Charlie Kirk shot at an event in Utah

[KKLoco]

The camera "gun" didn't recoil at all.  It was perfectly still around the time of the shot.

What makes you thing it was a gun?

Neck shot. No bones. Tyler was a patsy that got played into shooting off his grampies rifle. This kid got seriously played.

The conclusion is another massive psyop - we have been played again.

[Solvedit]

What makes you thing it was a gun?

Neck shot. No bones. Tyler was a patsy that got played into shooting off his grampies rifle. This kid got seriously played.

The conclusion is another massive psyop - we have been played again.

You didn't watch the video in the post I was responding to.

[Kwaka]

It is being reported that 6 neck bones from C2-T1 where broken with one bullet fragment in T1. It was a soft bullet that fragmented on impact. 




For more information on the anatomy and ballistics of what is public:




There is a lot of public interest in this topic. Sounds like the courts want to be open and transparent with how it goes. The defense needs a month to even work out what sort of case they have. Could take a year or two?

Sounds like a lot of people connected to the suspect has gone quite as a lot of attention and questions going on. There is a strong case for a second shooter that day. As for what kind of entangled mess that makes?

[Shayla Bruins]

If this whole thing was a set up and Robinson is a patsy (which does seem plausible), the flaw for me is that the guys' family handed him in. Why would they do that?

[Kwaka]

If this whole thing was a set up and Robinson is a patsy (which does seem plausible), the flaw for me is that the guys' family handed him in. Why would they do that?

Robinson was setup to take the fall, someone has too in these situations. With how the case is looking so far, he will not be convicted of murder in a fair trial with the magic bullet nonsense going on. Being a high profile case like OJ Simpson, perhaps other trial influences might emerge? He will be convicted of other charges in relation to this case to put himself in such a position. Spends a few years in jail with no death sentence.

Maybe he was told if he keeps his mouth shut and it all goes to plan he will get looked after once it is all over? Maybe he will have an accident before it gets that far to close the case? Maybe some next level MK Ultra going on? A strange smell about his university education. Maybe he fell into an Epstein trap with some of his life choices?

As for why the family turned him in, the police knew by then. They could do it the easy way or the hard way. By turning him in it stopped a tense situation where more could of died.

[Bush Master]

Just that anyone who saw the public forum exchange between Kirk and Robinson verbally "sparring" would understand his strongly implanted motive, especially after being embarrassed in front of the entire group. 

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Just that anyone who saw the public forum exchange between Kirk and Robinson verbally "sparring" would understand his strongly implanted motive, especially after being embarrassed in front of the entire group. 

Doesnt surprise me. He made snowflakes melt. Egos can be fragile. 

I want to retroactively shake these people that he dismantled in debate and give them the key to not being infuriated.

Don't let him lead. Simple. 

You're challenging him.
You need him answering your challenge.
Not the other way around. 

When you ask a question and he immediately asks you to define a woman or whatever, that's the trap that leads to being thrown into a rhetorical pit. 

You need a natural aversion to other people controlling the ball on offense to survive the Turning Point style.

Most can't. Most dont realize the immediate Q/A reversal before he answers IS the trap that dooms their chances.

When he said, "Okay, but first can you tell me what..."

You say, "No, that's a device you use to control debates, please answer my question first if you want to continue."

And then refuse him his answer until he complies with your position. 

You say, "Ill define it for you.... when you answer my question first."

Shame people are so base-model.

[putnam6]

Doesnt surprise me. He made snowflakes melt. Egos can be fragile. 

I want to retroactively shake these people that he dismantled in debate and give them the key to not being infuriated.

Don't let him lead. Simple. 

You're challenging him.
You need him answering your challenge.
Not the other way around. 

When you ask a question and he immediately asks you to define a woman or whatever, that's the trap that leads to being thrown into a rhetorical pit. 

You need a natural aversion to other people controlling the ball on offense to survive the Turning Point style.

Most can't. Most dont realize the immediate Q/A reversal before he answers IS the trap that dooms their chances.

When he said, "Okay, but first can you tell me what..."

You say, "No, that's a device you use to control debates, please answer my question first if you want to continue."

And then refuse him his answer until he complies with your position. 

You say, "Ill define it for you.... when you answer my question first."

Shame people are so base-model.

The shame is Im positive Charlie would have enjoyed debating you, and in a good way. Hell, I'd like to see it too. 

But these are entry-level debate tactics, or so I am told, essentially keep the opponent off point long enough to win the round.

There has to be a debate AI by now...



https://congressai.app/

[UltraBudgie]

Of interest:

https://anonbirdd.substack.com/p/charlie...scord-logs

[UltraBudgie]

Of interest:

https://anonbirdd.substack.com/p/charlie...scord-logs

Some photos of the shooter's trans-roommate's hobbies, provided by a neighbour, from that interview:








Wow. If you guys ever need something to help you feel sane in comparison, there you go.