittenhouse’s trial highlights an urgent need for reform for both police and the criminal legal system. The system is broken, and it desperately needs to be fixed”

Anyone remember the NAACP's tweet?  

Yeah, I'm not impressed by the legal analysis of folks who just can't for the life of them see what race might have had to do with Darryl Brooks' actions that day.

 

 

It was November 21. 
 

I don’t recall if the things you are asking about were brought up in the trial. I’m re- watching from the beginning, so I will try to pay attention to that. 
 

I know they’ve been walking a fine line with prior acts of anyone involved in the trial. 
 

I do not believe- and I feel the trial shows this - that this was a racially motivated attack on white people.  This attack came directly after this killer was involved in a domestic altercation with the mother of one of his children. He was enraged with her. He drove directly from that altercation to the parade and deliberately ran over people. Given that he approached his victims from behind, and that they were bundled up for winter weather, I very much doubt that he could even tell the race of any of his victims.  Again, the majority of people in Waukesha are white, so the odds are high that most, if not all, of his victims would be white.  I don’t know the race of all of his previous victims, but the ones I do know about - Erika Patterson, various family members, etc. - are all people of color. 

Does he hate white people? Absolutely. Does he hate Jews? Absolutely. But he abuses and harms everyone who crosses his path, regardless of color. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Impairment," perhaps, is in the eye of the beholder.  If I had to guess, I would say that Darrell Brooks doesn't see himself as "impaired" because, it seems to him, his way of doing things (manipulating others, blaming them for his misfortunes and misdeeds, taking advantage of them, and so on, ad infinitum) has gotten him what he wants.  In light of that circumstance, why change?

Practically everything associated with personality measurement is, imo.  Judging what is healthy behaviour and what isn’t is very dependent on culture.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

 Brooks was motivated to deliberately plow into that Christmas parade crowd because it was mostly composed of white people. After learning about Brook’s virulently racist history and the fact that Waukesha, Wisconsin is only 3% black (another thing I looked up), it seems highly unlikely his attack wasn’t motivated by his hatred of white people.

In no way am I claiming he wasn’t motivated by hatred for whites, but from his behaviour he hated more than just whites.  I am saying it seems odd to focus on the whites in the crowd as potential victims when there were likely POC there as well (the nonwhite population is over 20% in Waukesha).  It is highly improbable it was a purely white crowd.  He obviously imo had no care whether or not a black person got hit.   This was not a Black Lives Matter person no matter what he claims, this was a No Lives Matter guy (there might be a few people who he cared about enough not to hurt, but he was known for beating or threatening family, his girlfriend, other blacks as well white people, so I have my doubts on that).  I have no issue with saying this guy was racist and out to injure as many whites as he could (though Raingirl demonstrates it isn’t clear that was a primary motivation in this instance).  What I find weird is to only focus on whites as his potential victims in the crowd.  U less someone has documentation this was a purely white crowd, why is it being labeled that way when it comes to his potential victims?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

It was November 21. 
 

I don’t recall if the things you are asking about were brought up in the trial. I’m re- watching from the beginning, so I will try to pay attention to that. 
 

I know they’ve been walking a fine line with prior acts of anyone involved in the trial. 
 

I do not believe- and I feel the trial shows this - that this was a racially motivated attack on white people.  This attack came directly after this killer was involved in a domestic altercation with the mother of one of his children. He was enraged with her. He drove directly from that altercation to the parade and deliberately ran over people. Given that he approached his victims from behind, and that they were bundled up for winter weather, I very much doubt that he could even tell the race of any of his victims.  Again, the majority of people in Waukesha are white, so the odds are high that most, if not all, of his victims would be white.  I don’t know the race of all of his previous victims, but the ones I do know about - Erika Patterson, various family members, etc. - are all people of color. 

Does he hate white people? Absolutely. Does he hate Jews? Absolutely. But he abuses and harms everyone who crosses his path, regardless of color. 

This…thank you. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, not sure if some of his more racist anti-white rants and history made it into the trial or not.  I watched highlights, not the entire thing, so I may be incorrect.  

Does anyone know if this tweet of his was entered into evidence?

darrell-brooks-social-posts-01.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1536

 

Does anyone who followed the trial, know if they mentioned this timeline?
- 19 November 2021: Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges.  Media frenzy and social unrest starts up again.  People are mad at the system, mad at cops, mad at what they consider racist America with it's racist systems and racist justice and white privilege. 
20 November 2021: Brooks ran down all the white folks at the parade.

Heck, does anyone besides me remember what the evening of 19 November looked like in Wisconsin? 

Anyone remember this quote from the Wisconsin director of the ACLU?  "Rittenhouse’s trial highlights an urgent need for reform for both police and the criminal legal system. The system is broken, and it desperately needs to be fixed”

Anyone remember the NAACP's tweet?  

Yeah, I'm not impressed by the legal analysis of folks who just can't for the life of them see what race might have had to do with Darryl Brooks' actions that day.

 

 

Just a quick add on to what rain girl said. He did not hit “all the white people.” Yes he killed six white people but he injured 60+ others as well. It’s hard to find any info on the injured but at least one was a POC (Hispanic specifically). I live in a town with similar majority white non-Hispanic populations (though far smaller black pop) and if the same thing went down with a suv, there would be no easy way to just pick off white/white looking goers. 

I’ve also paid more attention to a couple high profile violent hate crimes that have been in the news in the last couple years. Especially the arbery one but some of the El Paso and buffalo shootings. They all had solid evidence of racial motivation, specifically targeting a person/people due to racial antipathy. Etc. They also have separate trials for the murders and hate crimes (murders are usually state level, hate crimes are usually federal). So It’s unlikely they placed that into evidence, particularly if they’re going to try a hate crime case. For example the Arbery murder trial carefully removed almost all race talk from the state trial. That was introduced in the federal trial that had them convicted.
 

But I doubt this reaches the level of race based criminal intent. Most of the previous ones I mentioned have clear and unambiguous connections to their racial prejudices factoring into their crimes and behaviors. The two closest in behavior (mass murders) included people driving well out of their way with clear racial hate records and later justifications for their murders found. The one more similar in evidence entails a clear singular victim who fit their racist remarks, suspicions, and behaviors. The clearest motivation isn’t racial in this case, it’s simply rage and opportunity. No previous racial patterns in other acts of violence. No indícation of purposeful targeting in this case. And the weapon of choice is not accurate in who it would kill or maim…nor does he show any preferences to who he runs over. So this is by no means a clear cut case of racially motivated crime, IMHO. 
 

with luv, 

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...