Folks, I give you yet another ignorant post by "the Indigenous Xicano". First he states:
And yet he wants the "boys" testimony to be upheld as factual truth. I agree with him, let the "boys" testimony stand as it was stated. What he fails to recognize is that the "boys" recollection was given to them by Brandon himself the day after the incident as the boys clearly testify to. None of the "boys", according to court testimony, saw who kicked Ramirez, they stated that Brandon told them that he kicked Ramirez the day after the incident.
So why is it that the only ones with perfect recall were teens whose minds were impaired by alcohol?
People cannot drive straight drunk but they can have perfect recall of a crazy violent beating?
Why is it that the drunken teens who were so emotionally charged that their angry screaming of racist slurs were heard inside the homes of the nearby residents are the only ones with perfect recall from that night?
These kids who told the truth were now accused by the defense for kicking Ramirez.
The arrogant Donchak and Piekarsky stuck to their fabricated story. They stuck to the advise offered by the cop who slept with Pietarsky's mother.
Lawson: Piekarsky said he kicked Ramirez during the meeting at his house.Another eye witness, Elizabeth Schlack, states she saw 3 boys kicking Ramirez. This also corroborates what Walsh testified to, "me, Piekarsky, Donchak and Scully kicked the fallen Ramirez."
Scully: Piekarsky said he kicked Ramirez, and Donchak "said he was glad he didn't break his knuckles."
Redmond: I saw Ramirez hit the ground, but saw no kick.
Walsh: me, Piekarsky, Donchak and Scully kicked the fallen Ramirez.
Walsh: I took Ramirez down with a solid "uppercut hook" and saw him hit his head
Walsh: Piekarsky kicked Ramirez in the head while he was down.
1:17: Schlack: I called 911 after I heard continuous thumping and saw three males kicking a prone man. On cross-examination, defense enters Schlack's 911 tape as evidence. Fanelli points out that Schlack referred to "teenagers fighting and beating each other" and counted 6 to 8 people during the 911 call.Yet in another topic, he goes off yet again. Does he not read what he writes? Is he unable to actually comprehend his own statements? I have to question his IQ, is it equivalent to others of his ethnicity?
White shoes. Red shoes. Blue shoes. Green eggs and freaking ham. The fact is that two of Brandon's buddies pointed him out in court and said that Brandon KICKED Ramirez in the head.But according to the "boys" testimony that he so desperately wishes to be used and states "These kids who told the truth were now accused by the defense for kicking Ramirez.", but can not see what is clearly in front of his own eyes? All the boys testify to having been told by Piekarsky that he kicked Ramirez. Maybe its a lack of comprehension on his behalf? "Who" were the eye witnesses to the kick, since Piekarsky had to tell the "boys" he kicked Ramirez? Schlack didn't see who did the kick, the Garcia's didn't see who kicked Ramirez, yet Ariel could clearly show how the kick was done. What about Burke? According to her interview, she saw the same as Schlack. So who was/were the "eye witnesses" to this kick in the head? Maybe it was made up and never happened!?
In Shenandoah, direct testimony by eyewitnesses is not enough to convict White "boys"(they were referred to as just "boys" in jury deliberations) for killing a Mexican.
These two who testified that Brandon kicked Ramirez know Brandon by sight. They did not have to focus on the color of a shoe. They knew Brandon by face. They go to school with Brandon. They play sports with him. They spend boring Saturday nights in Shenandoah drinking with him. They were not confused by whom they saw kick Ramirez.
Yet, the jury was able to ascertain that these two friends were lying. They were somehow able to come to that collective understanding.
This jury could not come to the collective understanding of how easy it would be, under the extreme circumstances, for Ariel to not be sure of the color of a shoe.
Rather than convict with eyewitness testimony, the jury used the understandable confusion of a fellow teen who witnessed a good friend killed before her eyes as grounds for acquittal.
So I ask, does talking in circles and contradicting yourself make you intelligent and able to "think critically"? I don't think so, I think it shows his own bigotry, ignorance, ethnocentrism, and racism.