Charlie Kirk Shot and killed

[McDad]

View attachment 774788

I be too pretty to be in the pokey.

 

[whodeycin85]

Not at all. In my family, I have both in laws and outlaws.

if ye be a pirate, i be having no quarrel with ye.

I figured.. Just pulling yee peg leg...

 

[hog88]

I be too pretty to be in the pokey.

You'd have plenty of daddies.

 

[RockyTop85]

The google machine disagrees with the expert.

It disagrees with an erroneous synopsis of his testimony.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not at all. In my family, I have both in laws and outlaws.

if ye be a pirate, i be having no quarrel with ye.

"Here, there be monsters..."

 

[RockyTop85]

So he had a high tolerance, was likely a heavy user? And his body was processing the drugs he took?

So he had a high tolerance, was likely a heavy user? And his body was processing the drugs he took?

I don’t know how much of that we can say for certain.

His body was processing (or had recently processed?) fentanyl, we know that.

People who die from fentanyl tend to die before their body can process that much of the fatal dose.

The fly in the ointment is the possibility that multiple doses at different times could foul up the ratio expectations. That was argued to the jury. I don’t know/remember enough to know whether that’s realistic, but there were other experts who gave other reasons why overdose as a cause of death was unlikely.

 

[McDad]

I figured.. Just pulling yee peg leg...

LOL. I hope @NurseGoodVol gets to read all this pirate talk silliness and appreciates us.

 

[whodeycin85]

LOL. I hope @NurseGoodVol gets to read all this pirate talk silliness and appreciates us.

Definitely needs a little lightness in the forum these days...
May I ask your response emotional, spiritual, whatever your willing to share regarding Charlies assination??

I ask because I have spoken with and watch many who didn't know of him but felt his death.

 

[Orange_Crush]

LOL. I hope @NurseGoodVol gets to read all this pirate talk silliness and appreciates us.

 

[McDad]

Definitely needs a little lightness in the forum these days...
May I ask your response emotional, spiritual, whatever your willing to share regarding Charlies assination??

I ask because I have spoken with and watch many who didn't know of him but felt his death.

Certainly.
I didn't follow him. I knew he was a person but had no idea what he did. Since the murder, I am more aware of what he thought and how he shared those thoughts. He seemed like a sincere christian. I find it admirable he went to young men and women on campuses and took his ideas to them one on one. Personally, I would have preferred to see him use a different approach but I can appreciate SM needs a hook to spread. I share many ideas as well as a spiritual calling with CK. His murder was a tragedy. Should have never happened. I am putting my trust in the Lord that 'all things work for good' and this event will be no different.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Certainly.
I didn't follow him. I knew he was a person but had no idea what he did. Since the murder, I am more aware of what he thought and how he shared those thoughts. He seemed like a sincere christian. I find it admirable he went to young men and women on campuses and took his ideas to them one on one. Personally, I would have preferred to see him use a different approach but I can appreciate SM needs a hook to spread. I share many ideas as well as a spiritual calling with CK. His murder was a tragedy. Should have never happened. I am putting my trust in the Lord that 'all things work for good' and this event will be no different.

Great post. Thank you.

Out of curiosity, what led to this?

 

[luthervol]

1. How can this be the wrong thread? I am responding to your appeals for "fairness" and "justice" in this thread. It's literally just a response and an extension of your conversation.
2a. I have answered.
2b. It's you're claims that we are trying to weigh here, no?

Please see below...






Since you've complained that you have trouble with my verbiage, let's simplify it down about as much as I think we can.


1a. If you believe that we should deal with others impartially (and by defending the necessity of DEI, you actually don't, by the way), that necessarily assumes that we as a species are rational beings who can correctly perceive, process and respond to true reality. Combined with the belief that we are just the results of the process of time, change and random mutations, what makes you believe that we are a species capable of the above? What, specifically makes you believe that such random and unguided processes gave us this capability?

1b. You claim to believe that we are just hairless primates. Why don't you expect and call for "fairness" and "justice" in the jungles, among... say... gorillas? It seems internally inconsistent and patently absurd to expect it from we-primates, and not all the they-primates.

2a. If your morality and sense of fairness/justice is nothing more than personal opinion, little different than a preference for red-headed women, or vanilla ice cream, what gives you the moral platform to call for societal change in the name of... well... mere opinion?


I find that the easiest and fastest way to spot and discard bull**** is to analyze the person's claims and ask if they are internally consistent or self-refuting absurdity. If they are, they deserve no more consideration and can be ignored immediately. If they are not, we can continue the analysis.

We may just be able to save the board some time and trouble with you here if you are willing to participate. Are you internally inconsistent? Or are you posting self-refuting absurdities?


I can't help but think that if you were confident in your position, you wouldn't be so unwilling to just interact in good faith with the questions.

2 things wrong here.
1. wrong thread
2. you didn't answer the question yourself

 

[McDad]

Great post. Thank you.

Out of curiosity, what led to this?

Im sorry. I don't follow. What led to what?

 

[RockyTop85]

Defense appealed on venue. They were rejected. Would an appeal on evidence presented not be possible if the evidence was inconclusive or misunderstood?

The venue thing is pretty easy to understand, right? Where were they going to try him that hadn’t heard about the case? Without reading the opinion, I assume that’s basically what they said: harmless error, if any. Pretty sure it’s 20 judges/justices to 0 at this point.

Appealing based on evidence that wasn’t presented to the jury is… woof. There’s been a scholarly debate around whether proving actual innocence can even be a direct path to relief under the constitution.

If you showed me there’s a silver bullet, slam dunk, irrefutable proof of innocence hanging out there and no court would fix the problem. Yeah, I’d believe that. The framework is flawed. The system gets it wrong. There’s room to debate whether we’ve relaxed safeguards on liberty too much to make sure we “get the bad guys.”

The problem in this case is that the silver bullet isn’t there. It’s not like Chauvin was across town or even across the street. There’s no DNA coming to show that it wasn't really him. The probability that it was an overdose was exaggerated by our internet social media culture. But then it got hashed out at the trial.

The one thing I feel pretty good about is that the jury got a better presentation of both sides of that issue than the people arguing about it on here. Could they have gotten it wrong? Yes. But there’s not actually anything glaringly obvious that says they did and the stuff that’s out there saying they did is generally residual belief from the initial exaggeration that was actually vetted through the jury process.

 

[hndog609]

Possibly, but that's the thing, as an officer you can't be indifferent. You have to aware that these things exist and could happen.

For example, had the officer used the knee to control the suspect until cuffed and then used other techniques once he was restrained and he died I don't think you could fault the officer at all. The fact he held that knee reducing airflow is why I think he's at least partly culpable.

I had posted this back at the time and it's pretty much still where my head is at today.

The getting him on the ground (he was clearly on video resisting being put in the car) was fine. Even the knee on neck to gain control would pass muster. Then, with multiple officers on site, retain control and sit him up and attempt to get him into the vehicle again. At a minimum if he continued to violently resist it would justify elevated measures. As it was...well we all saw what happened.

 

[LouderVol]

The venue thing is pretty easy to understand, right? Where were they going to try him that hadn’t heard about the case? Without reading the opinion, I assume that’s basically what they said: harmless error, if any. Pretty sure it’s 20 judges/justices to 0 at this point.

Appealing based on evidence that wasn’t presented to the jury is… woof. There’s been a scholarly debate around whether proving actual innocence can even be a direct path to relief under the constitution.

If you showed me there’s a silver bullet, slam dunk, irrefutable proof of innocence hanging out there and no court would fix the problem. Yeah, I’d believe that. The framework is flawed. The system gets it wrong. There’s room to debate whether we’ve relaxed safeguards on liberty too much to make sure we “get the bad guys.”

The problem in this case is that the silver bullet isn’t there. It’s not like Chauvin was across town or even across the street. There’s no DNA coming to show that it wasn't really him. The probability that it was an overdose was exaggerated by our internet social media culture. But then it got hashed out at the trial.

The one thing I feel pretty good about is that the jury got a better presentation of both sides of that issue than the people arguing about it on here. Could they have gotten it wrong? Yes. But there’s not actually anything glaringly obvious that says they did and the stuff that’s out there saying they did is generally residual belief from the initial exaggeration that was actually vetted through the jury process.

as in, new evidence that would prove innocence comes out, there is no guarantee an appeals court would hear the trial? or there is no guarantee that even if there was a trial it would actually over turn the previous ruling?

 

[McDad]

The venue thing is pretty easy to understand, right? Where were they going to try him that hadn’t heard about the case? Without reading the opinion, I assume that’s basically what they said: harmless error, if any. Pretty sure it’s 20 judges/justices to 0 at this point.

Appealing based on evidence that wasn’t presented to the jury is… woof. There’s been a scholarly debate around whether proving actual innocence can even be a direct path to relief under the constitution.

If you showed me there’s a silver bullet, slam dunk, irrefutable proof of innocence hanging out there and no court would fix the problem. Yeah, I’d believe that. The framework is flawed. The system gets it wrong. There’s room to debate whether we’ve relaxed safeguards on liberty too much to make sure we “get the bad guys.”

The problem in this case is that the silver bullet isn’t there. It’s not like Chauvin was across town or even across the street. There’s no DNA coming to show that it wasn't really him. The probability that it was an overdose was exaggerated by our internet social media culture. But then it got hashed out at the trial.

The one thing I feel pretty good about is that the jury got a better presentation of both sides of that issue than the people arguing about it on here. Could they have gotten it wrong? Yes. But there’s not actually anything glaringly obvious that says they did and the stuff that’s out there saying they did is generally residual belief from the initial exaggeration that was actually vetted through the jury process.

Appreciate the depth of reply.

 

[volbeast33]

Hmm. I need to give that consideration.

Another thing to consider is that area where Floyd died is pretty dangerous. I’m sure they were worried about the crowd forming as they were George Floyd. I looked it up and 6 people were shot in George Floyd square between 2021 and 2022.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Sorry, dbl-post

 

[Orange_Crush]

2 things wrong here.
1. wrong thread
2. you didn't answer the question yourself

OK. Obviously, it's not something you're comfortable interacting with.


We can revisit as you make calls for change and justice, so I suspect most threads will eventually become the appropriate threads to discuss.

I genuinely hope that you have a good day.

********************************************************************************************************************************

(Even though I've answered it often and recently, I will do so again to try to permanently frustrate this stall pattern.

I believe that humanity is specially created by an eternally perfect, rational, moral Being, for purpose--given His image, and along with it, inherent worth. We were specifically created to comprehend and apprehend reality. In His image, we were designed to be intelligent, rational beings, thus we have great reason to trust our perceptions and rationalities.
Morality is an expression of that creating Being's character, and is an underlying principal of His creation. I also believe that that inherent worth of humanity and humans is a defining character of that moral law.


Your turn?)


Therefore:

1. How can this be the wrong thread? I am responding to your appeals for "fairness" and "justice" in this thread. It's literally just a response and an extension of your conversation.
2a. I have answered.
2b. It's you're claims that we are trying to weigh here, no?

Please see below...






Since you've complained that you have trouble with my verbiage, let's simplify it down about as much as I think we can.


1a. If you believe that we should deal with others impartially (and by defending the necessity of DEI, you actually don't, by the way), that necessarily assumes that we as a species are rational beings who can correctly perceive, process and respond to true reality. Combined with the belief that we are just the results of the process of time, change and random mutations, what makes you believe that we are a species capable of the above? What, specifically makes you believe that such random and unguided processes gave us this capability?

I believe that we are designed and created by the infinitely rational Being who created the universe, who made us to be rational beings, designed to interact with the Universe. As a matter of fact, I believe that He said that he designed the universe to teach us progressively of His glory, so it becomes explicit that we were created FOR the ability to preceive, process and think deeply on reality.

1b. You claim to believe that we are just hairless primates. Why don't you expect and call for "fairness" and "justice" in the jungles, among... say... gorillas? It seems internally inconsistent and patently absurd to expect it from we-primates, and not all the they-primates.

I do not believe that humans are merely hairless primates, thus the moral and intellectual distinctions make it natural to expect differently from humanity. It is completely consistent with my worldview.

2a. If your morality and sense of fairness/justice is nothing more than personal opinion, little different than a preference for red-headed women, or vanilla ice cream, what gives you the moral platform to call for societal change in the name of... well... mere opinion?

My view of morality is that the standard is not just an opinion, but an expression of the Creator's perfect nature, and is built into the design and creation of reality, thus I have a standard outside of my self--and you--from which to discuss and debate. It is more than just an equivalent to opinion-preferences.

I find that the easiest and fastest way to spot and discard bull**** is to analyze the person's claims and ask if they are internally consistent or self-refuting absurdity. If they are, they deserve no more consideration and can be ignored immediately. If they are not, we can continue the analysis.

Your turn. Answers, please? I gave mine.

We may just be able to save the board some time and trouble with you here if you are willing to participate. Are you internally inconsistent? Or are you posting self-refuting absurdities?


I can't help but think that if you were confident in your position, you wouldn't be so unwilling to just interact in good faith with the questions.

 

[appvol]

 

[KB5252]

It's kind of petty but par for the course in American politics. Even if you don't want to honor his legacy you can cast a vote in the positive to condemn his assassination and denounce political violence.

And yes I'm aware the right does this as well. That's part of the calculus in my post.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's kind of petty but par for the course in American politics. Even if you don't want to honor his legacy you can cast a vote in the positive to condemn his assassination and denounce political violence.

And yes I'm aware the right does this as well. That's part of the calculus in my post.

The Republicans are putting on a political master-class right now, IMHO. The Dems are committing political suicide right now, IMHO.

Force a vote where the Democrats refuse to condemn political violence? Ouch.

 

[KB5252]

The Republicans are putting on a political master-class right now, IMHO. The Dems are committing political suicide right now, IMHO.

Force a vote where the Democrats refuse to condemn political violence? Ouch.

It'll register with a few but will not move the needle in any significant way.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It'll register with a few but will not move the needle in any significant way.

My feed algorithms may be lying to me, but it sounds like the needle has already been greatly moved. I guess we'll see.