Bar owner that killed black protester commits suicide after black DA hired and decided to attack

[pknopp]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

You condemn me for not reading the link but you are then asking me questions about what is in it?

Answer the question

Read your link.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

WHat decision did I make?

That he could be guilty of a crime

I never made that decision.

What’s stopping you from making a decision did you see the video?

I don't have all the evidence.

 

[Redcurtain]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

You condemn me for not reading the link but you are then asking me questions about what is in it?

Answer the question

Read your link.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

WHat decision did I make?

That he could be guilty of a crime

I never made that decision.

What’s stopping you from making a decision did you see the video?

I don't have all the evidence.

I’ll ask you again, for the 5th time DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO YES OR NO

 

[pknopp]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

You condemn me for not reading the link but you are then asking me questions about what is in it?

Answer the question

Read your link.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

WHat decision did I make?

That he could be guilty of a crime

I never made that decision.

What’s stopping you from making a decision did you see the video?

I don't have all the evidence.

I’ll ask you again, for the 5th time DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO YES OR NO

Yes.

I'll ask you again. What is your argument here? That the system is corrupt?

 

[Redcurtain]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

You condemn me for not reading the link but you are then asking me questions about what is in it?

Answer the question

Read your link.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

WHat decision did I make?

That he could be guilty of a crime

I never made that decision.

What’s stopping you from making a decision did you see the video?

I don't have all the evidence.

I’ll ask you again, for the 5th time DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO YES OR NO

Yes.

Guess what’s Sherlock THATS ALL THE EVIDENCE LOL

 

[freyasman]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

Post the link because I don't see any of that in the one upthread.

 

[BlueGin]

Seems the grand jury after being presented with all the evidence didn't buy the self defense argument. Previously to the protests a full investigation likely never happens.

Grand juries only get to hear one side. It's easy for an unscrupulous DA to get an indictment.

That's what a trial is for.

Yup. And the State bankrupted this poor guy first, then denied him a way of making a living. Typical tactics of a criminal legal system.

That’s exactly what they do. It’s disgusting.

What are you arguing here? That the justice system is screwed up?

Judges,DA’s etc...prey on low income people. Run up the Legal tab with a multitude of mandatory hoops you have to jump through ...evaluations, counseling, lawyer fees ...and then drag everything out hoping you will run out of money.

They are predatory...especially liberal ones.

But people should voluntarily cede their civil rights to allow this process to judge them?

Voters need to pay attention to what state lawmakers and judges they are voting in and giving power to.

 

[Redcurtain]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

Post the link because I don't see any of that in the one upthread.

I didn’t see it either

 

[pknopp]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

You condemn me for not reading the link but you are then asking me questions about what is in it?

Answer the question

Read your link.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

WHat decision did I make?

That he could be guilty of a crime

I never made that decision.

What’s stopping you from making a decision did you see the video?

I don't have all the evidence.

I’ll ask you again, for the 5th time DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO YES OR NO

Yes.

Guess what’s Sherlock THATS ALL THE EVIDENCE LOL

You don't get to make that decision.

 

[pknopp]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

Post the link because I don't see any of that in the one upthread.

It's in the original link.

 

[pknopp]

Seems the grand jury after being presented with all the evidence didn't buy the self defense argument. Previously to the protests a full investigation likely never happens.

Grand juries only get to hear one side. It's easy for an unscrupulous DA to get an indictment.

That's what a trial is for.

Yup. And the State bankrupted this poor guy first, then denied him a way of making a living. Typical tactics of a criminal legal system.

That’s exactly what they do. It’s disgusting.

What are you arguing here? That the justice system is screwed up?

Judges,DA’s etc...prey on low income people. Run up the Legal tab with a multitude of mandatory hoops you have to jump through ...evaluations, counseling, lawyer fees ...and then drag everything out hoping you will run out of money.

They are predatory...especially liberal ones.

But people should voluntarily cede their civil rights to allow this process to judge them?

Voters need to pay attention to what state lawmakers and judges they are voting in and giving power to.

Funny how everyone is avoiding this question. Why is that?

 

[Redcurtain]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

You condemn me for not reading the link but you are then asking me questions about what is in it?

Answer the question

Read your link.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

WHat decision did I make?

That he could be guilty of a crime

I never made that decision.

What’s stopping you from making a decision did you see the video?

I don't have all the evidence.

I’ll ask you again, for the 5th time DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO YES OR NO

Yes.

Guess what’s Sherlock THATS ALL THE EVIDENCE LOL

You don't get to make that decision.

Yes I kinda do unless you saw another video

 

[freyasman]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

Post the link because I don't see any of that in the one upthread.

It's in the original link.

Where?

 

[pknopp]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

You condemn me for not reading the link but you are then asking me questions about what is in it?

Answer the question

Read your link.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

WHat decision did I make?

That he could be guilty of a crime

I never made that decision.

What’s stopping you from making a decision did you see the video?

I don't have all the evidence.

I’ll ask you again, for the 5th time DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO YES OR NO

Yes.

Guess what’s Sherlock THATS ALL THE EVIDENCE LOL

You don't get to make that decision.

Yes I kinda do unless you saw another video

According to your link there was many video's. How many did you see?

 

[pknopp]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

Post the link because I don't see any of that in the one upthread.

It's in the original link.

Where?

I'm not here to hold your hand.

 

[Redcurtain]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

You condemn me for not reading the link but you are then asking me questions about what is in it?

Answer the question

Read your link.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

WHat decision did I make?

That he could be guilty of a crime

I never made that decision.

What’s stopping you from making a decision did you see the video?

I don't have all the evidence.

I’ll ask you again, for the 5th time DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO YES OR NO

Yes.

Guess what’s Sherlock THATS ALL THE EVIDENCE LOL

You don't get to make that decision.

Yes I kinda do unless you saw another video

According to your link there was many video's. How many did you see?

The same you saw.. where did did you find a crime committed by the white guy?

 

[pknopp]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

You condemn me for not reading the link but you are then asking me questions about what is in it?

Answer the question

Read your link.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

WHat decision did I make?

That he could be guilty of a crime

I never made that decision.

What’s stopping you from making a decision did you see the video?

I don't have all the evidence.

I’ll ask you again, for the 5th time DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO YES OR NO

Yes.

Guess what’s Sherlock THATS ALL THE EVIDENCE LOL

You don't get to make that decision.

Yes I kinda do unless you saw another video

According to your link there was many video's. How many did you see?

The same you saw.. where did did you find a crime committed by the white guy?

Answer my question first.

 

[Redcurtain]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

He was a racist, looking for a fight, looking to kill someone. That was discovered in his Facebook posts and statements by relatives. Not a patriot.

Look at who is defending him, more racists.

Why is it racist to call this wrong?

To call what exactly wrong?

What was done to this man; we are objecting to the treatment he received, and Stupidbadbrutha (Damn that is one retarded name....smh) is calling us racist for doing so.
Why is it racist to object to this series of events?
If the races were reversed, I seriously doubt he'd have a problem with it, so why does he now?

What we know. It was initially ruled self defense. When other evidence was presented the one who made that ruling called for another review of the situation. It was admitted that the initial ruling was based upon incomplete evidence.

When presented with the full evidence a grand jury indicted the man. Now I'll ask again, what part of that do you disagree with?

Not so.
It was not "ruled" self-defense, it clearly was from all the evidence

You have no clue as to what all the evidence is. Dismissed.

More than you do apparently.

Grand juries are never presented with full evidence, that is what trials are for.

Which is how the argument has went.

"Relent to the police when they violate your civil liberties and allow the system to deal with it".

Why doesnt that argument work here?

(But you still do not know what all the evidence is)

This feels like an attempt at deflection, but I just woke up and my coffee isn't ready yet so I'm going to ignore that for now.

What evidence do you know of, that was brought to the grand jury, that was not already known to the investigating officers and the original DA assigned?
Be specific please.

Its in the article.

No it isn't.
There is no evidence cited at all.

So you had your answer already.

So you were deliberately lying in support of the abuse this man suffered?

Why would you do that?

Lied about what?

Re-read the thread, jackass....

What "other evidence" was presented to the grand jury?

Was I there? I have no idea. The article simply notes that after the second investigation they decided to take the case to the grand jury because of additional evidence the first investigation didn't have.

No it doesn't.
You are lying.

The grand jury reportedly had much more information to make a decision than when the self-defense ruling was made in June.

Who’s your “source” Stevie wonder?

The link you provided. Fox News.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

You condemn me for not reading the link but you are then asking me questions about what is in it?

Answer the question

Read your link.

So no name,, you made your decision on a unnamed source? Lol

WHat decision did I make?

That he could be guilty of a crime

I never made that decision.

What’s stopping you from making a decision did you see the video?

I don't have all the evidence.

I’ll ask you again, for the 5th time DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO YES OR NO

Yes.

Guess what’s Sherlock THATS ALL THE EVIDENCE LOL

You don't get to make that decision.

Yes I kinda do unless you saw another video

According to your link there was many video's. How many did you see?

The same you saw.. where did did you find a crime committed by the white guy?

Answer my question first.

I saw the same as you now answer my question you shriveled up coward

 

[Redcurtain]

Lol didn’t think so

 

[Faun]

Nebraska bar owner charged with shooting and killing protester takes his own life

A Nebraska bar owner charged with fatally shooting 22-year-old James Scurlock earlier this year, has committed suicide, his attorney said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

His life didn't matter.

Jake Gardner killed protester while defending his bar during BLM riots.

D.A. & police find shooting was in self-defense.

Under pressure, D.A. appoints black prosecutor to indict Gardner.

Gardner's GoFundMe page taken down.

Gardner commits suicide.
Rip patriot. We had your back.. time is coming

That's was nice of him to do that. Now the state doesn't have to waste any money on a trial.

 

[freyasman]

Just to make assertions you can't back up then?
Is that what you're here for?