Darrell Brooks found guilty of first-degree intentional homicide for driving his SUV through a crowd in Wisconsin

[jc456]

So contrary to the corporate media's narrative, it actually was the man who committed the crime, not the car.

whew, I was starting to worry about being able to own an SUV.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Glue his feet to the street and run him down with a truck and show it on TV as a warning to others....

LOL

Maybe i wouldn't laugh if i knew for sure you were saying this in all seriousness.

But in any case, I found this:

Darrell Brooks found guilty of first-degree intentional homicide in Waukesha Christmas parade massacre

I guess he broke down when he heard the verdict.

so his motto was Life for me but not for thee... Did he actually think he would WIN (?) in which case, he greatly underestimated the US justice system

I tend to think the OJ verdict was a one -off , that most trials are fair and juries take their duty seriously.. Still, the OJ thing sticks in my mind. That guy was guilty as could be in my view, formed after reading just about every book available on the case (Today I have better reading choices)

 

[notmyfault2020]

So contrary to the corporate media's narrative, it actually was the man who committed the crime, not the car.

laugh.. the jury appears to agree with you, not them. It happens. Thank God it happens

 

[candycorn]

Another win for the good guys

 

[jc456]

laugh.. the jury appears to agree with you, not them. It happens. Thank God it happens

Brooks did his best to blame the suv in his closing statement. Ford had a recall, he couldn’t stop and yada yada.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Brooks did his best to blame the suv in his closing statement. Ford had a recall, he couldn’t stop and yada yada.

If he had mentioned the recall during the trial, it would have been ok. But he mentioned it in closing, and was rightly objected to and upheld. Closings are not the time for new evidence.

 

[jc456]

If he had mentioned the recall during the trail, it would have been ok. But he mentioned it in closing, and was rightly objected to and upheld. Closings are not the time for new evidence.

Yep, wife and I said that, why didn’t you introduce it into evidence? I found it interesting he admitted it was his car and he was driving in that close! We were laughing!!

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yep, wife and I said that, why didn’t you introduce it into evidence? I found it interesting he admitted it was his car and he was driving in that close! We were laughing!!

The guy was his own worst enemy. He literally said "this wasn't done on purpose" in his opening statement. Um....if you aren't the one who did it, how would you know if it was on purpose or not?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

He'll likely now file an appeal on the grounds he was not properly defended.

 

[jc456]

He'll likely now file an appeal on the grounds he was not properly defended.

I watched the DA and she said they were careful for that ploy. He can file, but he was allowed to participate. Even to the point in his closing statement he said the jury had the power to nullify which is a bozo no no in court after being told in a ruling. She said they decided to allow him to say it, object to it have it sustained and he can't say he wasn't allowed. That was the biggest one they were afraid of. They figured out how to bypass it in the long run. He gone.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Good news. Life in prison is what the creep deserves.

Too bad the death penalty wasn't on the table.

 

[surada]

Too bad the death penalty wasn't on the table.

Does Wisconsin have the death penalty?

 

[Concerned American]

So contrary to the corporate media's narrative, it actually was the man who committed the crime, not the car.

Was the vehicle legally registered and insured?

 

[jc456]

Was the vehicle legally registered and insured?

It was his mother’s

 

[Concerned American]

It was his mother’s

Is she being held responsible because she didn't prevent it from being used in a crime?

 

[struth]

another demafasict getting justice he deserves

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Does Wisconsin have the death penalty?

No.

 

[jc456]

Is she being held responsible because she didn't prevent it from being used in a crime?

outstanding post!!!! thanks. I never thought about it.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I watched the DA and she said they were careful for that ploy. He can file, but he was allowed to participate. Even to the point in his closing statement he said the jury had the power to nullify which is a bozo no no in court after being told in a ruling. She said they decided to allow him to say it, object to it have it sustained and he can't say he wasn't allowed. That was the biggest one they were afraid of. They figured out how to bypass it in the long run. He gone.

Good, I hope it sticks!

 

[JoeB131]

The stupid asshole Democrats in Wisconsin did away with the death penalty.

Uh, Wisconsin abolished the Death Penalty in 1853!

Wisconsin Court System - Articles on Wisconsin

www.wicourts.gov

So, um, no, it wasn't the "Democrats"