The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 70K
  • Politics 
Calheel said:
The defense already has an argument that the defendant was framed for political reasons. If the prosecution intentionally lies in a charging document, it could bias the jury pool (even if the document never makes it into evidence) and it could also lead to consequences from the trial judge that impact the case.

Keep in mind that St George, Utah is a very small place and every potential juror is likely following this case with great attention.
Click to expand...
Why would the trial be in St. George?

Charlie Kirk was murdered in Orem, 265 miles north of St. George.
 
Calheel said:
The “if it’s as described” is doing a lot of work there.

Again, if someone thinks the prosecutors would intentionally fabricate a text conversation in the charging document, I don’t know how you could have confidence in ANY alleged evidence. I mean even the video and still shots could have been altered.
Click to expand...
1. There is a difference between framing a suspect and framing a narrative. The videos and still shots could have been altered but why would they be? Did someone have a vendetta against Tyler Robinson? Or did they put out the video hoping that someone would recognize him?

2. Once they found Tyler Robinson, and started spitting out nonsense about notes and messages etc, they wanted to protect their narrative that he was a left-wing trans person. It's a very different set of motivations.

3. It's much easier to fake a text message than a video or still shot, especially since the videos and still shots were put out to the public and there are internet sleuths who can analyze those things.

Meanwhile we haven't seen the text messages and it's possible we never will. So there's much less risk of detection.
 
ZenMode said:
Pro LGBTQ and anti the traditional religious/ conservative, and especially Kirk's, views on LGBTQ to the point that he murdered one of the spokespersons for anti-LBGTQ conservatives.
Click to expand...
I agree. That is one belief.
My point is this one belief on its own doesn’t make one a “leftist” or even political at all.
What if we find out that he is a staunch 2nd amendment supporter? Is he back to being conservative, middle of the road, etc?
My only point is we need more data points if we want to paint this guy with any sort of political stripe.
I know a guy (extremely active in politics) whose first choice for 2016 election was Bernie Sanders, but who voted for Trump in the general election. Saying a person is liberal or conservative based upon one singular issue is folly.
 
ChileG said:
I agree. That is one belief.
My point is this one belief on its own doesn’t make one a “leftist” or even political at all.
What if we find out that he is a staunch 2nd amendment supporter? Is he back to being conservative, middle of the road, etc?
My only point is we need more data points if we want to paint this guy with any sort of political stripe.
I know a guy (extremely active in politics) whose first choice for 2016 election was Bernie Sanders, but who voted for Trump in the general election. Saying a person is liberal or conservative based upon one singular issue is folly.
Click to expand...
True, political beliefs can shake out in various ways. Dick Cheney is a pro-gay rights guy who dislikes Trump. That sentence may not cover the man’s complete political profile.
 
Calheel said:
The defense already has an argument that the defendant was framed for political reasons. If the prosecution intentionally lies in a charging document, it could bias the jury pool (even if the document never makes it into evidence) and it could also lead to consequences from the trial judge that impact the case.

Keep in mind that St George, Utah is a very small place and every potential juror is likely following this case with great attention.
Click to expand...
(Speaking generally here and not about this specific case.) Keep in mind that in the early stages of a case, the prosecution often takes the information law enforcement provides at face value, even if it turns out not to be accurate. It’s not that the prosecution lying; it’s the prosecution using the information that law enforcement provided them, believing it to be true. I have had numerous cases where assertions made by law enforcement, and echoed by prosecutors in court proceedings or pleadings, turn out to be false. Those assertions weren’t always intentionally falsified; sometimes law enforcement had a good faith belief the information was correct even though it was not.

Also, oftentimes during the early stages of the case (and sometimes during later stages), prosecutors are fairly clueless about the case. Sometimes when I seek a dismissal or reduced charges and I discuss the case with the prosecutor, I’m surprised at how little they know about the facts of the case and how much I have to educate them on what’s in discovery. I just got off the phone this morning with a prosecutor who apparently didn’t know anything about the case we were discussing and wanted my client to plead to a more serious charge that he’s not even charged with. He didn’t even realize my client’s not even charged with that offense.

In addition, many times prosecutors are reluctant to push back at law enforcement when they have doubts about something. I recently had a case where, after my investigation, it was pretty clear my guy was wrongfully accused. I met with the prosecutor and laid out all the facts that proved my client’s innocence. Upon my presentation, the prosecutor realized he didn’t have much of a case. (A few weeks prior to that meeting, he emailed me and told me my client really should take the plea he offered because he felt the evidence against him was strong (it wasn’t)). After that meeting, my client and I waited and waited for the prosecutor to dismiss the case. He finally dismissed it the day before he left the DA’s office for another job. I ran into him in court a couple months later and he apologized for taking so long to dismiss it, and told me he sat on it for so long because it’s easier not to upset law enforcement as more time passes.
 
superrific said:
1. There is a difference between framing a suspect and framing a narrative. The videos and still shots could have been altered but why would they be? Did someone have a vendetta against Tyler Robinson? Or did they put out the video hoping that someone would recognize him?

2. Once they found Tyler Robinson, and started spitting out nonsense about notes and messages etc, they wanted to protect their narrative that he was a left-wing trans person. It's a very different set of motivations.

3. It's much easier to fake a text message than a video or still shot, especially since the videos and still shots were put out to the public and there are internet sleuths who can analyze those things.

Meanwhile we haven't seen the text messages and it's possible we never will. So there's much less risk of detection.
Click to expand...
I mean, sure, you could be right. But I think your theory requires a lot of unlikely things to be true. I’ll go with Occam’s razor until I have a solid basis to believe otherwise.
 
Icky Mettle said:
(Speaking generally here and not about this specific case.) Keep in mind that in the early stages of a case, the prosecution often takes the information law enforcement provides at face value, even if it turns out not be accurate. It’s not that the prosecution lying; it’s the prosecution using the information that law enforcement provided them, believing it to be true. I have had numerous cases where assertions made by law enforcement, and echoed by prosecutors in court proceedings or pleadings, turn out to be false. Those assertions weren’t always intentionally falsified; sometimes law enforcement had a good faith belief the information was correct even though it was not.

Also, oftentimes during the early stages of the case (and sometimes during later stages), prosecutors are fairly clueless about the case. Sometimes when I seek a dismissal or reduced charges and I discuss the case with the prosecutor, I’m surprised at how little they know about the facts of the case and how much I have to educate them on what’s in discovery. I just got off the phone this morning with a prosecutor who apparently didn’t know anything about the case we were discussing and wanted my client to plead to a more serious charge that he’s not even charged with. He didn’t even realize my client’s not even charged with that offense.

In addition, many times prosecutors are reluctant to push back at law enforcement when they have doubts about something. I recently had a case where, after my investigation, it was pretty clear my guy was wrongfully accused. I met with the prosecutor and laid out all the facts that proved my client’s innocence. Upon my presentation, the prosecutor realized he didn’t have much of a case. (A few weeks prior to that meeting, he emailed me and told me my client really should take the plea he offered because he felt the evidence against him was strong (it wasn’t)). After that meeting, my client and I waited and waited for the prosecutor to dismiss the case. He finally dismissed it the day before he left the DA’s office for another job. I ran into him in court a couple months later and he apologized for taking so long to dismiss it, and told me he sat on it for so long because it’s easier not to upset law enforcement as more time passes.
Click to expand...
I agree that prosecutors, even in extremely high profile cases, will defer to the police at the early stages.

But I think that it would be a huge stretch for police to forge a detailed text exchange between the critical witness and the defendant and give it to the prosecutors without the prosecutors wanting to see the actual text exchange. That is hard to believe.
 
Icky Mettle said:
(Speaking generally here and not about this specific case.) Keep in mind that in the early stages of a case, the prosecution often takes the information law enforcement provides at face value, even if it turns out not be accurate. It’s not that the prosecution lying; it’s the prosecution using the information that law enforcement provided them, believing it to be true. I have had numerous cases where assertions made by law enforcement, and echoed by prosecutors in court proceedings or pleadings, turn out to be false. Those assertions weren’t always intentionally falsified; sometimes law enforcement had a good faith belief the information was correct even though it was not.

Also, oftentimes during the early stages of the case (and sometimes during later stages), prosecutors are fairly clueless about the case. Sometimes when I seek a dismissal or reduced charges and I discuss the case with the prosecutor, I’m surprised at how little they know about the facts of the case and how much I have to educate them on what’s in discovery. I just got off the phone this morning with a prosecutor who apparently didn’t know anything about the case we were discussing and wanted my client to plead to a more serious charge that he’s not even charged with. He didn’t even realize my client’s not even charged with that offense.

In addition, many times prosecutors are reluctant to push back at law enforcement when they have doubts about something. I recently had a case where, after my investigation, it was pretty clear my guy was wrongfully accused. I met with the prosecutor and laid out all the facts that proved my client’s innocence. Upon my presentation, the prosecutor realized he didn’t have much of a case. (A few weeks prior to that meeting, he emailed me and told me my client really should take the plea he offered because he felt the evidence against him was strong (it wasn’t)). After that meeting, my client and I waited and waited for the prosecutor to dismiss the case. He finally dismissed it the day before he left the DA’s office for another job. I ran into him in court a couple months later and he apologized for taking so long to dismiss it, and told me he sat on it for so long because it’s easier not to upset law enforcement as more time passes.
Click to expand...
Those are great points. And when the "police" is the FBI with the director on the scene, the prospect of pushback is even dicier.

That said, if the texts look suspicious to pretty much everyone, presumably they looked suspicious to the prosecutors.

But the text messages aren't the only problem. Someone pointed out earlier that they claimed Robinson put a photograph of a note under the keyboard. That makes no sense. And Kash was rambling about the note that didn't exist, but they knew it did, but they had forensic evidence that it had been deleted, but the deletion came before the note or whatever bullshit was coming out of his mouth.

Also lacking credibility: he was engraving bullets; the roommate was apparently aware of that; but the roommate thought nothing of it and was shocked that he would have shot the guy. Who engraves bullets for the hell of it?
 
Calheel said:
I agree that prosecutors, even in extremely high profile cases, will defer to the police at the early stages.

But I think that it would be a huge stretch for police to forge a detailed text exchange between the critical witness and the defendant and give it to the prosecutors without the prosecutors wanting to see the actual text exchange. That is hard to believe.
Click to expand...
What if, instead of police, it's the FBI? With the director on scene? And also the governor is weighing in. And Trump is taking interest in the case.
 
Calheel said:
I mean, sure, you could be right. But I think your theory requires a lot of unlikely things to be true. I’ll go with Occam’s razor until I have a solid basis to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
How many unlikely things? That they would fake text messages? That's one unlikely thing.

Would you take a 100:1 bet? A 10:1 bet?
 
ChileG said:
I agree. That is one belief.
My point is this one belief on its own doesn’t make one a “leftist” or even political at all.
What if we find out that he is a staunch 2nd amendment supporter? Is he back to being conservative, middle of the road, etc?
My only point is we need more data points if we want to paint this guy with any sort of political stripe.
I know a guy (extremely active in politics) whose first choice for 2016 election was Bernie Sanders, but who voted for Trump in the general election. Saying a person is liberal or conservative based upon one singular issue is folly.
Click to expand...
I agree that politics can create strange bed fellows and alignments. RFKj's anti-vax views would traditionally align him with the left, until the conspiratorial right came along.

Robinson definitely doesn't strike me as a leftist, by any means. He doesn't evn appear to be "political", which isn't uncommon for someone in their early 20's. Dems have "get out the vote" for youth because they a) generally aren't active and b) generally align with Democratic views. On that point, people generally become political because of their views on specific topics or having strong views on a few topics, they don't join a party and then create their views.

Robinsons religious family ties don't appear to be that important, IMO. I was dragged to church/sunday school for my entire pre-adult life, stopped attending at first chance I had (age 18), eventually came to grips with my atheism and never looked back.
 
ZenMode said:
Which part do you disagree with:
  • He's in a homosexual relationship
  • The male he's in a relationship with is a trans woman
Click to expand...
You don't understand sexuality at all, so just fuck off. Sexual attraction to trans women is not homosexual. It's called androgynophilia and it is prevalent among straight men and gay men alike.

"Chicks with dicks" is a thing. There are peep shows about it, plenty of porn about it, and probably dating services about it. Trans women with male sexual organs were the subject of the excellent Almodovar film All About My Mother. You should watch it.
 
Calheel said:
I agree that prosecutors, even in extremely high profile cases, will defer to the police at the early stages.

But I think that it would be a huge stretch for police to forge a detailed text exchange between the critical witness and the defendant and give it to the prosecutors without the prosecutors wanting to see the actual text exchange. That is hard to believe.
Click to expand...
I think police forging a text chain is generally a huge stretch in the first place. But whatever text chain they present, I think most of the time the prosecutor is not spending much, if any, time “fact checking.” I think they are going with what the police provide without digging much deeper. I mean, they probably ask to see screenshots of the text exchange but they’re not questioning it much beyond that.
 
ZenMode said:
There's more evidence for my claim than against my claim.

To whatever degree they are intimate, I assure you he knows he's intimate with a male.
Click to expand...
He's intimate with somebody who you think is male. That is not the same thing as being a male, given that you reject all medical science on the topic.

I'm not going to participate in more derailment by you and your obsession with trans people. Just know that you are wrong; everyone here knows you are wrong; and you're an arrogant piece of shit for assuming you know more than all doctors.
 
superrific said:
He's intimate with somebody who you think is male.
Click to expand...
Based on my understanding of biology, yes. Lance, it has been reported, is transitioning from male to female, which means Lance has a twig & berries.
superrific said:
That is not the same thing as being a male, given that you reject all medical science on the topic.
Click to expand...
Actually, having male genes and male parts is precisely what it means to be male.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top