What now on Charlie Kirk?

[red750]

I have started this topic becauseit it has been taking over the Trump topiv.

 

BREAKING: MAGA world flies into panic mode as the grandmother of Charlie Kirk's suspected assassin Tyler Robinson reveals that his entire family is hardcore MAGA.
The Republican narrative has collapsed in record time...

“My son, his dad, is a Republican for Trump. Most of my family members are Republican. I don’t know any single one who’s a Democrat," the suspect's grandmother Debbie Robinson told The Daily Mail.

“I’m just so confused. [Tyler] is the shyest person. He has never, ever spoke politics to me at all," she added.

The Daily Beast reported that both of Robinson's parents are registered Republicans who hold hunting licenses. They appear to be run-of-the-mill conservative gun nuts.

In the immediate aftermath of Kirk's assassination, Republicans rushed to blame Democrats. Donald Trump pointed a finger at the "radical left" and MAGA influencers, including Donald Trump Jr., gleefully embraced the false narrative that the shooter was transgender.

We now know that the alleged shooter was a 22-year-old white Mormon man from Utah. It seems increasingly likely that he was a far-right supporter of the white nationalist Nick Fuentes. The engravings on the bullets found appear to be references to memes popular within Fuentes's "groyper" movement.  Groypers despised Charlie Kirk because he wasn't right-wing enough for their taste and they believe that he sold out the "America First" movement.

One bullet was engraved with the phrase “Hey fascist! Catch!" but it does not appear to be a left-wing "antifa" message as Republicans originally claimed. Instead, it seems to be a reference to a satirical slogan in the popular video game Helldivers 2. Video games are a crucial cornerstone of the bizarre groyper worldview, along with misogyny and racism.
In the coming days we will no doubt learn more about this twisted shooter and his hateful beliefs but we cannot allow Republicans to slink away without taking responsibility for their lies. Yesterday, they were promising now civil war. Now that it appears the shooter was one of their own, they want to move on.

We must hold them accountable. The shooter is not transgender, is not a Democrat, and is not an immigrant. He's an unstable homegrown white man with access to firearms. America's gun violence problem is a Republican problem.

 

 

 

[red750]

Apparently it was his father, a 30 year veteran Utah cop who turned him in.

[red750]

[red750]

Copied from Facebook:

 

BREAKING: Donald Trump's niece Mary Trump enrages MAGA world by sharing the cold hard truth that her uncle is responsible for the "political violence" that he is desperately trying to blame on Democrats.

We won't allow these fascists to gaslight us...

"Political violence and the rhetoric that drives it are almost entirely on the side of the Republican Party, and no person is more responsible for it than Donald Trump,” Mary wrote on her Substack. 

"Facing that truth does not mean rejoicing in what happened to Charlie Kirk. Quite the opposite: It means coming to terms with what is driving the political violence in America today," she wrote.

President Trump exploited the assassination of right-wing demagogue Charlie Kirk earlier this week by  calling him a "martyr" and blaming the "radical left" even though the identity of the shooter wasn't known at the time. Even now, it's the killer's motive and political beliefs are unknown. Trump doesn't care. He saw an opportunity to sow division and he seized it.

 

Mary pointed out that Democratic lawmakers rushed to condemn Kirk's shooting while Republicans have sought to turn it to their political advantage by blaming Democrats and journalists. Comparatively, when Paul Pelosi was attacked in his home, conservatives celebrated and mocked the horrifying incident, with Donald Trump himself even joining in. Republicans demand an endless supply of empathy from liberals but provide none themselves.

"Donald has almost single-handedly created the conditions in which his grievance, his vengeance, and his cruelty extend to anybody that supports him," Mary Trump continued. "Anybody who opposes him or stands up to him or simply doesn’t support him is his enemy and is therefore not worthy of protection. Worse, they are considered legitimate targets of abuse or revenge, cruelty or violence."

"He has incited violence against his perceived political enemies as well as against his own government and then pardoned those who committed it on his behalf," she went on. "This is not a 'both sides issue.' This is not a moment when we put aside our differences to come to some agreed upon notion about how to move beyond this. With Donald Trump and those who support, enable, and capitulate to him in power that would be impossible."

"We have arrived here in large part because this country has been purposefully and maliciously divided against itself because of the rhetoric coming from Donald Trump and the Republican Party," she added.
She went on to quote Kirk's own now-viral words. The MAGA demagogue said that the price of an "armed citizenry" is a certain number of guns deaths.

"But I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights," said Kirk. "That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.”

Mary Trump empathetically but forcefully addressed his words—
"Well, unfortunately, the universe we live in is a universe created by people who actually think that guns in our society are more important than the lives of the people living in it," she wrote. "Unfortunately, we live in a universe in which violence, political or otherwise, has been normalized by one party and one party only. The Democrats should condemn what happened today. Any decent right-thinking person should condemn what happened today."

"But we are missing the point, we are, indeed, missing an opportunity if we do not take the tragedy that unfolded today as permission to start a broader conversation about how we got here, who's responsible, and quite frankly what the hell we are going to do about it," she concluded.

[red750]

[pmccarthy]

If he had shot school children they would have forgotten by now.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

The right and left should be banned from politics and just let unbiased folk take over.

Edited Sunday at 04:11 AM by Grumpy Old Nasho

[onetrack]

That lying scumbag Musk has directly blamed the Left for Kirks death - even though he was shot by a Trump supporter who came from a fundamentalist MAGA family. Musk has created riots in London with his blatantly false claims.

 

Musk and Trump are directly responsible for the upsurge in political murders and attempted assassinations in the U.S., as both have continually urged political revolt and violence, and targeted anyone who doesn't support MAGA as evil.

 

https://www.watoday.com.au/world/europe/celebrating-murder-far-right-protest-turns-violent-as-musk-blames-the-left-for-charlie-kirk-s-death-20250914-p5muti.html

[facthunter]

Musk is Promoting Nigel Farage. Britain is doomed. Nev

[Marty_d]

4 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

The right and left should be banned from politics and just let unbiased folk take over.

Who are they?

[old man emu]

21 hours ago, red750 said:

Yesterday, they were promising now civil war.

I'm getting sick and tired of the pre-match buildup. When is the main event going to start?

[red750]

In anothern  l-o-n-g post on FB with much of it repeated 2 or 3 times, the story is that the suspect, Tyler Robinson, was living with his close friend, who took his phone to the police to show text between them. It is believed the friend was transgender and there may have been a romantic relationship between them. Kirk was an outspoken denouncer of the LGBQTI movement, and it may be that Robinson may have been motivated by this outspoken condemnation of his personal arrangements, rather than a political motive.

[red750]

https://btuatu.com/trangdangrb/shocking-reveal-tucker-carlson-secretly-drops-a-jaw-dropping-1000000-into-charlie-kirks-family-fund/

[onetrack]

I thought this biting cartoon was pretty good.........

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:44 PM by onetrack

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

You can shoot home invaders in the US if they threaten your life. If the invaders end up dead, it's their fault, and it doesn't matter if a gun, a baseball bat, or a loud boo killed them, the home owner is exercising their right of self protection.

 

 

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

The Aust Government shoved a gun in my hands in the 60s. They told me if I didn't do what I was told, they'd put me in jail for two years. Out of fear and under duress, I decided to take the gun, much to my regret.

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

You can shoot home invaders in the US if they threaten your life. If the invaders end up dead, it's their fault, and it doesn't matter if a gun, a baseball bat, or a loud boo killed them, the home owner is exercising their right of self protection.

 

 

It depends on what state you're in, to be honest. Generally speaking, in the midwest, yes; in the north east and south west, not so much and the laws of self defence are more like those of England and other more moderate commonwealth founded countries. As an example, although they are scrotes, does someone entering your front yard to nick your fountain while you are upstairs and that person is posing no threat to you  deserve to be shot and possibly killed? You may think so, and that is fair enough - we have our values and there is nothing to say my values are superior to yours.. 

 

But what if that person had an hionest and reasonable belief that the fountain was nicked from their front yard and all they thought they were doing was, rightly or wrongly, claiming back what was theirs? Yeah, what they were doing was still wrong, but what if it was theirs and you had nicked it?

 

If you are under direct threat, the laws in at least NSW and England (and I presume every state in Australia) determine if the level of self defence was excessive based on what you, not the average person, perceived the threat to be. Once the threat was (or ought to have been) perceived by you as passed, you have very little defence. And the action you take to defend yourself that is allowed is very liberal - it has to be manifestly disproportionate to the threat, and even then it remains a partial defence. 

 

This, to me is manifestly reasonable and the US system that allows  you to kill anyone entering your land that you perceive may be doing something bad leaves a gaping hole in the law that allows you to kill, say a letter dropper who is chasing a couple of leaflets that escaped thanks to the wind onto your front lawn

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

At some Time you are going to Have to GET OVER THIS GON, Or you will be no good to anyone, Including yourself. There's plenty out there who will have had a harder Row to Hoe than you have. It's UP to YOU. Nev

[red750]

There are petitions in a number of states for the introduction of the Castle Principle, or Castle Law, into Australia. 

 

Here is a definition of the Castle Principle:  https://constitutionwatch.com.au/does-australia-have-a-castle-doctrine/

 

If a gang with machetes or guns breaks into your home (castle) prepared to cause you grievous harm or death in order to rob you, then you should be free to defend yourself without legal recrimination. As Jerry said, you can't kill someone for pinching a pot plant off your porch. (Paraphrasing)

 

 

 

 

[Marty_d]

If a gang with machetes or guns invades your property now, and you are in fear of your life or your family's lives, and in your proportionate response to the threat you kill one (or all) of the invaders, I'm pretty sure you are already protected under the law, from criminal prosecution anyway.

 

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

On 13/09/2025 at 9:45 PM, red750 said:

BREAKING: MAGA world flies into panic mode as the grandmother of Charlie Kirk's suspected assassin Tyler Robinson reveals that his entire family is hardcore MAGA.
The Republican narrative has collapsed in record time...

 

 

The entire family except Tyler, more likely. "Most of my family members are Republican", his grandmother said.

Most, perhaps not all.

 

In case you are not aware, the lefties new tactic is to paint a leftwing assassin as a rightwing Republican. It's easy enough to do, just post that he came from a "Republican" family. Only the naive fall for it.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

At some Time you are going to Have to GET OVER THIS GON, Or you will be no good to anyone, Including yourself. There's plenty out there who will have had a harder Row to Hoe than you have. It's UP to YOU. Nev

Just leave it to me, there's a little more work to do yet.

[facthunter]

The Graves are full of Indispensable People. Good Luck. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

4 hours ago, Marty_d said:

If a gang with machetes or guns invades your property now, and you are in fear of your life or your family's lives, and in your proportionate response to the threat you kill one (or all) of the invaders, I'm pretty sure you are already protected under the law, from criminal prosecution anyway.

 

Technically, you may be prosecuted but will invoke the criminal defence of self defence. The degree of proportionality is very liberal and based on the danger you perceive. Remember, it is a jury of 12 ordinary people, not a judge, that decides if you went too far. 

 

IMHO to label it the "castle doctrine" is a typical US attempt to glorify or sensationalise or dramatise  something to rabble rouse. 

 

From the article: "Australia does not effectively have a Castle Doctrine but its principles are enshrined in Commonwealth, State and Territory laws."

 

That enshrinement came from Australia codifying the common law of criminal law. In common law, it is the doctrine of self defence.

 

So basically that article is just saying it is not a constitutional right, but what it doesn't say is that the constitution is about the powers of the state, not about substantive components of the law. There is no bill of rights in our constitution.. does that mean the courts don't recognise our human rights?

[pmccarthy]

The problem is that you will probably have to defend yourself in court. The time and cost for a successful legal defence will transform your life, when all you did was physically defend yourself.