Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure, in a courtroom you need motive to convict.

You don't need it for murder.

And for the most part, considering all of Robinson’s charges, motive is not required to convict.

Yes, it actually is, and it looks like they have one. It looks like he is competent to stand trial as well. And the evidence will be presented and he'll be convicted as long as the Patel and FBI didn't fuck up the evidence chain and other protocols.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure, in a courtroom you need motive to convict. But my argument isn’t about securing a conviction, it’s about the political reality of an assassination. When someone guns down a public political figure, the effect is political by nature, no matter what personal grievance the shooter had. You can’t separate the act from the fact that it silences a public voice.

That’s the part Democrats seem to be missing. They’ve fallen into the trap of mixing their denunciation of political assassinations with their personal approval or disapproval of Kirk.

I'd ask you to support this, but you didn't last time because you said didn't say that.

 

[blastula]

Sure, in a courtroom you need motive to convict.

You don't need it for murder.

Yes you do. The grades of punishment and charges for homicide vary based very much on motive.

Nope. Just need to prove that they did it, not why they did it. Motive is not an element of most crimes. Have to prove intent but not motive for murder. It probably helps try a case if you can prove motive, but it's not required.

 

[Gospel]

Sure, in a courtroom you need motive to convict. But my argument isn’t about securing a conviction, it’s about the political reality of an assassination. When someone guns down a public political figure, the effect is political by nature, no matter what personal grievance the shooter had. You can’t separate the act from the fact that it silences a public voice.

That’s the part Democrats seem to be missing. They’ve fallen into the trap of mixing their denunciation of political assassinations with their personal approval or disapproval of Kirk.

I'd ask you to support this, but you didn't last time because you said didn't say that.

We’re done going down this trail, because at this point you’re either misremembering how our conversation started, where it’s gone, and what’s actually been said. I don’t have the time or patience to go quote-mining just to defend myself against a claim you didn’t even bother to support in your own comment.

 

[Gospel]

Sure, in a courtroom you need motive to convict.

You don't need it for murder.

And for the most part, considering all of Robinson’s charges, motive is not required to convict.

Yes, it actually is, and it looks like they have one. It looks like he is competent to stand trial as well. And the evidence will be presented and he'll be convicted as long as the Patel and FBI didn't fuck up the evidence chain and other protocols.

They do if the evidence holds up. But like I said, motive isn’t required for a conviction, it can strengthen the case, sure, but none of the charges he’s facing actually require motive. I think you might be mixing up motive with intent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure, in a courtroom you need motive to convict.

You don't need it for murder.

Yes you do. The grades of punishment and charges for homicide vary based very much on motive.

Nope. Just need to prove that they did it, not why they did it. Motive is not an element of most crimes. Have to prove intent but not motive for murder.

Splitting hairs? You demonstrate intent via motive. Also, manslaughter, Murder I, Murder II, motive matters.

 

[Gospel]

Someone can be convicted of first-degree murder even if nobody knows why they did it, as long as it’s proven they acted purposely and with premeditation. Motive can support intent, but it’s not required to establish intent.

Edit: Motive just makes it a lot easier to sell the Jury on intent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure, in a courtroom you need motive to convict.

You don't need it for murder.

Yes you do. The grades of punishment and charges for homicide vary based very much on motive.

Nope. Just need to prove that they did it, not why they did it. Motive is not an element of most crimes. Have to prove intent but not motive for murder. It probably helps try a case if you can prove motive, but it's not required.

Sure, in a courtroom you need motive to convict.

You don't need it for murder.

And for the most part, considering all of Robinson’s charges, motive is not required to convict.

Yes, it actually is, and it looks like they have one. It looks like he is competent to stand trial as well. And the evidence will be presented and he'll be convicted as long as the Patel and FBI didn't fuck up the evidence chain and other protocols.

They do if the evidence holds up. But like I said, motive isn’t required for a conviction, it can strengthen the case, sure, but none of the charges he’s facing actually require motive. I think you might be mixing up motive with intent.

Fuck off you two, you are both right and I'm conflating intent and motive.

...assholes!

 

[Gospel]

Well, if it’s any consolation, that doesn’t mean you were wrong about your other points.

 

[Politesse]

What I will admit I got wrong, even though I never explicitly claimed it, (because some may have taken it that way), is that there hasn’t been a formal prayer on the House floor dedicated to a specific individual killed by assassination. That said, the way the Democrats handled this gave Republicans exactly what they wanted: noise and confusion that could be spun into endless news cycles (which is what's happening right now FFS). They should have just STFU and let the Republicans cook themselves on that one. You know, the fact that they didn't give MLK (a republican) that treatment but they did it for Charlie Kirk… hmm. Sus. what has he done that is above what MLK has contributed? Lets talk about it. Like Kirk wanted.

I need to correct this major error on my part, there was indeed vocal prayer on the House floor for Martin Luther King after he was assassinated. But my point still stands: if Democrats had simply STFU and let Republicans cook themselves, the narrative would have become, “What did Charlie die for that’s equivalent to what Martin Luther King died for?” And nobody’s buying “free speech” as the answer, because we already have that. What social issue was he actually about? Right now, Republicans get to dodge that question entirely and instead push the line that Democrats are leftist extremists who support political violence.

Whose narrative? The "Left" wng media already felt that way, and the "Right" wing media would never run that headline in a million years, no matter what anyone did or said. You keep imagining that if we the citizens just cave a little bit more to the Trump regime and the way they want us to frame things, that the hearts of minds of the common Republican will somehow be won over to the side of justice and decency. But those aren't thoughts they are permitted to think; their narrative is not something they have the luxury of sitting and thinking about at all, they are blackmailed to fall within a certain frame of thought, or at least public discourse, just as we all are these days. More so, because a person in a Republican family and community stands to lose more socially if they fall into heresy.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I am far more concerned about school shootings than political assassinations. School shootings are more numerous and exceedingly more likely to directly impact me and my family. Political assassinations are so few as to essentially be statistically disregarded in the whole gun violence argument. The main concern with them is the political responses and how those shape the country's future. Right now it's all talk, but we'll see how this guy's death actually affects policy changes.

I'm concerned about violence in general, and I'm concerned about school shootings.

But I disagree with your view on political assassinations.

You are probably missing the somewhat tongue and cheek approach I took, essentially repeating the oft-stated opinion that if a particular form of gun violence is a small fraction of total gun violence that there's no need to attempt to curtail that particular form.

Let me be very clear though - I think the assassination of politicians are an abhorrent thing that shouldn't happen, and certainly shouldn't be celebrated in a civilized and democratic society. Even worse than that, however, is the assassination of NON-politicians on the basis of their political views. That crosses over into the realm of political persecution, and that's an entirely different level of issue.

Agreed. There's no real upside here.

What has concerned me most is the politicization of EVERY notable murder in the past decade, even when the murderer wasn't acting for partisan reasons. I've been aghast at the outpouring of "who should be assassinated next" on social media related to this.

One wonders whether it's that notable murders are being politicized or whether it's just that political murders are more notable. There was a school shooting the very day that Kirk was shot and somehow that was not remotely as notable.

 

[bilby]

I'm saying the shooter was apolitical. This appears to be fact. It appears he shot Kirk because Kirk was somewhat notably speaking out against something he cared about on a personal level. We don't even know how long this guy knew Kirk existed.

^ This.

Kirk was political. His killing was not. His death is an excellent propaganda prop for a bunch of very political MAGAts, but their claim that it represented some kind of left-wing statement on the part of the killer is nonsense, and their claim that it justifies any political action whatsoever is nonsense on stilts.

 

[Elixir]

I've been aghast at the outpouring of "who should be assassinated next" on social media related to this.

Don't keep me in suspense! Who is it? I must have missed the outpouring.
I do notice lot of people who think Trump should have been offed a long time ago, playing 'possum though.
It is foregone that if the current direction is continued, by this time next year extrajudicial killings and disappearings of Trump critics is going to be commonplace, even if it takes another year or two to become fully normalized.

 

[Gospel]

What I will admit I got wrong, even though I never explicitly claimed it, (because some may have taken it that way), is that there hasn’t been a formal prayer on the House floor dedicated to a specific individual killed by assassination. That said, the way the Democrats handled this gave Republicans exactly what they wanted: noise and confusion that could be spun into endless news cycles (which is what's happening right now FFS). They should have just STFU and let the Republicans cook themselves on that one. You know, the fact that they didn't give MLK (a republican) that treatment but they did it for Charlie Kirk… hmm. Sus. what has he done that is above what MLK has contributed? Lets talk about it. Like Kirk wanted.

I need to correct this major error on my part, there was indeed vocal prayer on the House floor for Martin Luther King after he was assassinated. But my point still stands: if Democrats had simply STFU and let Republicans cook themselves, the narrative would have become, “What did Charlie die for that’s equivalent to what Martin Luther King died for?” And nobody’s buying “free speech” as the answer, because we already have that. What social issue was he actually about? Right now, Republicans get to dodge that question entirely and instead push the line that Democrats are leftist extremists who support political violence.

Whose narrative? The "Left" wng media already felt that way, and the "Right" wing media would never run that headline in a million years, no matter what anyone did or said. You keep imagining that if we the citizens just cave a little bit more to the Trump regime and the way they want us to frame things, that the hearts of minds of the common Republican will somehow be won over to the side of justice and decency. But those aren't thoughts they are permitted to think; their narrative is not something they have the luxury of sitting and thinking about at all, they are blackmailed to fall within a certain frame of thought, or at least public discourse, just as we all are these days. More so, because a person in a Republican family and community stands to lose more socially if they fall into heresy.

I’m not talking about flipping Fox News or winning over hardcore Republicans, I agree, that’s never happening. What I said was Democrats had one chance to handle that moment on the floor, a situation everyone should’ve seen coming from several galaxies away. Instead of holding back and saving their arguments for later, they made a commotion, exactly what Republicans wanted. It would’ve cost Democrats nothing, and gained Republicans nothing, if they had just STFU and let the GOP cook themselves by shifting the conversation into “who Charlie was,” and give a valid reason to discuss said prayer in contrast with the historical precedent of MLK’s assassination receiving prayer in the same House.

It’s the same thing the images of Black people being beaten and hosed down in the streets did, they forced Americans to look in the mirror and either accept who they were, or do something to change it. Now it's just about political violence. Way to go team!

 

[Elixir]

the only way they can remove a law is if THEY SAY it's actually unconstitutional.

FIFY

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whether it's harder or not to change a federal law or not is not the point. The point is that the supreme court on a whim would nullify same sex marriage, law or not.

No, they can't. Judges cannot make law, and the only way they can remove a law is if it's actually unconstitutional. And there's nothing in the constitution that could be used to support that view.

It will come to the supreme court and the court can change it on a whim. They can declare no constitutional right to same sex marriage. They can even rule that the federal government can outlaw it. They can even rule that no state needs to recognize another state's gay marriage. If you don't know this you know absolutely nothing.

When the supreme court struck down Roe, some justices actually said that. Learn something.

Roe never had an actual law in place, it was ONLY an interpretation.

You do understand that the Supreme Court can overturn a law? Or don't you? A law that recognizes gay marriage is easily overturned by the supreme court. All they have to say is that the federal government has no power to require other states to recognize gay marriage. Easy as pie. Your argument about a law is stupid.

SC can only overturn a law if the law in and of itself is deemed unconstitutional. They need to be able to argue that the law is in violation of the constitution.

Where have you been recently? This bench has been violating the heck out of the dictionary to make certain rulings.

What part of the constitution do you think is violated by Respect for Marriage Act? What part of the constitution could the SC even argue is violated by it?

The exact same thing that indicated abortion rights weren't protected by the US Constitution.

SC has no authority to overturn any federal or state law that is not in violation of the constitution.

Goodness that is naive. Loper, Dobbs, Trump showed that this court will rule whatever fucking way they want.

 

[Elixir]

SC can only overturn a law if the law in and of itself is deemed unconstitutional.

So? They don’t like it, they deem it. If anyone thinks they deem stuff erroneously, capriciously or corruptly, they (you) can go suck an egg. Only Donald Trump can tell them how to rule.

They need to be able to argue that the law is in violation of the constitution.

They are able to argue whatever the fuck they want. I don’t know how you have failed to notice that glaring fact.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Whether I agree with his opinions or not, I respect him for engaging in public debates, especially at our universities, because that’s something America has always needed, and it’s needed now more than ever.

We need him at universities as much as we need to be teaching YEC in biology. One thing that is pissing me off about coverage is how Kirk is a Conservative influencer. He isn't a fucking a conservative. He is a far-right lunatic.

But even far-right lunatics have equal protection under our laws in this country. And while he supported the rescinding of equal protection from others, I do not wish the same for him.

This is the kind of shit that has emboldened conservatives-turned-full blown fascist.

Where was this outrage and conciliatory respect from the right when Gretchen Whitmer was the target of a plot to kidnap, rape and murder her?

Kidnap, yes. Rape and murder, no. The people involved in that had convinced themselves they were doing a citizen's arrest. Their plot was to find some way to put her on trial, not that it would have worked. The story got quiet once it was revealed how heavy handed the government was in egging them on.

Where was this sympathy when John Hoffman was murdered? What about Melissa and Mark Hortman?

Vance Boelte didn't have enough of a footprint for either party to truly hang that albatros around the neck of the other. "He said he voted Trump". "He was appointed by Tim Walz". "The targets had recently voted against their own party." Not enough juice for either side to really keep the story going.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whether I agree with his opinions or not, I respect him for engaging in public debates, especially at our universities, because that’s something America has always needed, and it’s needed now more than ever.

We need him at universities as much as we need to be teaching YEC in biology. One thing that is pissing me off about coverage is how Kirk is a Conservative influencer. He isn't a fucking a conservative. He is a far-right lunatic.

But even far-right lunatics have equal protection under our laws in this country. And while he supported the rescinding of equal protection from others, I do not wish the same for him.

This is the kind of shit that has emboldened conservatives-turned-full blown fascist.

Where was this outrage and conciliatory respect from the right when Gretchen Whitmer was the target of a plot to kidnap, rape and murder her?

Kidnap, yes. Rape and murder, no. The people involved in that had convinced themselves they were doing a citizen's arrest. Their plot was to find some way to put her on trial, not that it would have worked. The story got quiet once it was revealed how heavy handed the government was in egging them on.

"Quiet" n the sense that eight people were convicted or plead guilty and sentenced from between 4 and 20 years.

Where was this sympathy when John Hoffman was murdered? What about Melissa and Mark Hortman?

Vance Boelte didn't have enough of a footprint for either party to truly hang that albatros around the neck of the other.

The Kirk shooter didn't even vote in 2024.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Goodness that is naive. Loper, Dobbs, Trump showed that this court will rule whatever fucking way they want.

This is a court that endowed Trump with more powers than our last monarch, George III, dreamed of having.