G
guest
Guest
I like courtroom arguments and general sperging if the case is interesting. The Waukesha parade massacre was already an interest of mine since it's clearly a black nationalist trying to terrorize white families during holiday festivities. The trial itself though is above and beyond what I could have expected. Darrell Brooks has chosen to represent himself and has used sovereign citizen style arguments to try to get himself out of the case at every turn and has done nothing but disrupt the proceedings. I should try to make a supercut of the insanity. It's rather dry but can be extremely humorous at times. For instance, any time the opposing party objects he immediately says "GROUNDS" (sounds like "grounz") before they can even give a reason for their objection.
Highlights include:
Highlights include:
- Brooks argues with the judge every change he can and actively tries to be held in contempt of court
- Anytime someone says his name, "Darrell Brooks" or "Mr. Brooks" he says "objection I do not consent to being called that name"
- Brooks objects to every question the prosecution asks with random reasons, usually "Leading" or "Relevancy" even when the questions are not leading or the questions are relevant to something he asked on cross-examination
- Brooks claims there is no opposing party. The state of Wisconsin is who is prosecuting him since this is a criminal complaint and he tries to ask all witnesses about this and how there is no one accusing him of any crime.
- Far more stuff I'm failing to recall because this shit is so tiring