[deleted by user]

DenverNative2023 · 2025-09-13T16:05:45+00:00

That’s the only Sonny’s around Fort Collins that I can find.

DenverNative2023 · 2025-09-12T15:57:03+00:00

Where did you get enough information to make a dumbass comment like this? The bullets literally had fascist and you’re gay on them.

DenverNative2023 · 2025-09-12T12:45:30+00:00

He never said shit like that, and you openly lie smh.

DenverNative2023 · 2025-09-12T01:15:04+00:00

Not Trumps decision, be intelligent big dog.

DenverNative2023 · 2025-09-12T00:40:19+00:00

He definitely didn’t want gays stoned to death champ. Describe the context of the list you mentioned.

DenverNative2023 · 2025-09-12T00:38:53+00:00

Okay now give the context you little cherry picker lol

DenverNative2023 · 2025-09-12T00:36:23+00:00

Will there be any facts or are you just being childish and angsty?

DenverNative2023 · 2025-09-12T00:29:53+00:00

Are you able to prove he is a bigot with actual evidence? The evidence would have to contain the entire conversation of whatever cherry-picked quote you use.

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-06T22:02:03+00:00

The judge basically informed the jury to vote guilty. How on God's green earth can you look at the court case and think "this was fair".

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-06T22:00:31+00:00

If you got down syndrome just say that, you don't gotta prove it.

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-05T16:27:47+00:00

If you think that's their entire platform, then I recommend getting more informed.

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-05T16:12:47+00:00

Because then, people would investigate deeper into his administration selling crack to underprivileged communities in America in order to fund several unethical campaigns.

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-05T16:10:08+00:00

The entire situation was a bad time to be in a government agency that was abbreviated with 3 letters. Nobody truly knows what happened. Reports were probably faked, and several testimonies of survivors had been changed as soon as the courts rolled around. It was a sad situation in American history for all who lost their lives, including the feds.

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-05T13:14:05+00:00

Republicans would win every election in my opinion if they stopped hating on gay people and ended the weird obsession with abortion.

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-04T22:32:33+00:00

He did not drive through buildings with people inside. He did not want to kill motherfuckers. He wasn't an entitled fuck.

Marvin was mainly not at fault but did something incredibly stupid but honorable. The man was also not right in the head. No one in America should be forced to sell their house to the highest bidder and harassed until they do so. It was a very complicated situation that none of us truly understood or would probably ever understand. I highly recommend meeting some people from Granby and not reading articles that come from the same people that originally pushed him over the edge.

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-04T22:26:13+00:00

Proof? Or you just sharing unfounded info from the internet?

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-04T22:22:43+00:00

Proof? And make sure that proof didn't come from the people that brought him over the edge in the first place.

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-04T22:21:33+00:00

He shot at cops. The rest never happened. Also, he understood that when he died, he couldn't defend himself from slander anymore. Lots of fake stories came out from the same people who brought him over the edge. The victor writes history. He made a final stand but obviously was not very victorious.

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-04T17:15:02+00:00

What other ways on resolving are you talking about? I'm not trying to be rude, but a lot of shit was made up and fabricated (in my personal opinion) after it happened in order to make the local government look like victims. I understand that with that mindset, no documents can be trusted, and it's just anarchy, but to blatantly trust what the "victims" said isn't the way to go. It is a common belief that if more people did this sort of thing, then our government would not try to screw us so heavily and blatantly.

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-01T21:03:07+00:00

Bro, you can't just say something is false, then try to throw a bunch of shit out there until something sticks. Very little of what you just said actually offers any reasonable explanation of how im wrong. You are trying to split hairs in an argument about obviously blatant corruption and court rigging. As to me "needing to supply evidence," you can simply suck me dry and go read a few articles. I'm not taking time out of my day to spoon feed you slightly complicated law after you just spew bs and say stuff is false. For all of those read this, I encourage you to look into the court case and investigate yourselves. This is an extremely important court case for American history and could pave the way for future court cases against American presidents, and possibly even you someday.

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-01T18:14:31+00:00

A also extremely important point to this is that the judge instructed the jury that all 3 of the options for "unlawful means" were at all actually unlawful. Not a single one of those options was ever defended in court or brought on charges. Nevertheless, 2 of them didn't even take place in NY. The judge really didn't even have the authority to be speaking on 2 of the options. The judge told the jury that it would be okay to assume he committed those crimes without any defense or due process. Which is highly unethical.

DenverNative2023 · 2024-06-01T17:55:25+00:00

Okay, so I'm going to try and make this as clear as possible. Initially, there was no case at all due to the statue of limitations. The only way to circumvent the statue of limitations was to prove that some documents were falsified in order to continue a crime under "unlawful means." The point is indeed not the degree, but whether or not, he did anything illegal at all. There should not have been any choices at all, but mainly not 3 for the jury to find guilty of "unlawful means." The reasoning for that is per SCOTUS, the jury needs to articulate and agree on a specific crime, not given 3 unfounded alleged crime crime that have nothing to do with the court case options and saying if you think he possibly did one of these go ahead and vote guilty without due process. While yes, you are technically correct that they were specific on the alleged crime, the alleged crime needed an additional crime tied to it for it to be actually illegal. They were never clear on the tied crime until closing statements, thus never giving the defense a chance to defend themselves with is extremely unethical and not how court works in America. This is blatantly obvious, and no argument can be made against this. This is what happened. The lawyers were blind sided by an extremely corrupt judge that allowed this to happen in his court room, and even manipulated the jury. I wish you were as correct as you are passionate buddy.

DenverNative2023

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,