15 minutes ago, marin said:

you have spouted that BS before, and been refuted.  Enough, I will not listen to your false narrative, nor will democracy lovers. 

Not bs. Facts. Mussolini was a socialist. Do some research boy.

17 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

And the statement by the family about the Perp talking about how he disliked Kirk at dinner, will most certainly be brought to the trial as evidence by the prosecution.

 

 

No, it's not. Witness statements are evidence.. Evidence matters.

 

 

No it matters a lot if the Perp was an ANTIFA ally and a LGBT or Trans ally, as it helps to establish motive.

 

 

We know his real motive. He was banging a furry trans, he's a homosexual and he's a leftist, and he hated Kirk's right wing agenda and statements.

 

That's what he even told his family.

 

 

Lol, his own father turned him in and you're acting as if he's innocent. You're ludicrous.

 

 

No, it's not "assumptions"...there's a truck load of evidence we already know, and the FBI has a truckload more. There is no doubt whatsoever that Robinson is the killer. There is no doubt he is a homosexual and deeply steeped in pro-Trans beliefs and leftist beliefs.

We're going round and round here and you're putting too much weight on what people have said about him. Nothing matters until they can prove he shot the gun that killed Kirk. It doesn't matter if he's gay, or his partner is a trans. if he's far left or playing that game.

 

If he's on Trump's side and wanted to throw people off.

 

If he is a good shot with a rifle. 

 

Evidence is thrown out all the time, as it's people talking much of the time, and it has to be proven truthful.

 

His father turned him in for a reason. Were you there and know the reason?

 

I did not say he wasn't the shooter. I said he might be the shooter because he appears to be the one that was on the roof. Which still doesn't mean he was the shooter.Many have said he didn't have a gun with him then. Hundreds who have seen the video.

 

The narrator did not say ."look, there's the gun", as you couldn't tell if he had one or not. You keep saying there's a truckload of evidence but there's none that proves he's the shooter, and that's the evidence needed. It' s all some people telling others how he was, and very little of that besides what we already know.

 

Having sex with a trans isn't a motive to kill anyone unless there's some deep rooted hatred, which might have been there. There are again, millions who hate every politician and others, but they don't act on that hate. It's all assumptions until he either confesses, and he's found to be the only one involved, or they prove he used the gun that shot Kirk, meaning DNA or fingerprints, along with ballistics on a bullet, if found. Right now, there is NO evidence he is the killer.

Just now, fredwiggy said:

We're going round and round here and you're putting too much weight on what people have said about him. Nothing matters until they can prove he shot the gun that killed Kirk. It doesn't matter if he's gay, or his partner is a trans. if he's far left or playing that game.

 

If he's on Trump's side and wanted to throw people off.

 

If he is a good shot with a rifle. 

 

Evidence is thrown out all the time, as it's people talking much of the time, and it has to be proven truthful.

 

His father turned him in for a reason. Were you there and know the reason?

 

I did not say he wasn't the shooter. I said he might be the shooter because he appears to be the one that was on the roof. Many have said he didn't have a gun with him then. Hundreds who have seen the video.

 

The narrator did not say ."look, there's the gun", as you couldn't tell if he had one or not. You keep saying there's a truckload of evidence but there's none that proves he's the shooter, and that's the evidence needed. It' s all some people telling others how he was, and very little of that besides what we already know.

 

Having sex with a trans isn't a motive to kill anyone unless there's some deep rooted hatred, which might have been there. There are again, millions who hate every politician and others, but they don't act on that hate. It's all assumptions until he either confesses, and he's found to be the only one involved, or they prove he used the gun that shot Kirk, meaning DNA or fingerprints, along with ballistics on a bullet, if found. 

The 22yo is a fascist. The very thing he claims others were.

 

Political violence is fascism. 

3 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

Not bs. Facts. Mussolini was a socialist. Do some research boy.

was mussolini's regime fascist - Search

How Mussolini Turned Italy Into a Fascist State

Mussolini's regime was fascist, characterized by totalitarianism, nationalism, and the suppression of dissent, as he established a one-party state in Italy.

 

Before becoming one of the most famous fascists of the 20th century, Benito Mussolini was a young socialist, but he split with the movement and then rode a wave of anti-socialist violence to power in Italy.

3 hours ago, DezLez said:

was mussolini's regime fascist - Search

Mussolini's regime was fascist, characterized by totalitarianism, nationalism, and the suppression of dissent, as he established a one-party state in Italy.

Benito Mussolini's views on socialism were complex and evolved significantly over his lifetime. Early in his career, he was a committed socialist, declaring, "I bequeath the republic to the republicans and not to the monarchists, and the work of social reform to the socialist and not to the middle class". He considered himself a socialist, stating, "You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist

2 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Early in his career, he was a committed socialist

That is no different to saying that Trump was a democrat, which he was for about 9 years!

 Same as Mussolini started as a Socialist and then became a rabid fascist!

17 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

you're putting too much weight on what people have said about him.

 

No, it's his own family who have said he was increasinlgy political. You are not giving enough weight to credible inside witness testimony.

 

17 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Nothing matters until they can prove he shot the gun that killed Kirk. It doesn't matter if he's gay, or his partner is a trans. if he's far left or playing that game.

 

No, all of that matters to establish motive.

 

17 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

If he's on Trump's side and wanted to throw people off.

 

Don't be ridiculous.

 

17 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

If he is a good shot with a rifle. 

 

He's bad shot, he aimed for the head and hit the neck by accident.

 

17 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

but there's none that proves he's the shooter

 

You mean apart from his own father giving testimony that his son had admitted it, and a family friend who is pastor doing likewise?

 

And apart from the texts to his lover that were recovered where he asks his lover to retrieve the rifle?

 

17 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Right now, there is NO evidence he is the killer.

 

Laughable.

14 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Right now, there is NO evidence he is the killer

Evidence - noun. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign.

 

So you are 100% wrong.

Evidence here is cctv, texts & computer history, witness testimony. Just for starters.

9 minutes ago, DezLez said:

That is no different to saying that Trump was a democrat, which he was for about 9 years!

 Same as Mussolini started as a Socialist and then became a rabid fascist!

Mussolini believed in central control and violence. Trump believes in capitalism and no wars.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, it's his own family who have said he was increasinlgy political. You are not giving enough weight to credible inside witness testimony.

 

 

No, all of that matters to establish motive.

 

 

Don't be ridiculous.

 

 

He's bad shot, he aimed for the head and hit the neck by accident.

 

 

You mean apart from his own father giving testimony that his son had admitted it, and a family friend who is pastor doing likewise?

 

 

Laughable.

Motive means nothing. Many people have reasons to hurt others, but again, they don't act on them.

 

Again, it doesn't matter what anyone says, whether it's his family, the governor, the police or Donald Trump. What matters is if they have enough evidence to bring him to trial, first, and then he has to be proven guilty, and that needs conclusive proof that he was the one who shot the rifle that killed Kirk.

 

He very well might be, and he also might not be. That's what real evidence means, and as a lawyer previous  you should know this. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

These days they have DNA along with fingerprints. A witness would help, but they don't have any.

 

No one saw him shoot the gun or what he was aiming at. Any of that is an assumption.

 

Testimony means a statement given to authorities, not a father and a pastor supposedly saying anything. 

 

I'd like to see any of these texts, especially where he texted his partner to retrieve the rifle. The police found it. 

 

Supposedly, the father and pastor asked him to turn himself in, which can surely mean he's guilty. Show me a link where anyone has any "proof" he's the shooter. There isn't any, at least yet. Again, he looks like the shooter, but after seeing these kinds of things for 69 years, innocents found guilty, guilty found innocent, cover ups, and being in a courtroom almost 70 times, I've seen a lot. 

10 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Evidence - noun. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign.

 

So you are 100% wrong.

Evidence here is cctv, texts & computer history, witness testimony. Just for starters.

There is no evidence he was the shooter. At least yet. I, again, didn't say he was or wasn't. I go by facts. CCTV shows someone jumping off a roof, and someone in a stairwell. That's not evidence he shot anyone, and you can't even tell if it's definitely him. There are no texts with him saying HE shot Kirk. There are no witnesses that put him at the scene WITH a gun. 

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

There is no evidence he was the shooter. At least yet. I, again, didn't say he was or wasn't. I go by facts. CCTV shows someone jumping off a roof, and someone in a stairwell. That's not evidence he shot anyone, and you can't even tell if it's definitely him. There are no texts with him saying HE shot Kirk. There are no witnesses that put him at the scene WITH a gun. 

He confessed to his dad.

Just now, Harrisfan said:

He confessed to his dad.

They say.

4 minutes ago, DezLez said:

They say.

Tin foil hats

56 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Motive means nothing.

 

Motive is crucial.

 

56 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Again, it doesn't matter what anyone says, whether it's his family,

 

No it matters, because his family gave evidence that the Perp was heavily into politics and expressed his dislike of Charlie Kirk's political opinions

 

56 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

He very well might be, and he also might not be. That's what real evidence means, and as a lawyer previous  you should know this. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

We are not in a court of law. So why do we need to impose artifical constraints on a discussion on a talkboard?  His father said his son confessed to him. A pastor, a family friend, said the same. Texts were recovered where he asks his lover to retrieve the rifle. He's' guilty as hell.

 

56 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

No one saw him shoot the gun or what he was aiming at. Any of that is an assumption.

 

No, there is video of him lying pronated on the roof in the same position you would be in when you fire a rifle, and then of him running away just after the shot, and climbing down a building to escape.

 

56 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Testimony means a statement given to authorities, not a father and a pastor supposedly saying anything. 

 

They both gave witness statements to authorities as did other family members.

 

56 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

. Show me a link where anyone has any "proof" he's the shooter. There isn't any, at least yet.

 

Again, his OWN FATHER said his son confessed to him. A paster said he confessed. There are texts where he's asking his lover to retrieve a rifle. He's guilty as hell.

 

Why would a father turn his son in to the FBI unless he comitted a horrible crime?

 

Why is the Perp not talking at all, if he's so innocent? He's gulity as hell.

 

19 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Motive is crucial.

 

 

No it matters, because his family gave evidence that the Perp was heavily into politics and expressed his dislike of Charlie Kirk's political opinions

 

 

We are not in a court of law. So why do we need to impose artifical constraints on a discussion on a talkboard?  His father said his son confessed to him. A pastor, a family friend, said the same. Texts were recovered where he asks his lover to retrieve the rifle. He's' guilty as hell.

 

 

No, there is video of him lying pronated on the roof in the same position you would be in when you fire a rifle, and then of him running away just after the shot, and climbing down a building to escape.

 

 

They both gave witness statements to authorities as did other family members.

 

 

Again, his OWN FATHER said his son confessed to him. A paster said he confessed. There are texts where he's asking his lover to retrieve a rifle. He's guilty as hell.

 

Why would a father turn his son in to the FBI unless he comitted a horrible crime?

 

Why is the Perp not talking at all, if he's so innocent? He's gulity as hell.

 

Again. I still haven't seen any proof he's the shooter, and that's what's needed. The video shows someone, and you can't tell it's him. Someone said there are texts, but no one has seen any besides those who received them and the authorities they may have shown them, but the public hasn't. Someone said his father and the pastor said to turn himself in.

 

He hasn't confessed to anyone that can use it as evidence to convict him, unless they come to court, which is still not enough to convict anyone. Confessing to your father isn't enough to convict him. He has to confess to the authorities. 

 

Anything anyone has said on this forum are things they found online, or heard someone say in the news. When he is brought into court and say's he's guilty is when he'll be convicted. Or, if they find evidence on the gun that killed Kirk that points to Robinson, along with ballistics, they can convict him.  Again, as I've said this over and over, I'm telling it like it is. Everyone here has their own theories, but they are just that. One link.............https://www.nashvillecriminaldefenseattorneys.com/blog/what-are-key-pieces-of-evidence-in-a-murder-trial.html

 

Tuesday he will supposedly see a judge. if he pleads not guilty, then they will have to bring all their evidence to court, and if they can't put him at the scene with the gun, or find his DNA or fingerprints on the gun, it isn't enough, as so far there are no eyewitnesses. That gun they found also has to be proven as the weapon used, and then they can go further. People say a lot of things, but most of what goes into a courtroom is usually BS and gets thrown out. This is but one link that shows what's needed...........https://www.la-criminaldefense.com/violent-crimes/evidence-necessary-to-convict-somebody-of-murder-in-california

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Again. I still haven't seen any proof he's the shooter

 

To be fair, there is a small chance he is not.  But it is extremely small at this stage.

 

The evidence against him is substantial.

 

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

He hasn't confessed to anyone that can use it as evidence to convict him

 

Oh his confession to his father will be used as evidence. Likewise his confession to the Pastor.

 

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Confessing to your father isn't enough to convict him.

 

It would be a signficiant piece of evidence that would help to convict him.

 

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

it isn't enough, as so far there are no eyewitnesses.

 

There is video of him on the roof. There are texts where he asks his lover to retrieve the rifle.

 

So why did he bring a rifle to the campus? He likes to use it as a walking cane?

 

 

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

To be fair, there is a small chance he is not.  But it is extremely small at this stage.

 

The evidence against him is substantial.

 

 

Oh his confession to his father will be used as evidence. Likewise his confession to the Pastor.

 

 

It would be a signficiant piece of evidence that would help to convict him.

 

 

There is video of him on the roof.

 

 

Yes, they will use anything they have, but what they have now is not near enough. Look at those links and see what's necessary. People saying he said something will be rebutted. There are many ways a good lawyer can get another's testimony tossed. That video shows someone. and there's no way you can tell it's him, at least from what we can see. And him being on a roof isn't enough to convict him. He has to be placed with the gun used to kill Kirk. 

8 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

but what they have now is not near enough

 

I strongly disagree. It's quite clear that they are holding back a lot of evidence. They have a lot more than they've let on so far.

 

9 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

He has to be placed with the gun used to kill Kirk. 

 

There is a video which shows the person on the roof lying in a rifle holding sniper position.

5 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Hmm I agree with you. I find Charlie Kirk arguments not particularly strong and tend to badger opponents with intimidating debate tricks. He don’t do well debating Cambridge U students but has more success in American Universities. 

I thought he did okay at Cambridge. What was it, five against one?  And the topic was no provided until the event, yes?

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

I strongly disagree. It's quite clear that they are holding back a lot of evidence. They have a lot more than they've let on so far.

 

 

There is a video which shows the person on the roof lying in a rifle holding sniper position.

Yes, they might have more than what's released to the public. Yes, that video shows someone on the roof,lying down, and then running away after the shot, which surely can be him, or someone else, as the video isn't clear enough to prove who it is. It does look like he's a strong suspect, but we've all seen this before, and a coverup can be weak or strong, depending on who's involved. Kennedy's assassination was a coverup, and it does seem others were involved, but for some reason, it still hasn't been offered to the public.

14 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Yes, they might have more than what's released to the public. Yes, that video shows someone on the roof,lying down, and then running away after the shot, which surely can be him, or someone else, as the video isn't clear enough to prove who it is. It does look like he's a strong suspect, but we've all seen this before, and a coverup can be weak or strong, depending on who's involved. Kennedy's assassination was a coverup, and it does seem others were involved, but for some reason, it still hasn't been offered to the public.

 

Did you see a second shooter on the grassy knoll?

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Did you see a second shooter on the grassy knoll?

No, I was 7 and watching it on TV with my mom while she was ironing clothes in Paterson New Jersey. . If you look at all that's been shown on that assassination, you can see it wasn't Oswald acting alone. Bullets don't act like they said at first. When a leader speaks, that leader dies.

15 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Yes, they might have more than what's released to the public. Yes, that video shows someone on the roof,lying down, and then running away after the shot, which surely can be him, or someone else, as the video isn't clear enough to prove who it is. It does look like he's a strong suspect, but we've all seen this before, and a coverup can be weak or strong, depending on who's involved. Kennedy's assassination was a coverup, and it does seem others were involved, but for some reason, it still hasn't been offered to the public.

Its strange that you cannot see the 30-06  42"-44" rifle as he ran across the roof after the shooting, shimmy off the roof and drop 4-5 feet to the ground and continue running. It wasn't in his pants moving like that and that rifle cannot be broken down in seconds stuffed into his back pack and put back together where it was found. Strange........

2 minutes ago, CANSIAM said:

Its strange that you cannot see the 30-06  42"-44" rifle as he ran across the roof after the shooting, shimmy off the roof and drop 4-5 feet to the ground and continue running. It wasn't in his pants moving like that and that rifle cannot be broken down in seconds stuffed into his back pack and put back together where it was found. Strange........

No, I along with hundreds of people comments I've seen on FB cannot see a rifle but what looks like a shirt or backpack. I know that rifle cannot be broken down. The roof wasn't 4-5 feet off the ground but at least 10, and if he jumped down with a rifle he would have dropped it. Not impossible but highly unlikely. The narrator, again, said nothing about him having a rifle on him but that one was found in the woods. Again, when we know we'll know. Until then, all theories.

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

No, I along with hundreds of people comments I've seen on FB cannot see a rifle but what looks like a shirt or backpack. I know that rifle cannot be broken down. The roof wasn't 4-5 feet off the ground but at least 10, and if he jumped down with a rifle he would have dropped it. Not impossible but highly unlikely. The narrator, again, said nothing about him having a rifle on him but that one was found in the woods. Again, when we know we'll know. Until then, all theories.

 

The FBI has confirmed that he was carrying the rifle as he climbed off the roof.

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The FBI has confirmed that he was carrying the rifle as he climbed off the roof.

Okay, when I see that I'll believe it.

This 22 year-old kid was a far-lefty mental mess banging a trans dude and listening to far too much social media thinking he can sort it, FFS. How much more screwed-up and moronic can you get?

He may have been raised up in a traditional setting, but clearly through his social choices and situation plus politics, rejected it all.... just kept quiet about it until he popped.

You can't start shooting people just because of their opinion... you have to win the argument with reason and logic, which most young people don't have, or even want to engage in things like debate because they are too emotionally fagile and unintelligent to even tread water on a topic. A new era of authoritarian socialism is springing up... that sort of Soviet Union and NKVD stuff, just more subtle. 

In the 20th century we had to be saved from the far-right, but in the 21st century we will have to be saved from the far-left. History (and other subjects like psychology etc.) will judge the early 21st century in a very dim light... assuming that will all still be allowed and that AI hasn't enslaved or destroyed us all.

 

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

No, I along with hundreds of people comments I've seen on FB cannot see a rifle but what looks like a shirt or backpack. I know that rifle cannot be broken down. The roof wasn't 4-5 feet off the ground but at least 10, and if he jumped down with a rifle he would have dropped it. Not impossible but highly unlikely. The narrator, again, said nothing about him having a rifle on him but that one was found in the woods. Again, when we know we'll know. Until then, all theories.

Why do you say the rifle can't be broken down?

 

If the rifle has a sling, he can sling it and put the backpack over it.

6 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

No, I along with hundreds of people comments I've seen on FB cannot see a rifle but what looks like a shirt or backpack. I know that rifle cannot be broken down. The roof wasn't 4-5 feet off the ground but at least 10, and if he jumped down with a rifle he would have dropped it. Not impossible but highly unlikely. The narrator, again, said nothing about him having a rifle on him but that one was found in the woods. Again, when we know we'll know. Until then, all theories.

There's also a video circulating from someone's phone during the killing from a position to the left side of the tent where Kirk was sitting. In the video it  appears there is a shooter in a white t shirt behind and to the right of Kirk ( not the fella with the white ball cap on ). You can only see his shoulders to his waistline, maybe the video has been altered who knows.....strange stuff......