The Assassination of Charlie Kirk

THEBIBLEISTEN

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

THEBIBLEISTEN said:

4. The shooter was a white young male. Not a lunatic from the left or a tranny or an immigrant but rather from a gun loving family,  young white male from a conservative family. 

He lived with his transgender partner, who is cooperating with police. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/charlie-kirks-assassin-lived-transgender-partner-who-now-cooperating-fbi-sources.amp

The writings on the shell casings sort of indicate “lunatic from the left” with him writing things like “hey fascist, catch.” That’s the rhetoric used against Trump and conservatives all the time. And while the only source is some friend that knew him so it’s not confirmed, the friend claims he was the lone left-leaning person in an otherwise conservative family. 

When you date a tranny and call your murder victim a fascist, you’re probably a “lunatic from the left.”

from a reuters article on this kid....

At the time of the shooting, Robinson was living at his parents' house in Washington, a farming and residential community of approximately 28,000 near Zion National Park in southwestern Utah.

nothing about dating a transmission, which is weird...

This Reuters article says he lived in an apartment 5 miles from his parents house. So you’re wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/accused-sniper-jailed-charlie-kirk-killing-awaits-formal-charges-utah-2025-09-13/

“Police collected additional evidence on Friday evening from Robinson's apartment in St. George, about 5 miles (8 km) from his parents' home near the Arizona border.”

THEBIBLEISTEN said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

THEBIBLEISTEN said:

4. The shooter was a white young male. Not a lunatic from the left or a tranny or an immigrant but rather from a gun loving family,  young white male from a conservative family. 

He lived with his transgender partner, who is cooperating with police. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/charlie-kirks-assassin-lived-transgender-partner-who-now-cooperating-fbi-sources.amp

The writings on the shell casings sort of indicate “lunatic from the left” with him writing things like “hey fascist, catch.” That’s the rhetoric used against Trump and conservatives all the time. And while the only source is some friend that knew him so it’s not confirmed, the friend claims he was the lone left-leaning person in an otherwise conservative family. 

When you date a tranny and call your murder victim a fascist, you’re probably a “lunatic from the left.”

You are part of the problem. Sharing information that is misinformation. It’s sad. People corrected you within minutes, That should tell you something. It’s easier to believe lies than to find out the truth for some people, be better. 

See above. The person that “corrected me within minutes” referenced a Reuters article (without linking to it) that said he lived with his parents. I posted a link to one that says he lived in an apartment, just like Fox News said 

F Me In The Brain said:

Tim Simmons said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

THEBIBLEISTEN said:

4. The shooter was a white young male. Not a lunatic from the left or a tranny or an immigrant but rather from a gun loving family,  young white male from a conservative family. 

When you date a tranny…

Showing your whole ass here.

This is great behavior.
Quoting Fox Feux News in one spot and then doubling down on the hate.
Bravo.

Fox News isn’t wrong here. And if “tranny” upsets you, that’s the word THEBIBLEISTEN used in the post I was responding to. So take it up with him. 

The shooter was a white young male and not a tranny. Just using the term that the maga cult wanted it to be. We can all disagree/ agree that the victim was not a good person but we can all agree that in no way should any violence of any kind be used against him for his words, no matter how hateful they were. Let’s not start fighting on here and agree violence is never the right answer. The kid should be brought to justice and we should have better gun laws. But all the other noise is just noise . Maybe don’t listen to convicted felons that one side is worse than the other, we are all one country. The time is now to stop the insanity. 

Tim Simmons

GlowGirl said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I think the conceit is people noting that Charlie Kirk said offensive or hateful things is triggering people mourning over his killing. 

The only upset fans I see are at those gloating over his death. Which are quite a few. 

Now that I think of it, those quoting him on gun deaths being worth it is the only time I’ve seen people upset over quoting him, but I actually haven’t seen that as much as just pure gloating.

Who’s gloating here? 

Not here. But social media in general. It’s pretty bad. I’ve seen reports of teachers and other public people getting fired for what they’re posting.

I saw that as well. I thought Charlie Kirk was for freedom of speech. So wouldn’t he be upset about people getting fired for expressing that freedom?

he famously targeted teachers. 

DE4173

All I recommend for everything is if you're going to quote someone, then post the whole quote. Don't post bits and pieces or say someone said something generally when that wasn't at all what they said. That just gets spread as misinformation. So if you're against misinformation, please kindly stop creating it and/or stop spreading it, even if it shows whatever side as bad.

Also, if you post a video clip, post the whole clip. Not one that has twenty-some seconds that is missing prior to the clip and several seconds afterwards.

I cannot believe that people fall for this repeatedly. 

It aids in spreading misinformation and leads to further division based on that misinformation.

If you post something that is untrue/misleading, it's totally acceptable to remove it once you find that you had bad information. It's optional to post that you were wrong. It's okay to make an honest mistake and own up to it. It's not a weakness.

✌️

nicknyr15

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-scarborough-teacher-accused-of-showing-charlie-kirk-murder-video-to-kids

mickeyrat

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

THEBIBLEISTEN said:

4. The shooter was a white young male. Not a lunatic from the left or a tranny or an immigrant but rather from a gun loving family,  young white male from a conservative family. 

He lived with his transgender partner, who is cooperating with police. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/charlie-kirks-assassin-lived-transgender-partner-who-now-cooperating-fbi-sources.amp

The writings on the shell casings sort of indicate “lunatic from the left” with him writing things like “hey fascist, catch.” That’s the rhetoric used against Trump and conservatives all the time. And while the only source is some friend that knew him so it’s not confirmed, the friend claims he was the lone left-leaning person in an otherwise conservative family. 

When you date a tranny and call your murder victim a fascist, you’re probably a “lunatic from the left.”

from a reuters article on this kid....

At the time of the shooting, Robinson was living at his parents' house in Washington, a farming and residential community of approximately 28,000 near Zion National Park in southwestern Utah.

nothing about dating a transmission, which is weird...

This Reuters article says he lived in an apartment 5 miles from his parents house. So you’re wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/accused-sniper-jailed-charlie-kirk-killing-awaits-formal-charges-utah-2025-09-13/

“Police collected additional evidence on Friday evening from Robinson's apartment in St. George, about 5 miles (8 km) from his parents' home near the Arizona border.”

THEBIBLEISTEN said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

THEBIBLEISTEN said:

4. The shooter was a white young male. Not a lunatic from the left or a tranny or an immigrant but rather from a gun loving family,  young white male from a conservative family. 

He lived with his transgender partner, who is cooperating with police. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/charlie-kirks-assassin-lived-transgender-partner-who-now-cooperating-fbi-sources.amp

The writings on the shell casings sort of indicate “lunatic from the left” with him writing things like “hey fascist, catch.” That’s the rhetoric used against Trump and conservatives all the time. And while the only source is some friend that knew him so it’s not confirmed, the friend claims he was the lone left-leaning person in an otherwise conservative family. 

When you date a tranny and call your murder victim a fascist, you’re probably a “lunatic from the left.”

You are part of the problem. Sharing information that is misinformation. It’s sad. People corrected you within minutes, That should tell you something. It’s easier to believe lies than to find out the truth for some people, be better. 

See above. The person that “corrected me within minutes” referenced a Reuters article (without linking to it) that said he lived with his parents. I posted a link to one that says he lived in an apartment, just like Fox News said 

F Me In The Brain said:

Tim Simmons said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

THEBIBLEISTEN said:

4. The shooter was a white young male. Not a lunatic from the left or a tranny or an immigrant but rather from a gun loving family,  young white male from a conservative family. 

When you date a tranny…

Showing your whole ass here.

This is great behavior.
Quoting Fox Feux News in one spot and then doubling down on the hate.
Bravo.

Fox News isn’t wrong here. And if “tranny” upsets you, that’s the word THEBIBLEISTEN used in the post I was responding to. So take it up with him. 

and that reuters article you posted contained updated information. 

gimmesometruth27

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I think the conceit is people noting that Charlie Kirk said offensive or hateful things is triggering people mourning over his killing. 

The only upset fans I see are at those gloating over his death. Which are quite a few. 

Now that I think of it, those quoting him on gun deaths being worth it is the only time I’ve seen people upset over quoting him, but I actually haven’t seen that as much as just pure gloating.

gloating is not done by people that are upset, lol. it is done by people that are sore winners and shit talkers. come on man, you are a teacher. you know that.

i don't see people on here gloating about his death. i see people calling him what he was and being real about it. posting actual quotes of his, and their feelings about what he had to say. 

i think what Tim may have meant is kirk fans and mourners are not triggered when people post kirk's words, but by when they try to describe kirk for who he was by using his own words and quotes.

people are upset that he is getting painted with his own words. he was a man of conviction, and he stood by his words. why can't his supporters do the same?

is it because they realize they support someone that was foul and offensive, with positions that the supporters are not able to defend without being painted as a mini kirk themselves?

nobody is gloating. all of us have said how terrible this is.

most of us choose to discuss him for what he was. 

we came not to praise kirk, but to bury him. and we are being real about it.

mickeyrat

The sad reality is that if Charlie Kirk had been a second grader shot in school, Republicans would have moved on by now.

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat said:

The sad reality is that if Charlie Kirk had been a second grader shot in school, Republicans would have moved on by now.

or multiple second graders, which is usually how it happens. 

they come heavy with the thoughts and prayers, and then get distracted having to defend trump and the epstein files.

Gern Blansten

Evel K said:

Hey everyone,  glad to see the thread didn't get closed. I posted here because I felt this community would see this for what it was. A senseless murder. We all have our own views on politics, gun rights, religion and abortion.  Any one of these could have been a shooter's motive. It could have easily been a combination of these. If we don't continue to talk about our views and try to find middle ground, the shooter wins. Charlie Kirk was trying to Change your Mind. He used logic, stats, history and religion to do it. His faith was the foundation for all of his views. He was beyond brave. This could have happened at any time, anywhere for any number of reasons. He continued working on the front lines because that was his calling. 

Kirk could never admit when he was wrong. Which was a lot. 

He was a charlatan that found a way to make maga money. 

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I think the conceit is people noting that Charlie Kirk said offensive or hateful things is triggering people mourning over his killing. 

The only upset fans I see are at those gloating over his death. Which are quite a few. 

Now that I think of it, those quoting him on gun deaths being worth it is the only time I’ve seen people upset over quoting him, but I actually haven’t seen that as much as just pure gloating.

Who’s gloating here? 

Not here. But social media in general. It’s pretty bad. I’ve seen reports of teachers and other public people getting fired for what they’re posting.

Nothing will change until misinformation is blocked. 

mace1229

GlowGirl said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I think the conceit is people noting that Charlie Kirk said offensive or hateful things is triggering people mourning over his killing. 

The only upset fans I see are at those gloating over his death. Which are quite a few. 

Now that I think of it, those quoting him on gun deaths being worth it is the only time I’ve seen people upset over quoting him, but I actually haven’t seen that as much as just pure gloating.

Who’s gloating here? 

Not here. But social media in general. It’s pretty bad. I’ve seen reports of teachers and other public people getting fired for what they’re posting.

I saw that as well. I thought Charlie Kirk was for freedom of speech. So wouldn’t he be upset about people getting fired for expressing that freedom?

No, that’s not the same. If you’re a teacher or work for a network, etc, you represent that organization. If you say something that the organization you work for finds repulsive, they should cut ties with you. Has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech means you won’t get arrested for it. 

Halifax2TheMax

Good lord.

mace1229

gimmesometruth27 said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I think the conceit is people noting that Charlie Kirk said offensive or hateful things is triggering people mourning over his killing. 

The only upset fans I see are at those gloating over his death. Which are quite a few. 

Now that I think of it, those quoting him on gun deaths being worth it is the only time I’ve seen people upset over quoting him, but I actually haven’t seen that as much as just pure gloating.

gloating is not done by people that are upset, lol. it is done by people that are sore winners and shit talkers. come on man, you are a teacher. you know that.

i don't see people on here gloating about his death. i see people calling him what he was and being real about it. posting actual quotes of his, and their feelings about what he had to say. 

i think what Tim may have meant is kirk fans and mourners are not triggered when people post kirk's words, but by when they try to describe kirk for who he was by using his own words and quotes.

people are upset that he is getting painted with his own words. he was a man of conviction, and he stood by his words. why can't his supporters do the same?

is it because they realize they support someone that was foul and offensive, with positions that the supporters are not able to defend without being painted as a mini kirk themselves?

nobody is gloating. all of us have said how terrible this is.

most of us choose to discuss him for what he was. 

we came not to praise kirk, but to bury him. and we are being real about it.

I didn’t mean here specifically. But in general and on social media especially. If you (general you) are celebrating his death, or trying justify it and say it was deserved, which many people are, in my opinion you’re gloating. 

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

Good lord.

Care to expand? You don’t think an employer that you represent has the right to terminate your employment when you say things that go against their values?

DE4173

🫣

mace1229

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I think the conceit is people noting that Charlie Kirk said offensive or hateful things is triggering people mourning over his killing. 

The only upset fans I see are at those gloating over his death. Which are quite a few. 

Now that I think of it, those quoting him on gun deaths being worth it is the only time I’ve seen people upset over quoting him, but I actually haven’t seen that as much as just pure gloating.

Who’s gloating here? 

Not here. But social media in general. It’s pretty bad. I’ve seen reports of teachers and other public people getting fired for what they’re posting.

Nothing will change until misinformation is blocked. 

Yeah, but some misinformation seems to be more accepted than others.
No one questioned it when some posted the shooter was right wing and part of larger extremist right organization. Then others were heavily criticized for saying he was left and were asked for an apology for saying that.  There is a strong bias for certain misinformation here. In another incident I corrected a misquote about Texas law and the response was literally “who cares if the quote was wrong, it’s Texas anyway.”

njhaley1

DE4173 said:

🫣

So what's the best answer? 

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I think the conceit is people noting that Charlie Kirk said offensive or hateful things is triggering people mourning over his killing. 

The only upset fans I see are at those gloating over his death. Which are quite a few. 

Now that I think of it, those quoting him on gun deaths being worth it is the only time I’ve seen people upset over quoting him, but I actually haven’t seen that as much as just pure gloating.

Who’s gloating here? 

Not here. But social media in general. It’s pretty bad. I’ve seen reports of teachers and other public people getting fired for what they’re posting.

Nothing will change until misinformation is blocked. 

Yeah, but some misinformation seems to be more accepted than others.
No one questioned it when some posted the shooter was right wing and part of larger extremist right organization. Then others were heavily criticized for saying he was left and were asked for an apology for saying that.  There is a strong bias for certain misinformation here. In another incident I corrected a misquote about Texas law and the response was literally “who cares if the quote was wrong, it’s Texas anyway.”

I normally try not to generalize “right” and “left” but historically the “left” aren’t the ones that
jump on the “he was one of yours” to demonize an entire political side. The times you see it now are more of a mocking of how the right does it. It became more pronounced post-Trumpism where everything wrong in the world is “the liberal/woke mind virus”. Which was the point of my post a couple days ago that you mocked, but it’s true. 

The fact is, more political violence is perpetuated by conservatives but you don’t see media pundits jumping to demonize the entirety of conservatives the second after an atrocity happens. We blame the guns and mental health, not an ideology (naga cultists notwithstanding). You generally only see that type of “gloating” as a reaction to cons being wrong. 

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I think the conceit is people noting that Charlie Kirk said offensive or hateful things is triggering people mourning over his killing. 

The only upset fans I see are at those gloating over his death. Which are quite a few. 

Now that I think of it, those quoting him on gun deaths being worth it is the only time I’ve seen people upset over quoting him, but I actually haven’t seen that as much as just pure gloating.

Who’s gloating here? 

Not here. But social media in general. It’s pretty bad. I’ve seen reports of teachers and other public people getting fired for what they’re posting.

Nothing will change until misinformation is blocked. 

Yeah, but some misinformation seems to be more accepted than others.
No one questioned it when some posted the shooter was right wing and part of larger extremist right organization. Then others were heavily criticized for saying he was left and were asked for an apology for saying that.  There is a strong bias for certain misinformation here. In another incident I corrected a misquote about Texas law and the response was literally “who cares if the quote was wrong, it’s Texas anyway.”

I normally try not to generalize “right” and “left” but historically the “left” aren’t the ones that
jump on the “he was one of yours” to demonize an entire political side. The times you see it now are more of a mocking of how the right does it. It became more pronounced post-Trumpism where everything wrong in the world is “the liberal/woke mind virus”. Which was the point of my post a couple days ago that you mocked, but it’s true. 

The fact is, more political violence is perpetuated by conservatives but you don’t see media pundits jumping to demonize the entirety of conservatives the second after an atrocity happens. We blame the guns and mental health, not an ideology (naga cultists notwithstanding). You generally only see that type of “gloating” as a reaction to cons being wrong. 

I generally view your points as pretty fair, even when I disagree. I don’t recall intentionally mocking your post a few days ago. The only thing I can think of was the comments comparing Osama to Kirk. I wasn’t mocking, I was saying I think that’s a terrible comparison with too many differences, maybe my direct approach to that came off as mocking. But I don’t think you were the one to make it.

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I think the conceit is people noting that Charlie Kirk said offensive or hateful things is triggering people mourning over his killing. 

The only upset fans I see are at those gloating over his death. Which are quite a few. 

Now that I think of it, those quoting him on gun deaths being worth it is the only time I’ve seen people upset over quoting him, but I actually haven’t seen that as much as just pure gloating.

Who’s gloating here? 

Not here. But social media in general. It’s pretty bad. I’ve seen reports of teachers and other public people getting fired for what they’re posting.

Nothing will change until misinformation is blocked. 

Yeah, but some misinformation seems to be more accepted than others.
No one questioned it when some posted the shooter was right wing and part of larger extremist right organization. Then others were heavily criticized for saying he was left and were asked for an apology for saying that.  There is a strong bias for certain misinformation here. In another incident I corrected a misquote about Texas law and the response was literally “who cares if the quote was wrong, it’s Texas anyway.”

I normally try not to generalize “right” and “left” but historically the “left” aren’t the ones that
jump on the “he was one of yours” to demonize an entire political side. The times you see it now are more of a mocking of how the right does it. It became more pronounced post-Trumpism where everything wrong in the world is “the liberal/woke mind virus”. Which was the point of my post a couple days ago that you mocked, but it’s true. 

The fact is, more political violence is perpetuated by conservatives but you don’t see media pundits jumping to demonize the entirety of conservatives the second after an atrocity happens. We blame the guns and mental health, not an ideology (naga cultists notwithstanding). You generally only see that type of “gloating” as a reaction to cons being wrong. 

I generally view your points as pretty fair, even when I disagree. I don’t recall intentionally mocking your post a few days ago. The only thing I can think of was the comments comparing Osama to Kirk. I wasn’t mocking, I was saying I think that’s a terrible comparison with too many differences, maybe my direct approach to that came off as mocking. But I don’t think you were the one to make it.

Maybe I’m mixing up posters. My apologies.