<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGcNO8BFfg>
D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGcNO8BFfg>
Jews and their golems are constantly lecturing us about context. It's important, they say, to not look at the video of a White woman being
savagely beaten by a large gang of Blacks in Chicago without proper
context. That is if they even address it. Jewish media at large completely ignored the incident.
Whites are never given the benefit of this contextualuzation. What is the context in which Andrew Lester shot Ralf Yarl, even assuming the media narrative, taken verbatim from Ralf Yarl's aunt's go fund me page, is true?
Yarl was shot in the context of out of control black shootings all over America, most committed by young males of exactly Ralf's age. Kansas City
has a large black population and as a result is particularly bad, though
all of America is insanely dangerous right now.
Lester is 85 years old. It was ten PM at night. A strange black teenager knocked on his door. Initial media reports stating that Yarl entered the
home have been scrubbed. I don't blame Lester one bit. The fact that Yarl could not get several other homes in the neighborhood to answer the door to help him shows that the neighbors basically share Lester's perspective.
White people simply cannot afford to open their doors to strange black men and are completely justified in taking defensive action in such a
situation. But the way the law works in America, if Lester confessed that
he was suspicious of Yarl on racial grounds, an entirely rational and fact based fear, he would condemn himself.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGcNO8BFfg>
Jews and their golems are constantly lecturing us about context. It's >important, they say, to not look at the video of a White woman being
savagely beaten by a large gang of Blacks in Chicago without proper
context. That is if they even address it. Jewish media at large completely >ignored the incident.
The most shameful part of the Jewish media's handling of the Ralf Yarl >shooting case is that they continue to treat the claims made by Yarl's aunt >on a go fund me page where she is clearly grifting and has an incentive to >exaggerate
According to Branca's analysis Andrew Lester was justified in shooting Yarl >under Missouri castle doctrine.
On Wed, 19 Apr 23 23:54:14 UTC, D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
According to Branca's analysis Andrew Lester was justified in shooting Yarl >> under Missouri castle doctrine.
He's wrong. There was ZERO justification. That old man is going to
prison and get his ass reamed by his cellmates.
On Wed, 19 Apr 23 23:49:38 UTC, D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
The most shameful part of the Jewish media's handling of the Ralf Yarl
shooting case is that they continue to treat the claims made by Yarl's aunt >> on a go fund me page where she is clearly grifting and has an incentive to >> exaggerate
The MOST shameful part is where you attempt to justify this crazed old
man's murder of an innocent boy. This fucker is guilty of murder and
will spend the rest of his life in prison, where he belongs.
D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGcNO8BFfg>
According to Branca's analysis Andrew Lester was justified in shooting Yarl under Missouri castle doctrine.
I actually think that it is likely that
Ralph Yarl did go to the wrong address and was not intending to break in to Lester's home. But that doesn't matter. Because given the context of the shooting and Lester's condition, he reasonably believed his home was being invaded.
The Jews <jews@humiliate-the-glue-huffers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 23 23:49:38 UTC, D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
The most shameful part of the Jewish media's handling of the Ralf Yarl
shooting case is that they continue to treat the claims made by Yarl's aunt >>> on a go fund me page where she is clearly grifting and has an incentive to >>> exaggerate
The MOST shameful part is where you attempt to justify this crazed old
man's murder of an innocent boy. This fucker is guilty of murder and
will spend the rest of his life in prison, where he belongs.
Werent you
Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.lschen.@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 23 23:54:14 UTC, D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
According to Branca's analysis Andrew Lester was justified in shooting Yarl >>> under Missouri castle doctrine.
He's wrong. There was ZERO justification. That old man is going to
prison and get his ass reamed by his cellmates.
Werent you just saying
The Jews <jews@humiliate-the-glue-huffers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 23 23:49:38 UTC, D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
The most shameful part of the Jewish media's handling of the Ralf Yarl
shooting case is that they continue to treat the claims made by Yarl's aunt >>> on a go fund me page where she is clearly grifting and has an incentive to >>> exaggerate
The MOST shameful part is where you attempt to justify this crazed old
man's murder of an innocent boy. This fucker is guilty of murder and
will spend the rest of his life in prison, where he belongs.
Werent you just saying little bit ago that nigger should have been more >careful?
<he0t3i9eac64ip1hrtiaq16kirhj6pt8p0@Schadenfreude.com>
Lester is going to go to prison for life and be sodomized and abused.
On 4/19/2023 4:54 PM, D. Ray wrote:
D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGcNO8BFfg>
According to Branca's analysis Andrew Lester was justified in shooting Yarl >> under Missouri castle doctrine.
Bullshit. Even the felon Lester's own attorneys aren't saying that. They have
hinted at using the shithole state's "stand your ground" laws, but that's not going to work, either.
I actually think that it is likely that
Ralph Yarl did go to the wrong address and was not intending to break in to >> Lester's home. But that doesn't matter. Because given the context of the
shooting and Lester's condition, he reasonably believed his home was being >> invaded.
No, that was not reasonable on the part of the felon Lester at all. Yarl was not inside the felon Lester's house, nor was he attempting to get inside. He knocked on the door and asked for someone. He was not threatening the felon Lester in any way.
D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGcNO8BFfg>
According to Branca's analysis Andrew Lester was justified in shooting Yarl under Missouri castle doctrine.
Robert Gowan <hh_pal3@homoz.con> wrote:
On 4/19/2023 4:54 PM, D. Ray wrote:
D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGcNO8BFfg>
According to Branca's analysis Andrew Lester was justified in shooting Yarl >>> under Missouri castle doctrine.
Bullshit. Even the felon Lester's own attorneys aren't saying that. They have
hinted at using the shithole state's "stand your ground" laws, but that's not
going to work, either.
I actually think that it is likely that
Ralph Yarl did go to the wrong address and was not intending to break in to >>> Lester's home. But that doesn't matter. Because given the context of the >>> shooting and Lester's condition, he reasonably believed his home was being >>> invaded.
No, that was not reasonable on the part of the felon Lester at all. Yarl was
not inside the felon Lester's house, nor was he attempting to get inside. He
knocked on the door and asked for someone. He was not threatening the felon >> Lester in any way.
Have any proof that the filthy white racist Lester is a felon?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGcNO8BFfg>
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:41:36 -0700, Robert Gowan <hh_pal3@homoz.con> wrote:
On 4/22/2023 11:23 AM, D. Ray wrote:
Robert Gowan <hh_pal3@homoz.con> wrote:
On 4/19/2023 4:54 PM, D. Ray wrote:
D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGcNO8BFfg>
According to Branca's analysis Andrew Lester was justified in shooting Yarl
under Missouri castle doctrine.
Bullshit. Even the felon Lester's own attorneys aren't saying that. They have
hinted at using the shithole state's "stand your ground" laws, but that's not
going to work, either.
I actually think that it is likely that
Ralph Yarl did go to the wrong address and was not intending to break in to
Lester's home. But that doesn't matter. Because given the context of the >>>>> shooting and Lester's condition, he reasonably believed his home was being
invaded.
No, that was not reasonable on the part of the felon Lester at all. Yarl was
not inside the felon Lester's house, nor was he attempting to get inside. He
knocked on the door and asked for someone. He was not threatening the felon
Lester in any way.
Have any proof that the filthy white racist Lester is a felon?
Yes: he shot that lad without provocation. That's a felony.
Ringing a doorbell is not home invasion, assault or a capital crime.
D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGcNO8BFfg>
According to Branca's analysis Andrew Lester was justified in shooting Yarl under Missouri castle doctrine.
On 4/24/2023 12:17 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:41:36 -0700, Robert Gowan <hh_pal3@homoz.con> wrote: >>
On 4/22/2023 11:23 AM, D. Ray wrote:
Robert Gowan <hh_pal3@homoz.con> wrote:
On 4/19/2023 4:54 PM, D. Ray wrote:
D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGcNO8BFfg>
According to Branca's analysis Andrew Lester was justified in shooting Yarl
under Missouri castle doctrine.
Bullshit. Even the felon Lester's own attorneys aren't saying that. They have
hinted at using the shithole state's "stand your ground" laws, but that's not
going to work, either.
I actually think that it is likely that
Ralph Yarl did go to the wrong address and was not intending to break in to
Lester's home. But that doesn't matter. Because given the context of the >>>>>> shooting and Lester's condition, he reasonably believed his home was being
invaded.
No, that was not reasonable on the part of the felon Lester at all. Yarl was
not inside the felon Lester's house, nor was he attempting to get inside. He
knocked on the door and asked for someone. He was not threatening the felon
Lester in any way.
Have any proof that the filthy white racist Lester is a felon?
Yes: he shot that lad without provocation. That's a felony.
Ringing a doorbell is not home invasion, assault or a capital crime.
Exactly right, and that is *all* the teen did. He was not trying to get into the house.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:21:30 -0700, Robert Gowan <hh_pal3@homoz.con> wrote:
On 4/24/2023 12:17 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:41:36 -0700, Robert Gowan <hh_pal3@homoz.con> wrote: >>>
On 4/22/2023 11:23 AM, D. Ray wrote:
Robert Gowan <hh_pal3@homoz.con> wrote:
On 4/19/2023 4:54 PM, D. Ray wrote:
D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGcNO8BFfg>
According to Branca's analysis Andrew Lester was justified in shooting Yarl
under Missouri castle doctrine.
Bullshit. Even the felon Lester's own attorneys aren't saying that. They have
hinted at using the shithole state's "stand your ground" laws, but that's not
going to work, either.
I actually think that it is likely that
Ralph Yarl did go to the wrong address and was not intending to break in to
Lester's home. But that doesn't matter. Because given the context of the
shooting and Lester's condition, he reasonably believed his home was being
invaded.
No, that was not reasonable on the part of the felon Lester at all. Yarl was
not inside the felon Lester's house, nor was he attempting to get inside. He
knocked on the door and asked for someone. He was not threatening the felon
Lester in any way.
Have any proof that the filthy white racist Lester is a felon?
Yes: he shot that lad without provocation. That's a felony.
Ringing a doorbell is not home invasion, assault or a capital crime.
Exactly right, and that is *all* the teen did. He was not trying to get into
the house. Ralph Yarl rang the doorbell, the old racist fuck Lester opened the
inner door and shot Yarl. No words were exchanged. Yarl never even got the >> chance to ask is his siblings were there.
At least one report exists that Lester claimed Yarl was opening the screen door when he
shot him. But opening a screen door and ringing a doorbell is still not home invasion.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 106:03:57 |
| Calls: | 9,504 |
| Files: | 13,627 |
| Messages: | 6,128,342 |