The murder of Charlie Kirk

It’s kind of hard to understand what issue is being compared between the two situations because you introduced so many confounding variables.

For instance the crime question is impossible to answer without stipulating if it’s a stand-your-ground or duty to retreat state.

Whether they would be considered a hero… well if they killed people in self-defense (assuming it was) I highly suspect in this climate there actually would be many celebrating him as based.

FWIW I also thought the speaking tour was kind of cringe, but tbh it was the left’s obsession with lying about him and making him a villain that elevated him.

Wow, I just listened to his speech, this is beyond horrific.
Purge is coming.

Literally claiming america is coming from athens and ancient rome, that USA built the world we live in.etc...

I dare anyone to say the Rosenbaum killing was unjustified. And the other guy that “didn’t have a gun” smacked him in the face with a skateboard.

I made the cases as similar as I could figure. If you want to tweak something, feel free.

IANAL and don't know the exact difference between stand your ground and duty to retreat. Since you never brought that up regarding the actual event, I don't really see why that would be too important, but I wasn't asking what the legal verdict would or should be. I was asking if the person would likely be viewed as a hero or a criminal, and for what reasons.

All I did was point out your cherry picking. In most riots in the US (maybe all of them), including that one, only a small number of people are carrying guns.

I don’t agree with what you’re saying as the right-wing had actual organized militias that plotted to take over the government and the degree of organized violence has been a lot more in my opinion, whereas most of the far left’s violence has been almost libidinal and confused.

But I will say I will never get over ****ing CHAZ. That was certainly a moment in our history.

You asked if he had committed a crime no? That would be hard to answer without stipulating.

It was very easy in the KR case because his actions were legal in either case. And in case you’re curious he was actually in a duty to retreat state, and he did.

Someone just reaching for your gun probably doesn’t (although it could depending on the situation) justify use of force. You’d have to try to get away first, even if they are committing a violent act.

To make the case as close as possible just swap out the issue causing the riot. I think if it was a maga riot, the left would be throwing KR parties and he would be on t-shirts as an anti-fascist symbol. I mean we already saw some vigils for CK disrupted and that wasn’t even self-defense.

It was a fairly direct copy of a goebbels speech. So yes, every reason to worry.

Let's see if this administration ends up doing something against the incredible threat of leftist political violence or if it ends up being empty words yet again.

The absurdity of previous administrations considering rightwing terror a bigger threat has to stop and people financing leftist political violence (including occupations of buildings in campuses and the like) have to be taken in and prosecuted personally.

What do you hope it will do against “the incredible threat of leftist political violence”?

I thought it sounded like him as well.

arresting and prosecuting everyone who funded leftist political violence (domestically and internationally) knowingly.

That can include paying bail for leftist political violent people if applicable.

They could also do what the biden admin did to jan6 participants, which was good police work, for every single riot from the left (geolocalizing all participants and hunting them down years later).

But it's far more important to imprison the donors funding political violence.

Like if the admin is able to prove that someone donated to some "students" organization knowing that organization would have occupied buildings illegally, they should throw the book at them (including RICO charges). Same with those who blocked bridges and so on. And ofc all BLM riots (not the protests: the riots).

Check for links with illegal immigration (facilitating illegal immigration can be a RICO charge as well), including paying for lawyers for illegal aliens (if applicable) knowing they are criminals who intended to commit crimes in the USA.

There are plenty of angles to attack the mafia-like structure of leftist donating to support and solidify crime in the USA, and political violence specifically.

Internationally, plenty of grups who committed acts of leftist political terror could be proven to be financed by american entities, and that should be treated as terrorism financing. Entities like "palestine action" or "Just stop oil" and the like.

Ofc it all has to be done following the applicable laws. But it needs a lot of effort so don't worry too much, the trump admin will probably fail at that.

Until last week there was a federal government website which stated that most political violence is carried out by those in the right wing. Or something like that, I would have to check for exact wording. The page was removed maybe the day after the CK shooting.

They were probably not considering the violence related to the George Floyd incident to be political.
And it really isn't, according to normal definitions of the word.

The BLM protestors were not protesting a law or any action by a politician. They were protesting the actions of individual police officers, and the general culture in which they operate.

If you wanted to really stretch the definition to claim they were protesting the actions of a politician, the only politicians they could be protesting would be the mayors of the individual cities in which the killing took place, or to stretch even more, the mayors of the cities where the protests were held.

But the mayor of Minneapolis was a Democrat. The mayors of Portland, and Seattle, and San Francisco were Democrats. I don't know how to find an exact count, but certainly the mayors in most of the cities where the violence occurred had Democratic leadership. So if this were to be considered political violence, it was violence done in opposition to those generally on the left, not those on the right.

Regarding the murder of Charlie Kirk - CK was not really a politician. He held no elected or appointed office, and he was not an official representative of any political party. While it seems that at least part of the motive for the killing was because of things said by Charlie Kirk, those things weren't exactly political either. The killer wasn't upset because CK encouraged people to vote Republican. He was upset because of negative things CK said about trans people, which weren't exactly political things.

His most offensive statements were saying that trans people were an "abomination" and "a throbbing middle finger to God". Those aren't political statements, but statements about hate/disgust and religion.
He also called for trans people to be dealt with "the way they did in the 50s and 60s". Is that political? He could be referring to the way they were handled by the police (again not exactly political) or society at large. He could have been referring to laws in those decades, but were there really many laws specifically related to trans people back then?
I don't know of any.

I think it's wrong to consider the killing of CK to be political violence, or even violence done by someone on the left. Apparently the killer's parents said he was generally conservative, like them, until he started dating or living with a trans person. That didn't suddenly change him to someone who wanted health care for all or higher taxes on the rich. It just led him to be angry at people who said offensive things about trans people. Charlie Kirk was one of the most prominent people doing that, and he was coming to town. The killer's anger at CK wasn't political, it was personal.

how many times have I told you this? this is Western civilization. its mass subjugation, slavery, theft, murder and rape.

I didn't listen to the speech and know nothing about it other than what has been posted here, but the things that you're saying he is claiming can be controversial for sure but they don't seem horrific.

What is so wrong about claiming that the US has its roots in Athens and Rome-- those were the birthplaces of democracy and America was founded on Democratic ideals? And then on the second point about the US building the world we live in... it's certainly debatable but I don't see the horror in it.

I think I agree with this. The intellectual foundations of the usa can be traced back english-french-latin-greek with a side of spanish, hebrew , and german. But we are on a moving train. America should not be like rome. Rome was great given humans limited knowledge 2000 years ago but in the grand schemeof things it was horribly backwards. We have 2000 years of extra knowledge and should not in any way be looking to duplicate rome, instead we should make a much more advanced society;we can do so much better.

I was speaking more to the truth values of the statements that Weeez is claiming are horrific and not so much whatever normative connotations come with them. But certainly conservatives like to worship the past and uphold the status quo-- that's a huge part of what makes them conservatives. And so if you want to say the past and the status quo are awful and anything in support of those are awful then ok but otherwise I still don't get it.

I want to point out I started my post off with saying i think i agree with this 😡

I listened to that speech and it's beyond awful. He's literally claiming that people drink Coca Cola all over the world and love McDonald's.

Start making your escape plans now.

Didn't you say earlier that you wouldn't care if someone had a gun to his head? If so, then there is literally no situation where you think self-defense is a valid claim. As happened, dude swung skateboard trucks at his head. That can easily kill someone.

I hate to belabor this shiit because dude is a piece of shiit that deserves jail just simply for being a fukktard, but objectively he never fired his weapon outside of self-defense.

right, this shows the contradiction of liberals.

Yeah, I get that from every Neonazi I communicate with. Imagine having a life that is so empty and meaningless that taking insults from a non-Neonazi makes you smile...find some friends, dude, I'm sure there are lots of losers in your area who hate black people as much or even more as you do.

that's terrible

Communist directive of 1943: "label them a Nazi or a fascist":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4py857Jc...