Fair comment, and I apologise. That was a poorly thought out/worded comment that was an instant reaction to the very earliest report, without realising its seriousness. Much as I disagree with virtually everything he stood for, and much as I found him deeply distasteful, nobody ‘deserves’ that, and I didn’t mean to imply he did (and hopefully subsequent posts make that clear). (Just to defend myself a little bit though, I don't think what I said was 'filth' or comparable to anybody celebrating. It was clumsily worded, for sure).
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new-age term that does a lot of damage." Charlie Kirk It says something about how divisive and ideologically hellbent someone is, that while I did want them to survive for their sake; more importantly it was for the fear of the violence their death could unleash from elements of the movement they fronted as its acceptable face. Whoever shot him is beyond a ****king moron, who could bear responsibility for further bloodshed.
I had never heard of Charlie Kirk. Everyone with an ounce of common sense can see that American gun law is ridiculous but ironic that those who support it should end up being shot themselves. Also, appropriate that a pusher of hate should be killed in this fashion. I don't think it will cause civil unrest but no doubt udiots like Steve Bannon will exploit it.
Of course now the various theories start coming out - Trump wasting no time blaming the "radical left" (hello Reichstag fire moment) whilst others are saying that Kirk had slowly started turning against Israel and in an interview with Megyn Kelly had called for the release of the Epstein files, so in him the right had their perfect expendable martyr (hello Reichstag fire moment part 2). I don't know enough about sniping to know whether a 150-200 metre shot like that is a hard shot, but it feels like it probably is quite 'pro'? As I say though, thankfully that's not something I know. Do we have anyone with ballistics knowledge here?
I didn't know of Kirk until his shooting, having read some of his comments and opinions he would, to me at least, epitomise much of that is wrong with America today. Trump has blamed the radical left, he could have just as easily blamed a grieving parent following Kirk’s comment that kids dying in schools is worth it if it preserves the second amendment. "In an Oval Office address delivered before the person who killed the conservative activist Charlie Kirk has even been identified, Donald Trump blamed ‘the radical left’ for the shooting and promised a crackdown. “For years those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today and it must stop right now,” Trump said. “My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity, and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials and everyone else who brings order to out country.” He then provided a list of incidents of what he termed “radical left political violence, including the attempt to kill him last year, the killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the 2017 shooting of Republican congressman Steve Scalise and what he called “the attacks on Ice agents.” The president’s list notably did not include violence against Democrats, like the murder of Melissa Hortman, a Minnesota state lawmaker, and her husband, and the shooting of another Democratic state lawmaker and his wife in June, by a man who a hit list of 45 elected officials — all Democrats. He also chose to omit the attack on former House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, the Trump supporter who sent pipe bombs to leading Democrats, or the threats to the life of his first vice-president, Mike Pence, by pro-Trump rioters who beat police officers on January 6 2021."
I think there are a few things people could do that would justify them being killed. To take your comment too literally.
Yes, the response is markedly different to his non-response to the assassination of Melissa Hortman (and her husband and dog) where he somehow twisted even that to implicate Tim Walz. He's pouring petrol on the fire, but who is really surprised at that?
The extrajudicial killing of alledged drug smugglers by American forces is murder on the high seas. Those ordering and carrying out the attack need to feel the full weight of international law.
The quote "Thou shalt not kill" appears in older translations of the Bible, such as the King James Version, in Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.However, many modern translations render the Hebrew word ratsach as "murder," not "kill," leading to the more common phrasing "Thou shalt not murder".The distinction is significant because the biblical context, along with other passages, indicates that the prohibition is against unlawful killing (murder), not necessarily all forms of taking a life, such as capital punishment or self-defense.
He also said if he had a ten year old daughter who was raped he would make her carry the baby to term. He said a lot of messed up crap.
Seems to me there's a fairly obvious distinction between criticising a man who became the face of an international protest movement (and doing it over a year after he'd died) and posting images of cheering crowds while someone is in hospital dying.
Charlie Kirk could have been saved by the one thing he fought against, gun control. In an article posted 2.5 years ago, he said some gun deaths are 'worth it every single year so that they can have their second amendment rights'. Celebrating someone's death is crass. Acknowledging the irony of it all isn't.
It's not a tricky shot if you've got a half decent scope. I'm only an amateur and I'd be pretty confident with a shot at that distance
Well, this is what the pro gun people preach: train with your gun, teach your kids, gun mistakes are people mistakes!
