This was reported for politics. It’s certainly related to a political figure’s murder. It’s also current events.
The post doesn’t seem like it’s playing into the politics of the situation, it’s not aggressively rage baiting so I’ll leave it up for now.
When an person or administration lies about everything possible, it makes it difficult to believe anything that they say.
They couldn’t find the guy. They need to frame someone, so they don’t look incompetent. They grabbed a random person.
Police in the south have been doing this for hundreds of years. The constant stories of people getting out of jail for wrongful convictions like this are awful, but true.
They don’t want to even find the real killer, just to put a stop to the idea that nazis can be easily killed.
Nazis can be easily killed, just like anyone else.
Like George Hickey?
He was one of the only MAGA that wasn’t letting Epstein go, and he was all about everyone having guns
trump desperately wants people to stop talking about Epstein. And has always hated regular people being able to have guns.
I don’t think a cop accidentally shot him, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump had him shot.
Especially since Vance just threw the body on AF2 and flew it out of state within 24 hours
That’s not how you handle an investigation…
Got a source on how they hid the body? It’s very not cool if that’s what was done. I know the Nazis are trying to turn him into a martyr, and having the body both to hide from the investigation and to make it mysterious so they can tell any lies they like is classic.
Especially since Vance just threw the body on AF2 and flew it out of state
Anyone else ever notice how MAGAts seem to never marry American women? Trump, vance, etc all have foreign born wives.
Awesome follow through. Thank you.
Doesn’t even matter, to the Right it’ll be “the Left” regardless of who actually did it. They now have a second person to martyrise, so you can bet they’ll milk it for all it’s got.
They’re definitely looking for a more convenient culprit. They know who did it and they don’t like it.
Im thinking time traveler preventing the worst timeline.
Or a j6 crack pot.
While I’ve been playing with variously wild theories myself, as well, I don’t see why a sniper would keep their crosshair right on the person they are trying to protect. However, I’m also not overly educated in snipology to be 100% sure about it.
A hit in the neck is definitely a miss from an intended target anyway. Can’t say how much or to what direction. It could have been that there’s been a target where the bullet would fly 30 cm behind the person to be guarded, but the bullet is taking a trajectory 10 cm off the intended and the person happens to their head 20 cm backwards just at the crucial moment.
But, I do believe that someone wanted that guy dead. I can imagine someone figuring that “he’s actively advocating killing politicians you don’t like, and I don’t like him. Therefore I am following his own instructions and this is acceptable.”
I personally think it’s a bad idea to kill a person like that, because it probably causes other people to get shot as well. It’s not a culture I want to see spread. But at least I do not see it morally as a very big problem that a person explicitly says that something is acceptable and then that thing is done to him. He wanted a certain kind of society and he got the kind of society he wanted. If there is life after death, he can spend that time being content of having changed the society.
What I’m saying is that there was a very much raised likelihood that someone kills him intentionally.
But at least I do not see it morally as a very big problem that a person explicitly says that something is acceptable and then that thing is done to him
This is why one of my wild theories is that the timing of the shot isn’t coincidental, and since there’s so little time between his answer and the shot, there’s a (negligible, too low, ridiculously small) chance that the shooter was waiting for this particular question (and the answer that follows), suggesting some connection between the person asking and the killer. I am aware of how tinfoil hat it sounds, and I don’t think that’s actually the case, but it makes some sense.
There’s no way there is a connection between the person asking the question and the shooter. It was a debate with Charlie Kirk. Of course gun violence is going to come up. Especially since it started by asking about gun violence involving trans people.
I’m not saying that it’s correct, but it’s not unrealistic.
Maybe he was just really interested in the talk!
“I can watch the whole speech from up here! No crowds, this is great! Whoops.”
