Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welp, his dad turned the shooter in, and guess what? Not a liberal.

Was raised to be an Utah conservative. Theory is now that he went more conservative than Kirk.

You’re about 50 pages too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is wild

He's just saying what every MAGA is thinking. They have no filter anymore. They think saying racist sh(t is just "telling it like it is".

Well, here's telling it like it is..

The FBI has stated that homegrown extremism, particularly by white nationalists, are a greater threat to this country than Islamic terrorists, but Trump didn't want to hear that because that's his base. So, the FBI had to strike that. Trump also has the FBI walking DC streets looking for illegals and vagrants rather than focusing on terrorists, because many of said terrorists are white males, ie, his base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welp, his dad turned the shooter in, and guess what? Not a liberal.

Was raised to be a Utah conservative. Theory is now that he went more conservative than Kirk.

I read Nick Fuentes went on a rant against Kirk recently. I am really think the shooter is a Groyper and the bullet casing meme references check with that.

[Anonymous]

Charlie Kirk was saying that "too many" shooters are transgender while in the process of being shot by a white cisgender male.

Never has there been a more on the nose example of threat modeling gone wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those questioning all the media coverage, it’s the first time an American has been publicly assassinated in the US for their political beliefs SINCE 1968. It’s a big deal.

Uh you’re forgetting the two legislators in MN.

That was not a public assassination. It took place in a private home.

What difference does THAT make?

Public assassinations tend to have a greater impact than private ones.

Public assassinations occur in front of witnesses or are captured by media, which amplifies the shock. The public setting turns the act into a spectacle, symbolizing a direct attack on shared values or leadership, which resonates widely and instantly. Private killings lack this immediate, communal exposure.

A public killing violates the sense of safety in shared spaces, making it feel like an attack on the public itself. Private assassinations feel more isolated, limiting the visceral sense of collective threat.

Hence the media coverage and why many are feeling this event deeply. It’s the first political assassination the public has witnessed in the US since 1968.

While, I abhor Kirk’s “ideology” I agree that this is a different category than gun violence. It was an assassination. But what happens if it turns out that his killer is a right wing white Christian nationalist? How does that change the narrative?

Oh, I put ideology and “” because anyone who followed Kirk knows he didn’t have an ideology. He was a Shapeshifter and a grifter.

He was a false prophet. Plain and simple. I'm amazed by how many people who call themselves Christian seem to forget their Sunday school lessons. The last time I was in church was probably Sunday school, circa 1980s, and I was only there for the cookies and the lollipop... but even I remember the wolf in sheep's clothing and how important it is to not worship a false idol. And that the sin for doing so is grave. But Lordy have mercy if these people can't catch a clue. They just keep falling for the same old nonsense every single time. They love themselves a good false prophet.

Gonna leave this right here in case anyone needs a refresher.

“I did not send these prophets, yet they have run with their message; I did not speak to them, yet they have prophesied” (Jeremiah 23:21)

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD’” (Jeremiah 23:16; see also 14:14)

“Her leaders judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets tell fortunes for money. Yet they look for the LORD’s support and say, ‘Is not the LORD among us? No disaster will come upon us’” (Micah 3:11; see also Nehemiah 6:12–13; Jeremiah 6:13–14; Ezekiel 13:19; 2 Peter 2:1–3).

Also, now I'm thoroughly confused. If the shooter was a Republican Trumper, and Trump and the victim were buddy, buddies, then why did the shooter kill Trump's buddy, which makes them all Trumpers. I thought they were on the same side. Don't tell me the Leopards are starting to eat each other's faces.

I'm throwing my hands up. I just can't keep up with this circus of monkeys any longer. "Not my monkeys not my circus!"

If the whole Trump thing is what's tripping you up, just consider that Laura Loomer is the Trump whisperer, while at the same time, she also hated Charlie Kirk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it weird/disconcerting that his father turned in his own son? I couldn't imagine doing that to my own child.

Me either, but, according to pps, that makes us bad parents.

I don't think you're a bad parent, I just wonder what the hell is going on... if your kid is a murderer there's nothing you can do but help them face the consequences, seek forgiveness and try for rehabilitation.

On the most practical level, they're safer in the justice system, going through the process with a good lawyer than they are on the outside facing vigilante justice or, like Joran Van der Sloot becoming a magnet for grifters and weirdos.

Any attempt to explain it makes me seem immoral, although it doesn't feel wrong to protect my child in that way. I'm pretty sure neither of us will be in that position, thankfully.

To me, protecting your child includes helping them own up to their mistakes.

Turning your kid in for a cash reward and refusing to help them hire an attorney, never visiting, testifying against them, etc. that would be a betrayal. Helping them to do the right thing, even if it's hard, is the right thing to do and as a parent that's what you should want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the political leanings of the shooter?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groypers

So they thought Kirk wasn’t fascist enough?

Pretty much. They were at "Groyper War" with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do the bread crumbs lead to Fuentes and his groyper army views?

These Groypers think so

Please help this out-of-it middle aged mom out. WTH does anything in this tweet / post mean??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it weird/disconcerting that his father turned in his own son? I couldn't imagine doing that to my own child.

Uh, if you knew your child was a murderer you wouldn't turn them in?

I would be heartbroken but I would turn my kid in, or rather, as I think this parent did, help my child turn themselves in...

A) I wouldn't want them to commit any more murders -- look at Joran Van der Sloot's parents—all they did was enable him to commit more hateful acts and have a more depraved life. They didn't save him from anything!

B) Turn him in, get him a lawyer and support him, no matter the outcome. He'll get due process and be treated fairly (though in Trump's justice system who knows, but if he has a good enough lawyer, presumably you still can) and he'll have a chance to take responsiblity, seek forgiveness or be rehabilitated.

C) a murderer is a murderer, whether they are your child or not. Love them unconditionally, but do not allow them to sin.

NP. It would depend on the circumstances. If I was seriously concerned they would harm more people in the future, then yes. If not, I would not turn my child in.

If your kid could do what this kid did, you should probably be afraid of them yourself.

Also, if it's not some kind of high-profile insane political assassination, helping themselves turn themselves in, getting them a good legal team is probably the quickest easiest way out of it... a well negotiated plea deal, depending on the circumstances of the crime, would probably allow them a fairly easy existence in prison (especially if you remained supportive) and a not terribly long sentence.

Also, what's the alternative? It's only a matter of time before people found out who did it, and then what? What are you going to do to protect them? And in this case there's going to be mobs of weirdos coming after them and they'll probably hold YOU responsible as well. The kid should want to turn themselves in to protect you and the other family members!

I disagree with basically everything you said.

People who turn themselves in don't get better sentences. Tyler Robinson is still going to get the death penalty. And the conditions you face in prison have very little to do with your plea agreement. Judges don't typically pick the facility you'll serve your sentence in. The idea that you can plea bargain for a better prison is TV stuff, not real life.

They have to face justice at some point... what's the alternative?

And you absolutely can design a plea bargain to include recommendations for where you serve your sentence, and if you can't, then a good lawyer (hired by you, for your child) can help have them moved somewhere. This case would be tough, because of the publicity and the type of people who are trying to make political hay out of Kirk's death, but he probably could plea his way out of the death penalty. Look at that guy in Idaho who killed those college kids.

I practice criminal law and those recommendations are meaningless, at least in the federal system and in the state where I am licensed. All of this is, blessedly, academic. You can hypothetically turn in your murderer kid and I can hypothetically not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is wild

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The so called antifa messages were a cheat code video game called hell divers. Welp.

What does "cheat code" mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Three unfired casings found in the chamber of the rifle reportedly used by Robinson included left-wing slogans such as “Hey fascist! Catch!” engraved on the side along with an up arrow, a right arrow and three down arrows."

But yeah, sure, he was a Republican.

He was a left wing nut job and it will all come out. Just stop lying.

These are all video game references, moron.

And do you think he killed CK because he wanted to make a statement about video game references? Or is it possible that he curated the references along a theme? Just spit-balling here but I think there might be a theme. And it's decidedly not a MAGA theme.

The problem right here is that so many of us don't understand this world that these young men are living in online. I can't say you're ignorance is astounding because I don't blame you for not knowing. But I do blame you for is actively not trying to learn and listen. Digging in is so so bad

+1 The teens internet world is not our internet world. The Colorado and the Georgia shooter from last year were following mass shooter fan accounts. Some kids are on the computer so much that their reality is not our reality, and talk and behave in a way that is different than to when they aren’t online. It is very serious stuff.

Yep.

Get your kids outside, parents. Especially if you have intelligent teenage, white boys that dont play sports. Make them breathe reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Kirk was saying that "too many" shooters are transgender while in the process of being shot by a white cisgender male.

Never has there been a more on the nose example of threat modeling gone wrong.

A+ except he was also pivoting to “gang violence” whataboutism as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do the bread crumbs lead to Fuentes and his groyper army views?

These Groypers think so

Please help this out-of-it middle aged mom out. WTH does anything in this tweet / post mean??

Wikipedia entry for groyper:

The Groypers, sometimes called the Groyper Army, are a group of alt-right, white nationalist, and Christian nationalist[5] activists led by Nick Fuentes. Members of the group have attempted to introduce alt-right politics into mainstream conservatism in the United States and participated in the January 6 United States Capitol attack and the protests leading up to it. They have targeted other conservative groups and individuals whose agendas they view as too moderate and insufficiently nationalist.[6][7] The Groyper movement has been described as white nationalist, homophobic, nativist, fascist, sexist, antisemitic, and an attempt to rebrand the declining alt-right movement.[4][8][9][10]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do the bread crumbs lead to Fuentes and his groyper army views?

These Groypers think so

Please help this out-of-it middle aged mom out. WTH does anything in this tweet / post mean??

They're followers of Nick Fuentes, extremely right wing. They previously went to "war" with Kirk's Turnjng Point.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groypers

Click on the first "Groyper War" entry.