Useless SJW gives the finger to the wrong dude.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: thepixelpusher

We weren't there, she was.

We weren't there, but the surveillance camera was. It tells a different story than she tells. You're backing the wrong horse here. Tara has filmed, tweeted, blogged every action and that is why all those things have been gathered for the court case. She will lose because she is the only one in the wrong here. There is no BOTH are responsible. The evidence doesn't point to that at all. There is enough public evidence to support that. Of course, the courts may shed more information, but likely not a new direction in responsibility.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I think everyone here just wants to see her get put back in her place and quit being such a brat.

Tara acts like a spoiled child with men issues, but since she's an adult she has to handle the responsibility for her actions. Restraining order & criminal charges says it all. I'll take a guess and say she loses the court case too.

It's all politically charged with a dash of insanity for both sides.

Says you without any proof against him.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: thepixelpusher

We weren't there, she was.

We weren't there, but the surveillance camera was. It tells a different story than she tells. You're backing the wrong horse here.

Which we have not seen, so I will reserve my bias.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: thepixelpusher

We weren't there, she was.

We weren't there, but the surveillance camera was. It tells a different story than she tells. You're backing the wrong horse here.

Which we have not seen, so I will reserve my bias.

You haven't read this whole thread but you claim BOTH are responsible. THAT IS BIAS.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: thepixelpusher

We weren't there, she was.

We weren't there, but the surveillance camera was. It tells a different story than she tells. You're backing the wrong horse here.

Which we have not seen, so I will reserve my bias.

You haven't read this whole thread but you claim BOTH are responsible. THAT IS BIAS.

I claim the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: thepixelpusher

We weren't there, she was.

We weren't there, but the surveillance camera was. It tells a different story than she tells. You're backing the wrong horse here.

Which we have not seen, so I will reserve my bias.

You haven't read this whole thread but you claim BOTH are responsible. THAT IS BIAS.

I claim the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

If you say you're waiting for the court decision how could you come to the conclusion already that it lies somewhere in the middle. THAT IS A BIASED CONCLUSION! I'll be happy to reserve my final judgement until after the court case.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: thepixelpusher

We weren't there, she was.

We weren't there, but the surveillance camera was. It tells a different story than she tells. You're backing the wrong horse here.

Which we have not seen, so I will reserve my bias.

You haven't read this whole thread but you claim BOTH are responsible. THAT IS BIAS.

I claim the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

If you say you're waiting for the court decision how could you come to the conclusion already that it lies somewhere in the middle. THAT IS A BIASED CONCLUSION!

Let's wait and see.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: thepixelpusher

We weren't there, she was.

We weren't there, but the surveillance camera was. It tells a different story than she tells. You're backing the wrong horse here.

Which we have not seen, so I will reserve my bias.

You haven't read this whole thread but you claim BOTH are responsible. THAT IS BIAS.

I claim the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

If you say you're waiting for the court decision how could you come to the conclusion already that it lies somewhere in the middle. THAT IS A BIASED CONCLUSION!

Let's wait and see.

Agreed.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: thepixelpusher

We weren't there, she was.

We weren't there, but the surveillance camera was. It tells a different story than she tells. You're backing the wrong horse here.

Which we have not seen, so I will reserve my bias.

You haven't read this whole thread but you claim BOTH are responsible. THAT IS BIAS.

I claim the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

If you say you're waiting for the court decision how could you come to the conclusion already that it lies somewhere in the middle. THAT IS A BIASED CONCLUSION!

Let's wait and see.

Agreed.

I will say this though, they both have an unhealthy hate for the opposing candidate. I wonder if this will be identified as a new mental condition?

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: thepixelpusher

We weren't there, she was.

We weren't there, but the surveillance camera was. It tells a different story than she tells. You're backing the wrong horse here.

Which we have not seen, so I will reserve my bias.

You haven't read this whole thread but you claim BOTH are responsible. THAT IS BIAS.

I claim the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

If you say you're waiting for the court decision how could you come to the conclusion already that it lies somewhere in the middle. THAT IS A BIASED CONCLUSION!

Let's wait and see.

Agreed.

I will say this though, they both have an unhealthy hate for the opposing candidate. I wonder if this will be identified as a new mental condition?

I told you the candidates use fear of the opponent to sell themselves. That breeds anguish each and every election it is used by all candidates. Tara is just one of the few unstable that are triggered by those fear messages like a mind controlled MKUtra Agent. I know how this works I work in advertising and worked on Political campaigns in the past.

I haven't seen any evidence the guy showed any abhorrent behavior. i thought you were waiting for the court case to judge this? I'll send you a PM here when the verdict comes through.

a reply to: InTheLight

I am also talking about the mudslinging from DT and HC...

That's part of the issue. This thread is not about Trump or Clinton. It's about one guy and one girl that lost it over a political sign. If you really want to see issues in America, imagine if everyone lost it over an opponent's sign.

The election is a mess this year, granted. But taking it personally is not going to fix that problem; it's going to make the problem worse. She is not Hillary Clinton and he is not Donald Trump. His signs did not say anything about Tara Dublin. They were on his property and expressed his support for the candidate of his choice. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, illegal or immoral or even mean-spirited about having political signs in his yard. The whole concept of election rests on each individual being able to openly support their choice. If people are bullied because of that choice, it is no longer a free election; it is a scam to force one candidate into office unfairly.

Just imagine if the police began targeting everyone with a Clinton sign. Would that be fair? Maybe if the police just looked the other way while citizens targeted houses with Clinton signs? Would that be fair? I say no, it would undermine the country as a whole and change our leadership from elected leaders to a form of appointed leaders.

Is it any different if the signs are supporting Trump instead of Clinton? Again, I say no, it makes no difference.

It also makes no difference what anyone thinks about either candidate... the law is still the law. Hillary Clinton did not shoot a bird at the victim; Tara Dublin did. Tara didn't shoot a bird and yell insults at Donald Trump (in this case); she shot a bird and yelled insults at another citizen.

I'm trying to see your side, really. I just can't. There is too much evidence that this was nothing deeper than a thoroughly disturbed woman attacking a man relentlessly, and no evidence he did anything more than get her identification and report her to the police. There is self-admission from Tara that she shot the bird and yelled insults; there is no indication, even from her, that the man did so in return. Her only defense, even through hundreds of tweets, essays, radio interviews, and a selfie video, is that he supported Trump and tried to get pictures of her license plate.

SHE HAS INCRIMINATED HERSELF ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, AND HAS NEVER INCRIMINATED HIM FOR A SINGLE ILLEGAL ACT.

And yet, you continue to say he was to blame somehow. I just don't understand that, unless you inwardly despise him and wish evil on him... and the only reason I can see to feel that way is that he supports Trump. Please tell me my analysis is incorrect, that you do not so vastly prefer anarchy to order if that order is not to your liking.

Please?

TheRedneck

Do we have any Washington State ATS'ers that could sit in on the case and update us?

a reply to: InTheLight

I won't reserve my bias in this matter after reading the whole thread and screening the videos regardless of the male not providing security videos up front.

The lady's editing of the video with the cop initially secured me.

Why did she do this.

Why socially attack the cop who was attempting to be understanding and resolve the matter peacefully.

The male gets the blame because he followed her. If he was dangerous or violent he surely didn't show it. i.e. ramming her, sideswiping her or running her off the road. He followed her. Much like she has followed him, albeit he was not in his car at the time Tara was at his property.

Sure, if some sicko gives me the bird, I wouldn't give a damn. But don't tread on me and my family by doing it again and again as i will report it and if the cops don't respond adequately I'll 'follow' the car and ring the cops, and expect them to do something albeit give a warning. Poke someone and expect to get poked back no matter what their size or their sex.

Gosh, if the judiciary finds favour to either party will you still "reserve" your bias. To hell with bias. Nothing to do with that. There is no bias. If there was bias then the matter is already determined..

Kind regards,

bally

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: thepixelpusher

We weren't there, she was.

We weren't there, but the surveillance camera was. It tells a different story than she tells. You're backing the wrong horse here.

Which we have not seen, so I will reserve my bias.

You haven't read this whole thread but you claim BOTH are responsible. THAT IS BIAS.

I claim the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

If you say you're waiting for the court decision how could you come to the conclusion already that it lies somewhere in the middle. THAT IS A BIASED CONCLUSION!

Let's wait and see.

Agreed.

I will say this though, they both have an unhealthy hate for the opposing candidate. I wonder if this will be identified as a new mental condition?

It's extremely healthy to hate Hillary Clinton. It shows you are human.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's my point, many people are losing it over a sign, or a sign on a hat.

(Ban shredded cheese. Make America grate again!)

a reply to: InTheLight

So what is your solution? Ban signs? Ban elections? Maybe just ban talking about elections?

Mine (and that of other posters on here) is simply to enforce the laws of decency, to expect... no, to demand... that people not attack others over political ideology. Tara attacked someone over political ideology. She did not debate him, did not seek to have a discussion to try and change his mind... she verbally attacked him, multiple times, in violation of the law. He did not attack her in response. He got her identifying information and alerted the police to her actions.

That is how the law works.

If we assign blame to the man for having signs, we excuse Tara's actions by acknowledging she cannot control herself, and we set a precedent that support for any candidate is contributory toward violence against the supporter; we essentially de-legalize political debate. That means the elections are no longer fair contests to judge the will of the people, and our entire government becomes (more of) a thinly-veiled dictatorship.

Those are the consequences of your position. I reject them and it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: thepixelpusher

We weren't there, she was.

Oh I think it's safe to say that she wasn't - and still isn't - all there.

a reply to: TheRedneck

As I said before, there are more incidents such as this and worse going on. So, why drone on about this one in particular and not the underlying issues, such as what incites some Americans politically that they behave irrationally and violently?

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Do we have any Washington State ATS'ers that could sit in on the case and update us?

How about getting a copy of the transcript?

a reply to: InTheLight

So, why drone on about this one in particular and not the underlying issues

This post is about this case. Not anything else. If you would like to discuss the other things start a new thread.