I Don't Understand Why Democrats Keep Calling For Free Speech

They claim that it's free speech for them to celebrate the assassination of Charlie Kirk and unfortunately it is, but where was his free speech to disagree with their views? Why must they murder people who don't agree with them? Oh wait, I get it,... It's the only way they think that they're going to win by silencing the threat. The only thing is that Tyler Robinson didn't silence Charlie Kirk at all. His plan backfired because now his voice is louder than ever. Nobody ever did manage to prove him wrong. That's why he was assassinated.
Who is they?

Are you saying there was more than one person involved in the Charlie Kirk killing?

This is pretty serious... I think you should get your evidence and bring to the FBI...
 
No, he wasn't. He used an affirmative defense, which means his use of deadly force was AUTHORIZED.

That's why you haven't heard of any wrongful death lawsuit. His killing of the two scumbags was ruled LAWFUL.
Didn't you tell me that you've testified in court as an expert witness before? I'm asking because what you posted above is incorrect.

There was NO ruling that Rittenhouse's actions were LAWFUL, that's not how criminal courts work.

Being acquitted in a criminal trial does NOT mean that the person didn't do what they were accused of, it simply means that the government could make their case against the defendant "beyond all reasonable doubt" which is roughly 98%. That does not preclude pursuit of a civil suit where the threshold to prevail is much less, 51% a preponderance of the evidence. That's is how the Brown family got a money judgement against O.J. Simpson after he was acquitted of killing their daughter. Maybe the families of the parties who were shot don't have the financial means to pursue a civil case.

The celebration of Kyle Rittenhouse shooting & killing two Black Lives Matter protestors & injuring a third is the claim being rebutted, not the way his case played out with all of its irregularities including how he was given a pass for being in possession of a gun as a 17 year old after having traveled across state lines to insert himself into a volatile racial justice demonstration allegedly to protect property that he did not own. Self defense doesn't usually apply when you are the one who initiated or escalated the confrontation, especially with a deadly weapon.
 
Last edited:
You’re delusional. Half of that didn’t happen and the other half isn’t corrupt.
You too stupid or lazy to use google? They are all true:
Trump firing prosecutors because they aren’t charging Trump’s political enemies is the kind of politicization we’re never seen before.
Yes we've seen it before. Letitia James ran on "getting Trump" with a $500,000,000 fine for a number on a loan form.
Biden's DOJ worked with Alvin Bragg to charge Trump with "Lawfare" to hang 94 felonies on him.
Legal experts say those bullshit charges will be overturned on appeal.
 
You too stupid or lazy to use google? They are all true:

Yes we've seen it before. Letitia James ran on "getting Trump" with a $500,000,000 fine for a number on a loan form.
Biden's DOJ worked with Alvin Bragg to charge Trump with "Lawfare" to hang 94 felonies on him.
Legal experts say those bullshit charges will be overturned on appeal.

Flynn wasn’t set up. He just lied.

From your biased article:
“And so we placed a call to Flynn and said ‘Hey, we’re sending a couple guys over, hope you’ll talk to them.’ He said ‘sure.’ Nobody else was there, they interviewed him in a conference room at the White House situation room and he lied to them.”
 
There is no hate speech with Charlie Kirk -- only speech some if you HATE. And for this, YOU killed him

Then these are the same exact people who want to kill us. Didn't you post a video of a woman saying that anybody with a MAGA hat on should receive a bullet in their brain? Or was that somebody else?
 
Claiming Rittenhouse was the beneficiary of a technicality.

That's a blatant lie.
That's not a lie although I will concede I'm doing most of this based on memory. I even contacted the AG in the state of Wisconsin to get additional information on the defense they used to get the gun charge(s) dropped and whether or not it was correctly applied (barrel length argument).
 
15th post
Who is they?

Are you saying there was more than one person involved in the Charlie Kirk killing?

This is pretty serious... I think you should get your evidence and bring to the FBI...
It's the big , bad " they " , the boogey man. Very common among primitive and backward thinking people..
 
Then these are the same exact people who want to kill us. Didn't you post a video of a woman saying that anybody with a MAGA hat on should receive a bullet in their brain? Or was that somebody else?
You know if you keep going around insisting that people on a message board want to kill you it might cause harm further in your life especially if that is not happening.

Do you want the things you post used against you? Is that why you keep changing your username to try to prevent that from happening or are you all getting up to real mischief?
 
Didn't you tell me that you've testified in court as an expert witness before? I'm asking because what you posted above is incorrect.

There was NO ruling that Rittenhouse's actions were LAWFUL, that's not how criminal courts work.

Being acquitted in a criminal trial does NOT mean that the person didn't do what they were accused of, it simply means that the government could make their case against the defendant "beyond all reasonable doubt" which is roughly 98%. That does not preclude pursuit of a civil suit where the threshold to prevail is much less, 51% a preponderance of the evidence. That's is how the Brown family got a money judgement against O.J. Simpson after he was acquitted of killing their daughter. Maybe the families of the parties who were shot don't have the financial means to pursue a civil case.

The celebration of Kyle Rittenhouse shooting & killing two Black Lives Matter protestors & injuring a third is the claim being rebutted, not the way his case played out with all of its irregularities including how he was given a pass for being in possession of a gun as a 17 year old after having traveled across state lines to insert himself into a volatile racial justice demonstration allegedly to protect property that he did not own. Self defense doesn't usually apply when you are the one who initiated or escalated the confrontation, especially with a deadly weapon.
No. It is the LAW which allows a person accused of a homicide to interpose the affirmative defense of Justification

And the jury spoke. Therefore, his actions were found to be lawful.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom