[W#271][W:914] Charlie Kirk Reportedly Shot in Utah: Live Updates

[TamleeB]

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.

I disagree. Releasing the fact that they have matching DNA happens often in cases. This is nothing new.

 

[roguenuke]

Several? As in exceedingly rare.
The fact is the best available evidence is that defensive gun use happens far more than criminal use.



Well of course. Because those owning and carrying a firearm is a choice , unless you are barred from an area.
And the people that will obey such a restriction are generally those you don’t have to worry about anyway.

No it isn't. The only time that it comes up as more happening more often is self reports. It does not fit with the actual reports though. When people self report, they will claim they have used it in self defense more often than fits the actual reports of such use by a lot. When they compare reports though to crime rates with guns, you get the opposite.

Several of the shooters in recent years have been completely legally allowed to carry their guns to where they committed their crimes, unless they weren't supposed to be there at all. One major thing that people seem to forget about schools is that they are restricted access to begin with. If you don't have a child in a school, you can be denied entry into that school during a school day. Even when it comes to parents, they can deny you entry. The public cannot simply go into a school during the school day.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I disagree. Releasing the fact that they have matching DNA happens often in cases. This is nothing new.

That sort of neutral fact is fine. Comments about one's lifestyle, which stirs political feelings can be grounds for a mistrial.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

I'd bet good money that's clipped out of context per the usual. 9 sec clips almost always are.

Well, what I've been trying to do for some of these nine second clips that people are posting about Kirk is find the context and then present that as evidence that it was more complicated than that isolated statement.

If someone can do that with this statement, I would love to hear it. Maybe he was characterizing something or pretending or talking about a video game. I don't know. It's kind of hard for me to figure it out on a face value.

And I understand that. I understand that some of the things that Charlie Kirk said when taken out of context are hard for people to understand at face value, particularly the ones that deal with nuances in his faith, which are difficult enough to talk about since there's a lot of depth there.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Agree this clip is a terrible take but this isn't a person that advocates for political violence and went way of their way to make that clear in the Charlie Kirk assassination.

Are we making a distinction between the violence he advocated for in that clip And political violence? is somehow calling for people to be murdered in the street, okay, as long as it's not a high profile person? I'm not sure if I understand this line.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You think these site admins and moderators need an invitation to police this website? I think by now—through more than 6,700 posts—just about every one of them, including God himself, @Schweddy, has read and commented on this thread. But if my comment’s really bothering you and you think it’s a violation of forum rules, what’s holding you back? Why don’t you report it instead of repeatedly asking me your loaded question of when did I decide to become a bigot?

Your worries about being reported keeps distracting yourself from the point of argument, the point was you keep posting really crazy racist comments, like what is at hand, your blatently racist comment that Muslims are, right now, en masse, slaughtering other Brit citizens. You are accusing Muslims in Britain of mass criminality . It is completely insane, and you don't want to discuss it any longer, you can't accept it is totally racist, you even tried to say they are not your words. But they are, and I keep asking here and in a previous thread, when did you start posting like this?

Yes, it is defined, but your interpretation of that definition is lacking. And that really is the problem with so-called “hate speech”: to a leftist, anything that reinforces a narrative they find intolerable is hate speech.

You have not shown how saying "Muslim onslaught" in Britain is not racist hate speech. Your comment made a broad criminal smear across an entire religion in that nation.

I already explained why: the answer to your leading question depends on who is asking it. When did I become a bigot? Never, because I’m not.

I never said "bigot", we are discussing your comment that a "Muslim onslaught" is occurring in Britain right now and your other racist comments, and I am trying to understand when and what has caused you to make comment like this. I don't remember you posting like this previously.

 

[roguenuke]

Well, what I've been trying to do for some of these nine second clips that people are posting about Kirk is find the context and then present that as evidence that it was more complicated than that isolated statement.

If someone can do that with this statement, I would love to hear it. Maybe he was characterizing something or pretending or talking about a video game. I don't know. It's kind of hard for me to figure it out on a face value.

And I understand that. I understand that some of the things that Charlie Kirk said when taken out of context are hard for people to understand at face value, particularly the ones that deal with nuances in his faith, which are difficult enough to talk about since there's a lot of depth there.

It's wrong to say he is being taken out of context. He has called people "purple haired jihadi" during those "debates".

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Thread Update:
The FBI has reported that the family of the assassin has confirmed his left-wing ideology partifularly in the last few years. Patel specified during a public briefing that Robinson's family collectively described him as having been "deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology," and that he had expressed hatred for what Kirk represented, including in text exchanges where he mentioned an opportunity to "take out" Kirk.

Erm... Not groypers after all?

 

[jmotivator]

I've posted it a few times on various related threads, i.e. segments from many of Charlie Kirk's podcasts.
Here it is again:

Unfortunately they won't watch it.

 

[trixare4kids]

Erm... Not groypers after all?

No groypers.

 

[jmotivator]

But I said I didn't disown them...? That they are the ones that at least treat me with dignity and I can joke about my gender to my cousin who is unfiltered army talk? I'm not disowning anyone that doesn't disown me first, it isn't like I care much if they accidentally dead name me, more when my face catches their spit when they say it sometimes.

Yeah, me and my dad have waaaay more issues then just my identity. Thing is, I could still cook and interact with him with banter when he is sober. Just wish that was more often. I mean, the guy disowned me and two months later called me to wish himself a happy Father's day like that never happened lol

Like I said, your own statements put them calling you by your old name as the line in the sand between showing them love and breaking off contact. If you wouldn't actually do that then good on you. If you would, then the points stands.

Ethical socialist mind you. I bet I could explain that with enough merit to the MAGA type, and promise I won't make it personal until they do.

I'm aware of Ethical Socialism, and I have counterarguments that are also not personal.

 

[trixare4kids]

Unfortunately they won't watch it.

Some might and those are the people we should be trying to reach.

The rest get their "news" from media headlines without the context and leftwing, anti-conservative echo chambers. If they want to stay misinformed, and intellectually dishonest, that's on them.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

No I'm saying its an answer, not the answer. There's a difference.

Ah, okay. I think that's kind of niggling at the details. I just can't find a justification for murdering someone because they express opinions that I don't agree with.

Even if there are other ways for us to deal with this. In fact, one of the other ways is what Kirk was offering people who disagreed with him, discussion, what we also try to do here.

To know that you think killing someone who disagrees with you could be a solution makes me very happy that you do not know me or my location.

So shoot your shot.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I am certainly not for violence as a way to try to settle differences.

 

[Paradoxical]

Unfortunately they won't watch it.

I have asked no less than four times now for a poster to tell me what it was that Charlie Kirk said that was "racist" and got dancing a d prancing. He doesn't know is why he won't answer. There was a black female who was some kind of school liaison with the police who made vile comments about Kirk, after he died. Why would she? Because she was indoctrinated by the media and left to hate Charlie Kirk, and all she knows is that she HEARD he was racist.

 

[Master Debator]

Unfortunately they won't watch it.

I did. I found him telling a trans person that he wished they were comfortable in their own body to be hilarious. I wish Charlie was raised better instead of red necked. Can't you feel the empathy?

 

[Paradoxical]

Like I said, your own statements put them calling you by your old name as the line in the sand between showing them love and breaking off contact. If you wouldn't actually do that then good on you. If you would, then the points stands.



I'm aware of Ethical Socialism, and I have counterarguments that are also not personal.

Lemme guess. Ethical socialism is not taking all of your money.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

The left has pushed for speech as violence for a decade now and they now use that to defend violence as speech

This is actually an extremely powerful point.

Whether left or right, we need to not do this.

 

[Master Debator]

I have asked no less than four times now for a poster to tell me what it was that Charlie Kirk said that was "racist" and got dancing a d prancing. He doesn't know is why he won't answer. There was a black female who was some kind of school liaison with the police who made vile comments about Kirk, after he died. Why would she? Because she was indoctrinated by the media and left to hate Charlie Kirk, and all she knows is that she HEARD he was racist.

Charlie Kirk said he gets nervous whenever he sees a black pilot and that ketanji brown and kamala Harris were unqualified and took jobs that belonged to a white guy.

 

[Ƶ∅𝒹i͎αꞓ]

Being a little bitch in person while voting to use the force of law to deny them access to care is exactly the sort of meekness I'm pointing and laughing at among your soft white people like Charlie Kirk. We know most of the right doesn't have the courage to say most of this wild shit to our faces.

They pretend they really really don't want to with that eager look they do in their eyes, it is unnerving

 

[roguenuke]

I have asked no less than four times now for a poster to tell me what it was that Charlie Kirk said that was "racist" and got dancing a d prancing. He doesn't know is why he won't answer. There was a black female who was some kind of school liaison with the police who made vile comments about Kirk, after he died. Why would she? Because she was indoctrinated by the media and left to hate Charlie Kirk, and all she knows is that she HEARD he was racist.

Because what he said was racist.



He took people's stories out of context and wrongly misrepresented what they said. He claimed they took opportunities from people.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Why does this assassination resemble JFK?

The ones in control of the news have already convicted a man before his trial.

Unhappily, I find myself agreeing with you very much.

(And just to be clear, I say unhappily not because I don't want to agree with YOU. I say unhappling because I don't want to agree with that statement.)

And I know there's already hairbrained conspiracy theories galore about this, but there are a lot of this situation that just smell funny to me to be honest.

 

[Trump]

The battle within Democratic supporters is rough…..

 

[TangoNoCash]

Are we making a distinction between the violence he advocated for in that clip And political violence? is somehow calling for people to be murdered in the street, okay, as long as it's not a high profile person? I'm not sure if I understand this line.

No it’s not okay for anyone to call for political violence. For what it’s worth I’ve considered Charlie Kirk a racist for years. He just does it under the guise of religion. I didn’t think Kirk promoted violence either, just reprehensible views I strongly oppose. I support the right of organizations like the kkk to have free speech even though I find their views offensive.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

It's wrong to say he is being taken out of context. He has called people "purple haired jihadi" during those "debates".

Well, I don't know the context of that one either, but those are certainly words that are dripping with sarcasm. And the number of contexts I can imagine for that are not very large. On its face, I don't like it.

I find the etymology of the word sarcasm interesting. It means to tear the flesh. We have a lot of it here from side to side as well. Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's useful, sometimes it's a good debate technique, but mostly it's cheap.

 

[Master Debator]

Ah, okay. I think that's kind of niggling at the details. I just can't find a justification for murdering someone because they express opinions that I don't agree with.

Well that's not surprising seeing as how justifications are subjective. Mine might not be the same as yours. Also I didn't say I thought people were justified in killing people they don't like. I think people are justified in using violence against those who would use violence against them, even if that violence is indirect and administered through the government and legal system.

Even if there are other ways for us to deal with this. In fact, one of the other ways is what Kirk was offering people who disagreed with him, discussion, what we also try to do here.

Do I seem unwilling to have dialog with any of you? At the end of the day though I'm a results kind of guy. If me and mine living in peace means you and yours have to go then I'll make my peace with that and move on with my life.

To know that you think killing someone who disagrees with you could be a solution makes me very happy that you do not know me or my location.

And Kirk supported using the force of law to deny trans people acces to life saving care. The difference here is I'm not out here pretending all frail like.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I am certainly not for violence as a way to try to settle differences.

Its a saying that means, "go for it". If you think I've violated the rules and it bothers you hit that little button there at the bottom labeled report.