WWTBAM Bored

Suspect charged with murder in Kada Scott’s death as video reveals a possible accomplice

This murder has been the top story in Philly for days.

The murderer previously was arrested for beating up his girlfriend. After he made bail, the victim chose not to testify. DA Krasner dropped the charges when he should have protected the girlfriend.

A small silver lining: A few years ago the murder of a black woman in Philly, even a beautiful young woman, wouldn’t have been front page news. Crime has declined in general, so a murder such as this isn’t an everyday occurrence.

jarnon wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 24, 2025 7:49 am

Crime has declined in general, so a murder such as this isn’t an everyday occurrence.

Don't let flock hear you say that.

jarnon wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 24, 2025 7:49 am

A few years ago the murder of a black woman in Philly, even a beautiful young woman,......

I would suggest a rephrasing of this line.....

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 24, 2025 7:56 am

jarnon wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 24, 2025 7:49 am

Crime has declined in general, so a murder such as this isn’t an everyday occurrence.

Don't let flock hear you say that.

Why. Crime has declined since Biden left office. Shout it loud and proud.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 24, 2025 9:49 am

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 24, 2025 7:56 am

jarnon wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 24, 2025 7:49 am

Crime has declined in general, so a murder such as this isn’t an everyday occurrence.

Don't let flock hear you say that.

Why. Crime has declined since Biden left office. Shout it loud and proud.

No, there was no crime at all when Biden's handlers were in office.
I don't know about you, but I was scared to go to San Francisco a long time ago. Such a horrible place back then. Now it is paradise, as are Portland and Seattle. No crime to speak of. That's why we need to defund the police. They got nothing to do. There's no crime because nothing's illegal anymore. Get arrested. No bail, no problem. Go and sin no more. Until the next time. Ask Iryna about that. Or Laken. Just ask the young black men in Chicago. Or Walgreens drug stores. Geez, ask anyone.

These people just aren't serious. They just hate Trump. That's their only reality.

jarnon wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 24, 2025 7:49 am

Suspect charged with murder in Kada Scott’s death as video reveals a possible accomplice

This murder has been the top story in Philly for days.

The murderer previously was arrested for beating up his girlfriend. After he made bail, the victim chose not to testify. DA Krasner dropped the charges when he should have protected the girlfriend.

A small silver lining: A few years ago the murder of a black woman in Philly, even a beautiful young woman, wouldn’t have been front page news. Crime has declined in general, so a murder such as this isn’t an everyday occurrence.

Jarnon, I think you are being intentionally subtly sarcastic. Your responses are incredibly obtuse.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 8:58 pm

How, and more importantly: WHY? do you leftists dismiss the fact that crime has increased geometrically over the years, to the point where we just accept things that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago,

A single anecdote, with a photo of the horrendous crime of street vendors selling bootleg or stolen goods. I give more credence to FBI statistics:

I've seen how the FBI and the biden DOJ lied to us. Remember the Hunter Laptop. Remember Peter Stzok's and Lisa Page's exploits. Remember them branding parents that went to school board meetings 'domestic terrorists'. Maybe stop believing what the people who tell you men can have babies tell you.

You might want to broaden your horizons and not be so trusting of one side and not believe a word from other side. Maybe think for yourself and take into account what you see and experience rather than what you are told to think.

jarnon wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 9:37 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 8:58 pm

How, and more importantly: WHY? do you leftists dismiss the fact that crime has increased geometrically over the years, to the point where we just accept things that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago,

A single anecdote, with a photo of the POSSIBLY horrendous crime of street vendors selling bootleg or stolen goods.

Street vendors have been a New York City tradition for over a century, and many people make their livings selling merchandise on the streets. This is the same part of New York City years earlier. Depending on how long his family has been living in New York City, Mr. Sweeney's great-great grandfather may have been one of the people in this picture.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 10:07 pm

You might want to broaden your horizons and not be so trusting of one side and not believe a word from other side.

Any time Flock talks about "broadening your horizons," his "source" is almost always an anonymous tweet.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 10:09 pm

jarnon wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 9:37 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 8:58 pm

How, and more importantly: WHY? do you leftists dismiss the fact that crime has increased geometrically over the years, to the point where we just accept things that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago,

A single anecdote, with a photo of the POSSIBLY horrendous crime of street vendors selling bootleg or stolen goods.

Street vendors have been a New York City tradition for over a century, and many people make their livings selling merchandise on the streets. This is the same part of New York City years earlier. Depending on how long his family has been living in New York City, Mr. Sweeney's great-great grandfather may have been one of the people in this picture.

Mister Sweeney's great grandfather most probably came into this country LEGALLY.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 10:11 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 10:07 pm

You might want to broaden your horizons and not be so trusting of one side and not believe a word from other side.

Any time Flock talks about "broadening your horizons," his "source" is almost always an anonymous tweet.

Perhaps. But maybe from people who are posting what they see and what they think,, not what they are told to post.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 10:35 pm

Perhaps. But maybe from people who are posting what they see and what they think,, not what they are told to post.

I'll give Flock credit that, at least, this time, his tweet source isn't anonymous. It's that washed-up actor James Woods lamenting the end of his career. But if you had bothered to scroll down a few comments, you would have seen a reply that puts this video in its proper perspective. And, by the way, Woods's post is dated October 27. The video was made June 8, so it's been making the rounds for 4 1/2 months from one MAGAite to another. That's mindless, unquestioning retweeting from who knows how many people to Kevin Dalton to James Woods to Flock:

Mobs vandalizing everything”? Your video’s a June 8, 2025, clip of 3-4 protesters jumping on a Waymo in downtown LA during anti-ICE rallies—arrests were made (LAPD charged 5 with vandalism/felony assault). One corner in a 3.7M-person city? Not “mobs,” just idiots—unlike your Jan 6 “patriots” trashing the Capitol ($2.7M damage, 1,200+ arrests). Crime down 20% under Bass.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 10:46 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 10:35 pm

Perhaps. But maybe from people who are posting what they see and what they think,, not what they are told to post.

I'll give Flock credit that, at least, this time, his tweet source isn't anonymous. It's that washed-up actor James Woods lamenting the end of his career. But if you had bothered to scroll down a few comments, you would have seen a reply that puts this video in its proper perspective. And, by the way, Woods's post is dated October 27. The video was made June 8, so it's been making the rounds for 4 1/2 months from one MAGAite to another. That's mindless, unquestioning retweeting from who knows how many people to Kevin Dalton to James Woods to Flock:

Mobs vandalizing everything”? Your video’s a June 8, 2025, clip of 3-4 protesters jumping on a Waymo in downtown LA during anti-ICE rallies—arrests were made (LAPD charged 5 with vandalism/felony assault). One corner in a 3.7M-person city? Not “mobs,” just idiots—unlike your Jan 6 “patriots” trashing the Capitol ($2.7M damage, 1,200+ arrests). Crime down 20% under Bass.

Yeah, I guess I'm wrong. That kind of behavior only ever happened and stopped completely on June 8, and only happened on that one street corner. I stand corrected.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 28, 2025 9:54 am

Yeah, I guess I'm wrong. That kind of behavior only ever happened and stopped completely on June 8, and only happened on that one street corner. I stand corrected.

Obviously, there's more crime in Los Angeles, but crime rates have gone down since the first Trump administration. You and James Woods attempted to use this one case of vandalism and extrapolate it to "prove" that there's out-of-control rioting going on in Los Angeles, when that's clearly not the case.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 28, 2025 4:56 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 28, 2025 9:54 am

Yeah, I guess I'm wrong. That kind of behavior only ever happened and stopped completely on June 8, and only happened on that one street corner. I stand corrected.

Obviously, there's more crime in Los Angeles, but crime rates have gone down since the first Trump administration. You and James Woods attempted to use this one case of vandalism and extrapolate it to "prove" that there's out-of-control rioting going on in Los Angeles, when that's clearly not the case.

That's right. And any protests going on are mostly peaceful.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 28, 2025 8:01 pm

That's right. And any protests going on are mostly peaceful.

And what's your point? You showed James Woods's video, which was shown to be an isolated example of what went on, then you switch to a mention of the fact that there's still crime in Los Angeles, then you shift to a mention of riots that took place in other cities years previously.

When you can't refute facts, you throw out mindless one-liners, because that's all you have to fall back on. You talk about how I'm indoctrinated, when you can't even come up with a single original idea other than cribbing from bogus videos and off-point one-liners.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 28, 2025 10:19 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 28, 2025 8:01 pm

That's right. And any protests going on are mostly peaceful.

And what's your point? You showed James Woods's video, which was shown to be an isolated example of what went on, then you switch to a mention of the fact that there's still crime in Los Angeles, then you shift to a mention of riots that took place in other cities years previously.

When you can't refute facts, you throw out mindless one-liners, because that's all you have to fall back on. You talk about how I'm indoctrinated, when you can't even come up with a single original idea other than cribbing from bogus videos and off-point one-liners.

SSS, The point is that I don't believe the FBI statistics. They, and the legacy media (reference 'mostly peaceful protests') have been lying to us for over a decade now. Probably more than that. The DOJ has been corrupted and has been weaponized for some time. So keep quoting the doctored 'statistics' and handing out your ad hominem attacks against me. You are still wrong.

I am about to post another example of how in another thread. I don't think our Secretary of State is lying to us about the voter roll in particular. I KNOW HE IS. And many other people I know personally are very certain he lies to us about a great many other things. And they constantly present their evidence to deaf ears. I have no reason to doubt them. I have verified a lot of specific points where I had the data to do so. But, according to you, our government officials never lie to us, unless, of course, you disagree with their politics.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 27, 2025 8:58 pm

How, and more importantly: WHY? do you leftists dismiss the fact that crime has increased geometrically over the years, to the point where we just accept things that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago,

Do you know what the word geometrically actually means?

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 28, 2025 10:32 pm

SSS, The point is that I don't believe the FBI statistics. They, and the legacy media (reference 'mostly peaceful protests') have been lying to us for over a decade now.

So you don't believe the FBI, even though the latest reports to come out of there about trends in the last year were compiled during the Trump 2 administration. Is Kash Patel lying to make Biden look good? And those reports are based on data received from hundreds of local law enforcement agencies, many of them in red states. Were they all lying as well?

You don't believe official records about crime, unemployment, inflation, or anything else that contradicts your preconceived opinions about Biden and Trump. But you do believe any random Tweeter who puts out completely unsourced information or easily refuted information simply because you agree with it. As for the "proof" that the Georgia election in 2020 was rigged, no has ever presented one iota of this "proof" in any court where it has been subject to critical evaluation and cross examination. Until then, it's not proof, it's just more numbers on a spreadsheet.

As for the "proof" that the Georgia election in 2020 was rigged, no has ever presented one iota of this "proof" in any court where it has been subject to critical evaluation and cross examination.

I know of and personally followed 2, but there are many more.

DeKalb Co Republican Party v Raffensperger

Curling v Raffensperger

Both of these cases were ultimately handled like your famous 60 cases. They were swept under the rug using underhanded and questionable legal procedures. IE, dismissed because of 'standing'.

In the Curling case, it was amazing. This case started back in 2019 or so, and is the reason Georgia threw out the Diebold machines and purchased the Dominion machines after the ruling by Judge Amy Totenberg (Sister of the NPR anchor, Nina). The case was restarted because the Dominion machines had many of the same problems. Much evidence was presented and very little, if any, of the evidence was contradicted by the defense. So what happened? Totenberg took more than a year before deciding that the same plaintiffs that she ruled for in 2019 somehow didn't have standing in 2024. Swept under the rug.

In our case the judge wrote a word salad script and said we, all of us registered voters and citizens, did not have standing so that the evidence , presented and not disputed or refuted by the defense, could be ignored.

No evidence was ever presented?

How about this?

Read this.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... ummary.pdf



Now tell me again how no evidence was presented.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 29, 2025 7:58 am

Both of these cases were ultimately handled like your famous 60 cases. They were swept under the rug using underhanded and questionable legal procedures. IE, dismissed because of 'standing'.

Standing is not an "underhanded and questionable legal procedure." It is a fundamental aspect of our judicial system and one of the first things I was taught in my civil procedure classes in law school. You and I just can't just go around suing whoever we please because we don't like some law or procedure. We have to show that we were specifically aggrieved by the law. Your plaintiffs failed to do so. In that case, the judge and/or jury never considers the evidence because it's a waste of judicial time. In other words:

As for the "proof" that the Georgia election in 2020 was rigged, no has ever presented one iota of this "proof" in any court where it has been subject to critical evaluation and cross examination.

Any time you complain about legal procedure and "lawfare," you invariably display your complete ignorance of such procedure in the very next sentence.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 29, 2025 8:35 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 29, 2025 7:58 am

Both of these cases were ultimately handled like your famous 60 cases. They were swept under the rug using underhanded and questionable legal procedures. IE, dismissed because of 'standing'.

Standing is not an "underhanded and questionable legal procedure." It is a fundamental aspect of our judicial system and one of the first things I was taught in my civil procedure classes in law school. You and I just can't just go around suing whoever we please because we don't like some law or procedure. We have to show that we were specifically aggrieved by the law. Your plaintiffs failed to do so. In that case, the judge and/or jury never considers the evidence because it's a waste of judicial time. In other words:

As for the "proof" that the Georgia election in 2020 was rigged, no has ever presented one iota of this "proof" in any court where it has been subject to critical evaluation and cross examination.

Any time you complain about legal procedure and "lawfare," you invariably display your complete ignorance of such procedure in the very next sentence.

In both those cases, reams of evidence were presented and subjected to cross examination and evaluation, as I documented. The underhandedness was on full display in Curling as Totenberg took more than a year to figure out a way to not take any action on the evidence by arbitrarily pronouncing the same plaintiffs that previously had standing suddenly had no standing. I may be a moron, but if they had no standing, why did she waste the time to hear all the evidence presented? And why did it take her a year to find that out? So the lawyers could rack up the legal bills?

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 29, 2025 9:10 am

In both those cases, reams of evidence were presented and subjected to cross examination and evaluation, as I documented. The underhandedness was on full display in Curling as Totenberg took more than a year to figure out a way to not take any action on the evidence by arbitrarily pronouncing the same plaintiffs that previously had standing suddenly had no standing. I may be a moron, but if they had no standing, why did she waste the time to hear all the evidence presented? And why did it take her a year to find that out?

The judge did not make any ruling on the validity of the evidence presented, which is the "critical evaluation" I referred to. In any lawsuit, there is a lesser standard of evidence required for a judge to rule against a motion to dismiss (which the judge did here) than to prevail on the merits. The judge ruled that based on the pleadings, the plaintiffs might be able to show they had standing, so she allowed the case to proceed to trial. At trial, they could not prove they actually did have standing and the case was dismissed on that basis. As to whether you're a moron, this court makes no determination on that issue.