Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[scombrid]

The right wing and their crocodile tears are getting ridiculous.

 

[ZiprHead]

Having watched this, I couldn’t really tell who was saying what or why, only that it was instigated by a MAGGOT loon, and little Mikey was braying in his tinny voice about how the House should come to order. Not sure if he banged his gavel or not, or waved his little Christian dick around.

That was my take too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Having transgender people isn't a political view. There is no evidence the shooter was political at all. Thinking transgenders aren't mental ill people isn't being political. It is being human.

Charlie Kirk was both a public and political figure. If he hadn’t been, do you really think Robinson would have (or even could have) chosen him as a target for the views he despised? Robinson’s parents were closer, his whole community more personal, yet he bypassed them and went after Kirk. That choice shows it wasn’t about private grievance, it was about silencing a public voice.

Over a personal grievance. There is no evidence available indicating this personal had any political cares in the world. One couldn't not vote in 2024 and have a modicum of care about politics.

Robinson appeared to be upset over Kirk's position on something that was personal to Robinson. This wasn't a political killing. The right-wing is trying desperately to say so. But this is just another shooter that had their reasons.

Some (far right media really) is trying to argue a personal angle, like a connection through transgender issues. But even there, the logic doesn’t hold. Kirk himself publicly said transgender people could still have a place in the conservative movement if they shared its values.

Fuck that! Kirk was a two faced used car salesman. He wanted a White Nationalist America with no immigrants and no gays, no transgenders.

Edit: Another important detail is that he traveled nearly/or just over 200 miles just to shoot Kirk.

Yes, he targeted Kirk. That isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is the damn motive. And there isn't any evidence indicating that a far-leftist targeted Kirk, an apolitical guy did.

 

[Gospel]

Over a personal grievance. There is no evidence available indicating this personal had any political cares in the world. One couldn't not vote in 2024 and have a modicum of care about politics.

That personal grievance is exactly why he went after someone he saw as its loud, traveling embodiment, a voice carrying it from campus to campus. Like I said, he had plenty of targets in his own community who almost certainly had a more personal impact on his life than Kirk. Yet, for some strange reason, he bypassed them and chose Kirk, and you still want to argue that Kirk’s role as a political public figure had nothing to do with it? Riiight. Let’s just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Gospel]

But seriously: you’re saying it’s smart move to having been bullied, to retaliate in front of the cops so all anyone sees is an assault?

No. Opposite. Not sure what was unclear about "They just keep taking the fucking bait". I mean it wasn't as good a metaphor as "seagulls fighting over a french fry" but it pretty much meant the same thing.

Sorry about that. I picked up on it after a re-read.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Over a personal grievance. There is no evidence available indicating this personal had any political cares in the world. One couldn't not vote in 2024 and have a modicum of care about politics.

That personal grievance is exactly why he went after someone he saw as its loud, traveling embodiment, a voice carrying it from campus to campus. Like I said, he had plenty of targets in his own community who almost certainly had a more personal impact on his life than Kirk. Yet, for some strange reason, he bypassed them and chose Kirk, and you still want to argue that Kirk’s role as a political public figure had nothing to do with it? Riiight. Let’s just agree to disagree and move on.

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.

 

[scombrid]

I’m still steeling seagulls fighting over

 

[scombrid]

I hate to play the speculation game but thinking about how long this guy knew Kirk existed sparked me. His family didn’t like his having dropped out of college and didn’t like his roommate’s’choices’. His family got excited about Kirk coming to town and suggested he should go see Kirk’s show, hence the discussion with family about Kirk at dinner the prior night. Well he went to see Kirk alright I’m just spitballing.

 

[Gospel]

I'm saying the shooter was apolitical.

And I’m saying he could’ve been an alien from a planet orbiting Betelgeuse who used a gravity drive to come here and assassinate someone broadcasting radio signals he didn’t like. It doesn’t matter if he was apolitical, the point is the act itself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm saying the shooter was apolitical.

And I’m saying he could’ve been an alien from a planet orbiting Betelgeuse who used a gravity drive to come here and assassinate someone broadcasting radio signals he didn’t like. It doesn’t matter if he was apolitical, the point is the act itself.

You can't convict without motive, so motive is very important.

The right-wing is trying to paint this as a whacko liberal, and that the left-wing is at war with them. That our rhetoric led to this, that it fed Robinson the reason to commit this crime. And that they need to respond against us.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I hate to play the speculation game but thinking about how long this guy knew Kirk existed sparked me. His family didn’t like his having dropped out of college and didn’t like his roommate’s’choices’. His family got excited about Kirk coming to town and suggested he should go see Kirk’s show, hence the discussion with family about Kirk at dinner the prior night. Well he went to see Kirk alright I’m just spitballing.

That'd be speculation on top of speculation. I think it is also possible that there was local news about protesting Kirk's appearance. But he may have known Kirk for a while through family and what was on their tv.

 

[Elixir]

it's kind of hard for the rest of us to take it seriously when for the first time in living memory leftists start giving a rat's ass about free speech.

How old are you? Is your living memory defective, or just short?

The police are more likely to make an arrest when they see somebody hit than when a random civilian sees somebody hit.

No shit? What makes them more likely to overreact?

are you suggesting what Kirk was a victim of was "minor violence"?

Are you saying you couldn’t tell from context that I was referring to the pooor snowflake who got bitch-slapped?
I’ll try harder, for your sake. I promise.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But this is what the US has been doing for centuries, just choosing white males

This applies to pretty much all predominantly white countries though.

Your response is weird to me since you snipped half the sentence and then failed to even address the "males" portion of the snip. Yet even if you _had_ addressed it, you'd still be taking it out of context since you had snipped half the sentence.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

How old are you? Is your living memory defective, or just short?

Yeah it's not like leftists haven't been continually sounding the alarm about Project 2025's threats to free speech, which conservatives routinely ignore.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

it's kind of hard for the rest of us to take it seriously when for the first time in living memory leftists start giving a rat's ass about free speech.

How old are you? Is your living memory defective, or just short?

Maybe he thought the ACLU stopped taking cases after the 1920s and 30s.

 

[Gospel]

I'm saying the shooter was apolitical.

And I’m saying he could’ve been an alien from a planet orbiting Betelgeuse who used a gravity drive to come here and assassinate someone broadcasting radio signals he didn’t like. It doesn’t matter if he was apolitical, the point is the act itself.

You can't convict without motive, so motive is very important.

The right-wing is trying to paint this as a whacko liberal, and that the left-wing is at war with them. That our rhetoric led to this, that it fed Robinson the reason to commit this crime. And that they need to respond against us.

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. Nobody in their right mind thinks Democrats agreed with Charlie Kirk, so why even go there? Why not just keep the focus squarely on political violence? Instead, they dilute the message, and it plays right into Republican hands.

And that’s exactly why your own point about the right wing running with this proves mine. Republicans don’t care whether Robinson was apolitical or not. That’s why they’re already spinning it as “the left is at war with us.” This is working because assassination of a political figure is automatically political in its impact. It chills speech, and hands the other side the perfect narrative weapon, whether the shooter was wearing an elephant, a donkey, or no outfit at all.

And above all, whether I agreed with Charlie or not, whether I liked him or not, he was still a human being, a father, a husband, a friend to many. He didn’t deserve to be shot in the fucking throat for his opinion.

 

[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.

 

[blastula]

Sure, in a courtroom you need motive to convict.

You don't need it for murder.

 

[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.

 

[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.