Jump to content

Waukesha Christmas Parade attack - on trial


Zeus

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Lhorn said:

Hate crime charges?

surprised this went to trial so soon.  Seems like these things get dragged out for much longer before trial. 

I imagine the below is why

17 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Full on FAFO with the Sovereign Citizen angle and self representation.

Colbert Popcorn GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I’ve seen a few clips where he argues with witnesses who point to him as the perpetrator.  The witness basically say, “you ran over everyone” and his only response is what do you mean by you?

Seems like he wants to argue the meaning of words and lecture the judge on laws and procedures as he thinks they should be.

not too mention how he like other sovereign citizens/sovereign moors refuse to acknowledge their legal name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not mental, he knew exactly what he was doing -- look up Vincent Gigante for an example of the defense tactic that he is using. 

Fuck him.  He is a cold-blooded killer who fucked up an innocent Christmas parade, killed people, and ruined shit for a lot of kids forever.

Edited by DalTxHornFan
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is a "sovereign citizen" bozo who does not want to acknowledge that the law applies to him. And he may very well believe it. He thinks that the judge has to let him go if he only says the right phrase. In his mind, she's ignoring the real law and applying admiralty law instead. (crazy)

They do not like authority or laws, so they've talked themselves into a conspiracy theory with ridiculously loose evidence. They pick and choose obscure court rulings to back up their beliefs, and then add those rulings to other nonsense which have zero basis in the law.

one of their odder beliefs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_theory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

He is a "sovereign citizen" bozo who does not want to acknowledge that the law applies to him. And he may very well believe it. He thinks that the judge has to let him go if he only says the right phrase. In his mind, she's ignoring the real law and applying admiralty law instead. (crazy)

They do not like authority or laws, so they've talked themselves into a conspiracy theory with ridiculously loose evidence. They pick and choose obscure court rulings to back up their beliefs, and then add those rulings to other nonsense which have zero basis in the law.

one of their odder beliefs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_theory

I still have not heard what law he proposes applies.  Mosaic law, eye for an eye?

What I have heard:

  • The state does not have standing to press charges when they were not the injured party.  (The dead people need to come forward to charge him?)
  • He unilaterally changed his name so he is not the person charged in the case.  (Looks over his shoulder.  Are you calling me Mr Brooks?  I do not recognize that name as applying to me.)
  • He does not submit to jurisdiction. In some ways his argument boils down to: 

Diplomatic Immunity Lethal Weapon GIF - Diplomatic Immunity Diplomat Lethal  Weapon - Discover & Share GIFs

The whole sovereign thing leads to people breaking traffic laws because they don't apply or this over tax disputes:

image.thumb.jpeg.7c97049e0d40321cd4f94671419e8a2e.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May not be much risk of this but don't watch the live coverage.  Brooks' cross is nothing but asking witness why they are testifying and police detective why he watched the surveillance footage of Brooks running through the neighborhood.

And now he seems to be suggesting that since no-video or witnesses caught him crossing a street that he did not cross the street.  Like video saw me over there and then on the other side but you can't prove I crossed the street because you did not see it.

Brooks: What time did you start the investigation? - Detective: I was called to investigate as soon as you ran people over at the parade.

You should get enough lulz from summary videos

Edited by TexasEd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did all that fucking around with the self defense and sovereign citizen shit and finally found out.  There was a lot of strenuous objecting and taking exception with rulings.

His closing argument is that the Jury should do their own research and go beyond the law and jury instructions the judge gives them.

at 9:24 someone in the courtroom yells, "burn in hell you piece of shit"

 

Edited by TexasEd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went down the rabbit hole of watching a bunch of courtroom videos.

  • Fuck that waste of space and tax payer money.
  • I have no idea how the judge kept her cool through all of it.
  • I don't know anything about courtroom procedure, but how was he not in contempt of court on numerous occasions? He was constantly interrupting witnesses, the prosecution, and the judge. He would disobey direct orders from the judge, and straight up yell at her. The worst she did was send him to the adjacent courtroom and put him on mute. My only guess is that putting him in contempt would've prolonged the trial, which she had no interest in doing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Spoosner said:

I went down the rabbit hole of watching a bunch of courtroom videos.

  • Fuck that waste of space and tax payer money.
  • I have no idea how the judge kept her cool through all of it.
  • I don't know anything about courtroom procedure, but how was he not in contempt of court on numerous occasions? He was constantly interrupting witnesses, the prosecution, and the judge. He would disobey direct orders from the judge, and straight up yell at her. The worst she did was send him to the adjacent courtroom and put him on mute. My only guess is that putting him in contempt would've prolonged the trial, which she had no interest in doing.

She was very restrained in order to avoid any possibility of creating an issue that could lead to him getting a new trial. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

She was very restrained in order to avoid any possibility of creating an issue that could lead to him getting a new trial. 

Judge and the prosecution bent over backwards to accommodate his crazy because the evidence was overwhelming.  Better to put up with his antics than give him an inkling of a ground for appeal.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Foosters said:

He should have never been permitted to represent himself to begin with.

I agree, but it seems she was quite painstaking in "running the traps" on his defending himself, as well as his competence.  I suppose refusing to let him defend himself might have been a reversible error itself.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...