- Joined
- Feb 14, 2019
- Messages
- 10,889
- Reaction score
- 5,103
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
How about DNA?
How about DNA?Be prepared for disappointment. Unless Robinson confessed with a given motive, or named collaborating persons came forward with evidence, nothing prosecutors will say during or after the hearing will be scoff proof.
No, because it's a scrub he got from Twiggs' social media. I can't verify it.Care to share?
That goes to my point about a possible tainted jury pool.Once charged, he will get the same right to a trial that others have had before him, and will continue to have after him.
1.I and many others know what he stood for. Speak for yourself or your Maga followers and their ignorance. Charlie Kirk's positions were posted over and over again on the internet as were his videos.T/Y.
If some would take just one hour out of their day they would learn that they don't really know what he stood for. I think the most positive thing he created was a social network for young conservatives, teaching them to speak out on campuses where they felt marginalized.
If you don't mind making the arguments (because @trixare4kids certainly won't attempt to) can you explain to me why I'm supposed to give a shit that Charlie wished some trans person wasnt trans. Wishing that people who exist didn't exist isn't my idea of empathy...I really, really, really wish Amir was here on this forum, although I don't know why I want him to suffer such a thing.
Because I would love to hear his voice in combination with many of the voices that would find his positions untenable.
I personally don't mind making the same arguments, but I know that I would face the rejection for just being straight, white, Christian, etc., etc. (which, by the way, is a repugnant position to take, in my opinion, but that's another thread.)
I would love to see how people square that circle is it that he's a self-hating umm... everything? Or just wrong? or what?
Ok. Did you “hear” what was scrubbed?No, because it's a scrub he got from Twiggs' social media. I can't verify it.
Thought you (we) were looking for motive? DNA is evidence of the deed.How about DNA?
What has been said that you believe tainted a jury pool? Can you be specific as to whom said what?That goes to my point about a possible tainted jury pool.
Yes, you are correct. DNA does offer proof of the deed, not necessarily motive. I actually was referring to the actual crime itself.Thought you (we) were looking for motive? DNA is evidence of the deed.
No. Read what you first quoted.Ok. Did you “hear” what was scrubbed?
Its a matter of whether a judge believes in a tainted jury pool during voir dire, not me.What has been said that you believe tainted a jury pool? Can you be specific as to whom said what?
Thanks.Charlie Kirk suspect linked to crime scene by DNA, says FBI chief
Kash Patel says Tyler Robinson's DNA was found on towel wrapping suspected murder weapon.www.bbc.com
Yes….that would be correct.Its a matter of whether a judge believes in a tainted jury pool during voir dire, not me.
Right, so it doesn't make sense for law enforcement or the governor to give the speculation they have given, like whether the roommate was a lover or not, at this time. That's going to end up hurting the trial.Yes….that would be correct.
Nothing in life is. But without a doubt DNA is used in court, and has and will continue to along with other evidence led to convictions. As well as just the opposite.Thanks.
Though dna evidence is not infallible.
What speculation did they give? Please be specific? They have evidence the roommate was his lover. From various sources.Right, so it doesn't make sense for law enforcement or the governor to give the speculation they have given, like whether the roommate was a lover or not, at this time. That's going to end up hurting the trial.
I literally just gave an example in the comment you quoted. Go off automated mode and actually read and think.What speculation did they give? Please be specific? They have evidence the roommate was his lover. From various sources.
And I responded. There is evidence that Lance was his lover. It wasn’t “speculation”.I literally just gave an example in the comment you quoted. Go off automated mode and actually read and think.
The "evidence" comes from the governor's comments, that's my point. I've read about 10 articles and they all point back to Gov Cox.And I responded. There is evidence that Lance was his lover. It wasn’t “speculation”.
That would depend on someone reporting you.
I cited the part on hate speech because you questioned how it was defined, I was showing you that even here, in this little ole forum, it is defined. That was to clear up any confusion on how it is defined. We are going real slow here, but let me know if ur still with me...
Why would you be asking a question Ive asked you to answer in 2 separate threads? I told you, I thought you were a markets guy, I had never seen the crazy racist posts before. Had I been missing them in the past?
1.I and many others know what he stood for. Speak for yourself or your Maga followers and their ignorance. Charlie Kirk's positions were posted over and over again on the internet as were his videos.
2.Your second comment is fair of course.
3. What you won't acknowledge and I get it, is that the inherent content of many of the things he said deliberately provoked his opponents not to engage in respectful dialogue but to ridicule or embarrass them. Many of his debates and speeches ridiculed, belittled those that disagreed with him and called for extremist all or nothing positions, Yes indeed his style did invite debate and in that sense, proper debate is constructive and in many debts I witnessed he was civil and respectful. However in other debates he in fact renfoced the bigotry or rigid extremism of his opponents in certain choices of words and responses.
Charlie Kirk was no saint. He did not engage in holier then thou Jesus sermons. He posed himself as a righteous Christian gospel prophet giving sermons. He was no Jesus. His words appealed to angry threatened while males fearing the world. He made hateful smeers against all people who were hired by affirmative action programs. gays, transexuals, women. He did. You can't erase some of the passages and references he made which stated sweeping negative generalizations with no proof.
On the other hand he did also engage in some great comebacks to extremist left wingers who suffered from the same rigid generalizations as their right wing counter parts.
What Kirk failed to do is preach genuine tolerance. Claiming to preach tolerance but in the next breath saying all gays will go hell but then in the next breath sayY you do not hate them does not set the stage for tolerance it set the stage for passive aggressive ridicule.
Charlie Kirk was no angel. He was a mouthpiece that tried to sugar coat the most vile hateful aspects of the Trump agenda. He also made millions personally doing this. He deliberately use inflammatory comments to increase his audience and revenue stream.
And the FBI. And family members. And I believe there is the possibility from Lance himself. We should find out more tomorrow.The "evidence" comes from the governor's comments, that's my point. I've read about 10 articles and they all point back to Gov Cox.
The FBI is also part of my point, they are also putting info out there that can potentially pollute a jury pool. Any salacious materials or character assassination can. These people are not doing their jobs well at all.And the FBI. And family members. And I believe there is the possibility from Lance himself. We should find out more tomorrow.
Several? As in exceedingly rare.It is more rare than accidental discharge or unplanned shootings out of anger. There have even been several cases where the person trying to use their gun in "self defense" has shot and killed innocent people or the person has been shot because the police arrived quickly and shot the person with the gun.
Well of course. Because those owning and carrying a firearm is a choice , unless you are barred from an area.Also, almost no gun free zone has truly been gun free. There have been armed people in almost all of those places, and in some where they were allowed, they still did not have many who chose to be armed.
Since they found the actual shooter's position, that estimate has been reduced to 135 yards, but I also heard another report say 170, but it's under 200.It really isn't. With a scope, or even without a scope, most of your error will be up and down, not left or right, and humans being humans are a good target up and down. 200 yards is not a difficult shot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?