Anonymous wrote:I turned him in. Doubtful I'm the only one. He's a complete dickwad in the community. Shocker, I know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years max sentence x 3 = 30 years: sounds about right. Arsehole.

I truly hope you don’t mean that. If that were the punishment meted out for what he did, prisons would be filled to the brim with people committing relatively minor, in the scheme of things, offenses.

You can’t give him 30 years because he happened to be pissed off by BLM instead of any number of other things.

As a taxpayer, I would have absolutely no problem with that. Someone like this does not change for the better overnight, if at all.

What does “someone like that mean”? Someone who commits a simple assault, or someone who commits simple assault while espousing conservative viewpoints?

You really would not want anyone who commits simple assault to serve 10 years. Without priors, most people would and should serve little if any time.

If you want him to serve more because he dislikes BLM, that thankfully isn’t how are system works and, it would be dangerous for everyone, including you, if it did work that way.

It has nothing to do with politics, though you may want it to - this man is hair trigger, and should not be around most people.

You jail someone for what they have done. Not a general hair trigger.

If you jailed everyone who, at least at times acted with a hair trigger for 30 years, you’d have mass incarceration on a scale never before seen.

Yes, and this guy should definitely be jailed for what he did. If you have the same superior attitude that he does, clearly you are not going to agree.

30 years for grabbing someone’s arm and knocking someone else over? Think of how many people have done the equivalent, not to mention much worse.



If you really think they should all be jailed for 30 years, you have a radically anti-progressive view of criminal law.

Needs a pretrial diversion with community service. These jail talking people are nuts.

For a VIOLENT crime against two people. I bet you want incarceration for non-violent protestors out after curfew.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Can we get back to dragging this guy for being a violent psycho and stop with the encyclopedia of cycling personalities.

Ok but 40 pages in and not a word about what was said or what happened before the video. The three people promoting the video version of the event will need to tell the authorities, though not dcum, what happened before the video. “We were standing off the trail and man stopped with no warning and attacked us” might be what they say. Or not.

The “video version”? Lol. So you didn’t read any of the articles linked in the thread or the scores of them online? The teen who recorded the video said Brennan at first “seemed intrigued” by their efforts to put the flyers up, so he started to explain the project they were working on. Then Brennan ripped the flyers out of his hands and attacked the girls as you see in the video, before assaulting the guy taking the video with his bike.

You think Brennan would have issued the abject apology if he had a way to weasel out of responsibility for his psychotic behavior due to anything that happened prior to the start of the video? I realize you are in no way sincere in your comment, but am fascinated by your boldly ridiculous take on this. Tell us what you think happened to set this man off in a justifiable way?

We all know what happened. These dangerous thug like 18 year olds saw a pious white man of privilege coming down the bike path and they stepped out and assaulted him with their single roll of painters tape. They were vicious, dangerous deviants who were hell bent on exacting revenge on this poor man who clearly has been beaten down in life due to affirmative action. Have you started a gofundme for this man's suffering mr. "ok but 40 pages in ".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am irritated that he is now saying that he feels really badly and that he is sorry. Whatever. He wasn’t sorry when he was terrorizing those teens.

Let’s say he really is sorry. Maybe this was an eye opening event for him and he realizes he needs help. Wouldn’t this be exact how he would or should respond?

To be clear, I have no idea if he is sincere. But you don’t either. It annoys me when people immediately declare definitively he is just faking it because in your mind there is nothing he could possibly say that would show real remorse. That just makes no sense because it is the kind of thing that some people - not all - really would be remorseful after seeing in a video how horribly he behaved.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, weird over the top reaction to person on the bike path. The fact he is a cyclist is the least shocking part of this story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am irritated that he is now saying that he feels really badly and that he is sorry. Whatever. He wasn’t sorry when he was terrorizing those teens.

What response would you prefer?

DP - A) For him not to have attacked them in the first place preferably. B) But also for him to have come forward immediately. He waited 3 days hoping it would die down. First day his picture was on twitter/local media. Second day it was all over Facebook/NextDoor etc. C) Third day the national media had picked it up and law enforcement was clearly making it priority.

He only came forward because he was forced to.

He didn't come forward at all--he was found by the police.

Article in post says many tips came into about him, the police took his drivers license picture and computer compared it to the video and it matched. So they staked out his house and when his son was driving him somewhere the officer saw the car come to a rolling stop (ran a stop sign) so that’s when they pulled him over and that’s how the police came to him.

This guy didn’t just walk into the police station to turn himself in and apologize. He had hidden the clothes and his bike because he knew he was busted. His apology is a carefully crafted PR statement. No way has he suddenly seen the light. We have a guy like this in our neighborhood and he’s had the police called on him for screaming at people. He has zero remorse.

Anonymous wrote:I know one of his neighbors (not the one who turned him in) and he confirmed that this guy is known as a nightmare in the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am irritated that he is now saying that he feels really badly and that he is sorry. Whatever. He wasn’t sorry when he was terrorizing those teens.

What response would you prefer?

DP - A) For him not to have attacked them in the first place preferably. B) But also for him to have come forward immediately. He waited 3 days hoping it would die down. First day his picture was on twitter/local media. Second day it was all over Facebook/NextDoor etc. C) Third day the national media had picked it up and law enforcement was clearly making it priority.

He only came forward because he was forced to.

He didn't come forward at all--he was found by the police.

Article in post says many tips came into about him, the police took his drivers license picture and computer compared it to the video and it matched. So they staked out his house and when his son was driving him somewhere the officer saw the car come to a rolling stop (ran a stop sign) so that’s when they pulled him over and that’s how the police came to him.

This guy didn’t just walk into the police station to turn himself in and apologize. He had hidden the clothes and his bike because he knew he was busted. His apology is a carefully crafted PR statement. No way has he suddenly seen the light. We have a guy like this in our neighborhood and he’s had the police called on him for screaming at people. He has zero remorse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years max sentence x 3 = 30 years: sounds about right. Arsehole.

I truly hope you don’t mean that. If that were the punishment meted out for what he did, prisons would be filled to the brim with people committing relatively minor, in the scheme of things, offenses.

You can’t give him 30 years because he happened to be pissed off by BLM instead of any number of other things.

As a taxpayer, I would have absolutely no problem with that. Someone like this does not change for the better overnight, if at all.

What does “someone like that mean”? Someone who commits a simple assault, or someone who commits simple assault while espousing conservative viewpoints?

You really would not want anyone who commits simple assault to serve 10 years. Without priors, most people would and should serve little if any time.

If you want him to serve more because he dislikes BLM, that thankfully isn’t how are system works and, it would be dangerous for everyone, including you, if it did work that way.

It has nothing to do with politics, though you may want it to - this man is hair trigger, and should not be around most people.

You jail someone for what they have done. Not a general hair trigger.

If you jailed everyone who, at least at times acted with a hair trigger for 30 years, you’d have mass incarceration on a scale never before seen.

Yes, and this guy should definitely be jailed for what he did. If you have the same superior attitude that he does, clearly you are not going to agree.

30 years for grabbing someone’s arm and knocking someone else over? Think of how many people have done the equivalent, not to mention much worse.



If you really think they should all be jailed for 30 years, you have a radically anti-progressive view of criminal law.

Needs a pretrial diversion with community service. These jail talking people are nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am irritated that he is now saying that he feels really badly and that he is sorry. Whatever. He wasn’t sorry when he was terrorizing those teens.

What response would you prefer?

DP - A) For him not to have attacked them in the first place preferably. B) But also for him to have come forward immediately. He waited 3 days hoping it would die down. First day his picture was on twitter/local media. Second day it was all over Facebook/NextDoor etc. C) Third day the national media had picked it up and law enforcement was clearly making it priority.

He only came forward because he was forced to.

He didn't come forward at all--he was found by the police.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am irritated that he is now saying that he feels really badly and that he is sorry. Whatever. He wasn’t sorry when he was terrorizing those teens.

Let’s say he really is sorry. Maybe this was an eye opening event for him and he realizes he needs help. Wouldn’t this be exact how he would or should respond?

To be clear, I have no idea if he is sincere. But you don’t either. It annoys me when people immediately declare definitively he is just faking it because in your mind there is nothing he could possibly say that would show real remorse. That just makes no sense because it is the kind of thing that some people - not all - really would be remorseful after seeing in a video how horribly he behaved.

What sixty year old acts like that? You know he’s had trouble with other humans along the way. Aggressive behavior doesn’t pop up out of nowhere.

Anonymous wrote:It has been mentioned a few times on this thread, but I’d like to draw attention to how impressive these teens were in a difficult situation. The tiny girl stood her ground when the cyclist was trying to rip the tape off her arm. The other girl fiercely rushed to her defense and pushed the cyclist off. The boy not only had the presence of mind to videotape the encounter once he realized it was going south, but he posted about it on Reddit in a pretty neutral, informative way that protected the girls’ identities.

This happened very close to where I live, on a trail we use a lot, to kids the same age as mine, so it hits home. I’m super proud of those kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am irritated that he is now saying that he feels really badly and that he is sorry. Whatever. He wasn’t sorry when he was terrorizing those teens.

Let’s say he really is sorry. Maybe this was an eye opening event for him and he realizes he needs help. Wouldn’t this be exact how he would or should respond?

To be clear, I have no idea if he is sincere. But you don’t either. It annoys me when people immediately declare definitively he is just faking it because in your mind there is nothing he could possibly say that would show real remorse. That just makes no sense because it is the kind of thing that some people - not all - really would be remorseful after seeing in a video how horribly he behaved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am irritated that he is now saying that he feels really badly and that he is sorry. Whatever. He wasn’t sorry when he was terrorizing those teens.

What response would you prefer?

DP - A) For him not to have attacked them in the first place preferably. B) But also for him to have come forward immediately. He waited 3 days hoping it would die down. First day his picture was on twitter/local media. Second day it was all over Facebook/NextDoor etc. C) Third day the national media had picked it up and law enforcement was clearly making it priority.

He only came forward because he was forced to.