Gay Lover Spat? SF Police Have Bodycam Footage, Would Show if Attacker and/or Paul Pelosi Were in Underwear, Charge Implies They Knew Each Other

[gtopa1]

You guys are utter morons.

Your Smollettising is noted.

Greg

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Let's see a Berkeley nudist who lived in a commune with LGBT and BLM flags. Police charging Depape with "elder abuse" which means the would know each other.

Pelosi Attack Suspect Was A Psychotic Homeless Addict Estranged From His Pedophile Lover & Their Children

Berkeley resident David DePape was more in the grip of drug-induced psychosis than ideology-induced fanaticism.

michaelshellenberger.substack.com

"And, as I discovered yesterday, DePape lived with a notorious local nudist in a Berkeley home, complete with a Black Lives Matter sign in the window and an LGBT rainbow flag, emblazoned with a marijuana symbol, hanging from a tree. A closer look reveals the characteristics of a homeless encampment, or what Europeans call “an open drug scene.” In the driveway, there is a broken-down camper van. On the street is a yellow school bus, which neighbors said DePape occasionally stayed in. Both are filled with garbage typical of such structures in homeless encampments. People come and go from the house and the vehicles, neighbors say, in part to partake in the use of a potent psychedelic drug, ibogaine."

David DePape ID’d as hammer-wielding intruder who attacked Paul Pelosi

The man who attacked Paul Pelosi has been named as David DePape, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

nypost.com

"Scott also said DePape has been booked on charges of attempted homicide, assault with a deadly weapon, elder abuse, burglary, and “several other additional felonies.”"

Depape was in his underwear when police saw him? Now reversed. How do you get that kind of detail wrong?


I say it was a gay lover thing turned sour.

View attachment 717674



View attachment 717683

Paul Pelosi spoke in code to alert 911 operator of hammer attacker: report

Paul Pelosi, the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, managed to call 911 and alert the dispatcher to his dire situation without his eventual attacker even knowing.

nypost.com

"As officers arrived at the scene, Pelosi, 82, attempted to grab the hammer out of DePape’s hands. DePape allegedly hit Pelosi over the head with the weapon in the scuffle that was caught on police bodycam."



Something "off" about this entrance site. Wrong door is open, could not reach over that far, the door set with the broken glass should be the one open.

View attachment 717693

The main stream media and the moronic progs are trying to paint this degenerate homeless guy as some kind of right winger ...

 

[abu afak]

So now we know who moved this to Conspiracy Theories.

And you think this belongs anywhere else ?
Welcome to the section YOU (and the other clowns who take it seriously) belong in.
You think an 80+ yr old distinguished man was having an affair with with a young street Wildman yelling "Where's Nancy?"

Unfortunately you MAGAts are both low IQ and irrational.
`

 

[jbrownson0831]

Westwall is a one-line RW Troll who posts NO info at all.
Can't post a paragraph, just typical MAGA BS that is 70% of this mb.

I might add he is a former and now Demoted Mod.
Having lost his position due to abusive handling of it's posters.
A prominent review website cites his abuses many times. (name available)

He is 100% combative to me and cannot stop giving Me Negs.
We had a blowout incl Flacalteen that stopped it for a while, but now he's back up to his abuse/grudge and I give him one-for-one in return. (but Never initiate)

Unfortunately FlaCalTeen rejected my solution/s of Mutual Ignore. Because 'ignore' is One-sided here and the other party can just continue wailing on you and your posts with feedback and responses, not as Facebook, a mutual Ignore/"Block."

Barring that we could have an agreement to Zero-feedback to each other.
But FlacalTeen will NOT agree to anything constructive.
NOTHING.
Tho I'm sure he cooled the abusive Westwall off for a while with a talk.
But now he's back and up to 10 Negs a day.
I proposed many solutions in a 'Conversation' thread still back there app a year?
But nothing.

I am here to post lots of Topical content/Meat, and I do. I'm about the meatiest poster on the board. (See, ie, Environment and Science)
Westwall is here to one-line troll and Neg what he disagrees with.
He has Never started a thread and can't post a paragraph.
Thus he uses Negs and one-liners.

I long ago gave up on even trying to speak to the RW BIGOT/personal grudge politics mod corp, namely FCT and Meister. I do not even read my conversation msgs from mod corp.
Perhaps you could weigh in on the matter in any way.
thx
I would gladly agree to any fair and effective disposition, but it's dubious for reasons/Pricks I detailed above.
`

Poor abu dabu, now sticking up for gay alcoholic Pauly.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Here is the statute IN FULL as it seems to me:

"368. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that elders, adults whose physical or mental disabilities or other limitations restrict their ability to carry out normal activities or to protect their rights, and adults admitted as inpatients to a 24-hour health facility deserve special consideration and protection.

(b) (1) A person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endangered, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed six thousand dollars ($6,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(2) If, in the commission of an offense described in paragraph (1), the victim suffers great bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, the defendant shall receive an additional term in the state prison as follows:

(A) Three years if the victim is under 70 years of age.

(B) Five years if the victim is 70 years of age or older.

(3) If, in the commission of an offense described in paragraph (1), the defendant proximately causes the death of the victim, the defendant shall receive an additional term in the state prison as follows:

(A) Five years if the victim is under 70 years of age.

(B) Seven years if the victim is 70 years of age or older.

(c) A person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this subdivision is punishable by a fine not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(d) A person who is not a caretaker who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of an elder or a dependent adult, and who knows or reasonably should know that the victim is an elder or a dependent adult, is punishable as follows:

(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).

(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).

(e) A caretaker of an elder or a dependent adult who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of that elder or dependent adult, is punishable as follows:

(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).

(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).

(f) A person who commits the false imprisonment of an elder or a dependent adult by the use of violence, menace, fraud, or deceit is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years.

(g) As used in this section, “elder” means a person who is 65 years of age or older.

(h) As used in this section, “dependent adult” means a person, regardless of whether the person lives independently, who is between the ages of 18 and 64, who has physical or mental limitations which restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights, including, but not limited to, persons who have physical or developmental disabilities or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age. “Dependent adult” includes a person between the ages of 18 and 64 who is admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour health facility, as defined in Sections 1250, 1250.2, and 1250.3 of the Health and Safety Code.

(i) As used in this section, “caretaker” means a person who has the care, custody, or control of, or who stands in a position of trust with, an elder or a dependent adult.

(j) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under both this section and Section 187 or 12022.7 or any other provision of law. However, a person shall not receive an additional term of imprisonment under both paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) for a single offense, nor shall a person receive an additional term of imprisonment under both Section 12022.7 and paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (b) for a single offense.

(k) In any case in which a person is convicted of violating these provisions, the court may require him or her to receive appropriate counseling as a condition of probation. A defendant ordered to be placed in a counseling program shall be responsible for paying the expense of his or her participation in the counseling program as determined by the court. The court shall take into consideration the ability of the defendant to pay, and no defendant shall be denied probation because of his or her inability to pay.

(l) Upon conviction for a violation of subdivision (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f), the sentencing court shall also consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any restraining order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, and the safety of the victim and his or her immediate family. This protective order may be issued by the court whether the defendant is sentenced to state prison or county jail, or if imposition of sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation."

"b1) A person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, "

"Who KNOWS or reasonably SHOULD KNOW".....................so DePape KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN........that Pelosi was over 65!!!! Did DePape check out Pelosi's Driver's License for age?

(i) As used in this section, “caretaker” means a person who has the care, custody, or control of, or who stands in a position of trust with, an elder or a dependent adult. Self evident.

These are more telling:

Examples of elder abuse crimes

• not feeding an 80-year-old parent who cannot care for himself.
• a caretaker ridiculing an elder patient for being wheelchair-bound.
• a person using fraud to convince a 90-year-old neighbor to make him the sole beneficiary in the elder’s will.

EACH is a "relationship" situation.

Greg

PS: Penal Code 368 PC - California "Elder Abuse" Criminal Laws

Now you have to read it to them too.

 

[gtopa1]

With DePape being a lunatic nudist BLM Gay rights hate the Government DemoKKKrat I can only consider this incident an example of Dissent within the Rank!!!

Greg

 

[Mac-7]

One wonders how many gay domestics the SF police field in a day.......~S~

Maybe hundreds

 

[Batcat]

Let's see a Berkeley nudist who lived in a commune with LGBT and BLM flags. Police charging Depape with "elder abuse" which means the would know each other.

Pelosi Attack Suspect Was A Psychotic Homeless Addict Estranged From His Pedophile Lover & Their Children

Berkeley resident David DePape was more in the grip of drug-induced psychosis than ideology-induced fanaticism.

michaelshellenberger.substack.com

"And, as I discovered yesterday, DePape lived with a notorious local nudist in a Berkeley home, complete with a Black Lives Matter sign in the window and an LGBT rainbow flag, emblazoned with a marijuana symbol, hanging from a tree. A closer look reveals the characteristics of a homeless encampment, or what Europeans call “an open drug scene.” In the driveway, there is a broken-down camper van. On the street is a yellow school bus, which neighbors said DePape occasionally stayed in. Both are filled with garbage typical of such structures in homeless encampments. People come and go from the house and the vehicles, neighbors say, in part to partake in the use of a potent psychedelic drug, ibogaine."

David DePape ID’d as hammer-wielding intruder who attacked Paul Pelosi

The man who attacked Paul Pelosi has been named as David DePape, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

nypost.com

"Scott also said DePape has been booked on charges of attempted homicide, assault with a deadly weapon, elder abuse, burglary, and “several other additional felonies.”"

Depape was in his underwear when police saw him? Now reversed. How do you get that kind of detail wrong?


I say it was a gay lover thing turned sour.

View attachment 717674



View attachment 717683

Paul Pelosi spoke in code to alert 911 operator of hammer attacker: report

Paul Pelosi, the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, managed to call 911 and alert the dispatcher to his dire situation without his eventual attacker even knowing.

nypost.com

"As officers arrived at the scene, Pelosi, 82, attempted to grab the hammer out of DePape’s hands. DePape allegedly hit Pelosi over the head with the weapon in the scuffle that was caught on police bodycam."



Something "off" about this entrance site. Wrong door is open, could not reach over that far, the door set with the broken glass should be the one open.

View attachment 717693

Perhaps Pelosi broke the glass with the hammer to make the incident look like a break-in.

 

[Batcat]

Cite proof.

Perhaps we could if the police were willing to release all the evidence and the body cam footage.

What we have now looks like a whitewash. Nancy Pelosi’s husband‘s reputation must be preserved at all costs to protect Nancy. It seems there was also an effort to cover-up Paul’s recent car accident where he was Arrested for DUI.

Cops refuse to release body cam footage of Paul Pelosi’s DUI arrest

The Napa County District Attorney’s Office blocked the California Highway Patrol from releasing body and dashboard camera footage from Paul Pelosi’s May 28 DUI arrest, saying it would &…

nypost.com

Now if a Trump family member was caught in the same situation our wonderful liberal news media would be all over the incident and force the police to reaveal all the evidence including the body cam footage.

 

[gtopa1]

So now it's an illegal alien nudist warrior Green Party BLM Gay rights activist homeless drug addicted psychotic/schizophrenic with a rap sheet a mile long who should have been deported from a Sanctuary City years ago....and they call him a MAGA????

Greg

 

[surada]

Elder Abuse is only filed if there is a RELATIONSHIP between the two........

Nope. Any abuse of and elderly person is actionable. They don't have to be in a relationship. Ask a lawyer instead of pretending you are one.

 

[westwall]

Nope. Any abuse of and elderly person is actionable. They don't have to be in a relationship. Ask a lawyer instead of pretending you are one.

Then why is it only filed in domestic violence cases, or where the perp and the vic know each other?

 

[surada]

Then why is it only filed in domestic violence cases, or where the perp and the vic know each other?

Ask a lawyer.

 

[Care4all]

Perhaps Pelosi broke the glass with the hammer to make the incident look like a break-in.

From the inside out? Come on, even a mentally challenged person knows that the glass shards and broken window will show evidence whether the window was broken from the inside or outside.

Seriously! Use some logic!

Have you expressed any concern for Paul Pelosi being attacked? Noooo, you are too busy with your made up out of thin air, demented, sexual fantasy.

 

[Care4all]

Ask a lawyer.

He was told this by his right wing nutters on the internets...

And believed them, without research, or thought... The sexual affair with an unbathed, homeless, drug addict, prostitute, that the 82 yr old Paul picked up on the Berkley streets, while Nancy was out of town is just too much for his demented mind to refuse! This is his candy!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The date went sideways when DePape asked Paul for Nancy's Boozy Eggnog ice cream and that was a hard limit

 

[westwall]

Ask a lawyer.

Already did.

 

[surada]

Here is the statute IN FULL as it seems to me:

"368. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that elders, adults whose physical or mental disabilities or other limitations restrict their ability to carry out normal activities or to protect their rights, and adults admitted as inpatients to a 24-hour health facility deserve special consideration and protection.

(b) (1) A person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endangered, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed six thousand dollars ($6,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(2) If, in the commission of an offense described in paragraph (1), the victim suffers great bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, the defendant shall receive an additional term in the state prison as follows:

(A) Three years if the victim is under 70 years of age.

(B) Five years if the victim is 70 years of age or older.

(3) If, in the commission of an offense described in paragraph (1), the defendant proximately causes the death of the victim, the defendant shall receive an additional term in the state prison as follows:

(A) Five years if the victim is under 70 years of age.

(B) Seven years if the victim is 70 years of age or older.

(c) A person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this subdivision is punishable by a fine not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(d) A person who is not a caretaker who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of an elder or a dependent adult, and who knows or reasonably should know that the victim is an elder or a dependent adult, is punishable as follows:

(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).

(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).

(e) A caretaker of an elder or a dependent adult who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of that elder or dependent adult, is punishable as follows:

(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).

(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).

(f) A person who commits the false imprisonment of an elder or a dependent adult by the use of violence, menace, fraud, or deceit is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years.

(g) As used in this section, “elder” means a person who is 65 years of age or older.

(h) As used in this section, “dependent adult” means a person, regardless of whether the person lives independently, who is between the ages of 18 and 64, who has physical or mental limitations which restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights, including, but not limited to, persons who have physical or developmental disabilities or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age. “Dependent adult” includes a person between the ages of 18 and 64 who is admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour health facility, as defined in Sections 1250, 1250.2, and 1250.3 of the Health and Safety Code.

(i) As used in this section, “caretaker” means a person who has the care, custody, or control of, or who stands in a position of trust with, an elder or a dependent adult.

(j) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under both this section and Section 187 or 12022.7 or any other provision of law. However, a person shall not receive an additional term of imprisonment under both paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) for a single offense, nor shall a person receive an additional term of imprisonment under both Section 12022.7 and paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (b) for a single offense.

(k) In any case in which a person is convicted of violating these provisions, the court may require him or her to receive appropriate counseling as a condition of probation. A defendant ordered to be placed in a counseling program shall be responsible for paying the expense of his or her participation in the counseling program as determined by the court. The court shall take into consideration the ability of the defendant to pay, and no defendant shall be denied probation because of his or her inability to pay.

(l) Upon conviction for a violation of subdivision (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f), the sentencing court shall also consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any restraining order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, and the safety of the victim and his or her immediate family. This protective order may be issued by the court whether the defendant is sentenced to state prison or county jail, or if imposition of sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation."

"b1) A person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, "

"Who KNOWS or reasonably SHOULD KNOW".....................so DePape KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN........that Pelosi was over 65!!!! Did DePape check out Pelosi's Driver's License for age?

(i) As used in this section, “caretaker” means a person who has the care, custody, or control of, or who stands in a position of trust with, an elder or a dependent adult. Self evident.

These are more telling:

Examples of elder abuse crimes

• not feeding an 80-year-old parent who cannot care for himself.
• a caretaker ridiculing an elder patient for being wheelchair-bound.
• a person using fraud to convince a 90-year-old neighbor to make him the sole beneficiary in the elder’s will.

EACH is a "relationship" situation.

Greg

PS: Penal Code 368 PC - California "Elder Abuse" Criminal Laws

Elder or dependant adult. DePape should have known that 83 year old Pelosi was vulnerable. Call a lawyer. You don't know how to read law.

 

[westwall]

Elder or dependant adult. DePape should have known that 83 year old Pelosi was vulnerable. Call a lawyer. You don't know how to read law.

Sure we do. You just don't like what it means.