Tucker Carlson is getting as bad as the Libtards on TV

jwoodie

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2012
19,355
8,113
940
Last night, Tucker Carlson tried to smear two (progressive) district attorneys for their decisions regarding prosecution of two seemingly similar shooting deaths. The first incident involved a retired fireman who intervened in convenience store robbery attempt and then followed the robber into the parking lot. The robber went to his car and retrieved a firearm and was restrained by the fireman in a headlock. At some point, the robber tossed his weapon to his girlfriend, who then shot and killed the fireman. Instead of discussing the DA's legal reasoning for not charging the girlfriend with murder, Carlson simply accused the DA of being soft on crime.

The second incident involved a convenience store clerk who chased a robber into the parking lot and shot him in his car, presuming that the robber was retrieving his own gun. In this instance the DA charged the store clerk with murder. Carlson accused the second DA of being biased against law abiding people and in favor of criminals, again ignoring any legal determinations that may have influenced these decisions. In the first situation it is highly unlikely that, given the exigent circumstances, the girlfriend could be convicted of intentional murder. In the second situation, chasing someone down and killing him is generally considered intentional murder.

Tucker also played up Jill Biden kissing Kamala's husband like it was some shocking expose' (which it was not). These types of slanted and misleading reports are standard fare for the left-wing media, but Tucker Carlson's show used to be a cut above them. If he continues on this path, his ratings will start to follow theirs.
 
Last edited:
Last night, Tucker Carlson tried to smear two (progressive) district attorneys for their decisions regarding prosecution of two seemingly similar shooting deaths. The first incident involved a retired fireman who intervened in convenience store robbery attempt and then followed the robber into the parking lot. The robber went to his car and retrieved a firearm and was restrained by the fireman in a headlock. At some point, the robber tossed his weapon to his girlfriend, who then shot and killed the fireman. Instead of discussing the DA's legal reasoning for not charging the girlfriend with murder, Carlson simply accused the DA of being soft on crime.

The second incident involved a convenience store clerk who chased a robber into the parking lot and shot him in his car, presuming that the robber was retrieving his own gun. In this instance the DA charged the store clerk with murder. Carlson accused the second DA of being biased against law abiding people and in favor of criminals, again ignoring any legal determinations that may have influenced these decisions. In the first situation it is highly unlikely that, given the exigent circumstances, the girlfriend could be convicted of intentional murder. In the second situation, chasing someone down and killing him is generally considered intentional murder.

Tucker also played up Jill Biden kissing Kamala's husband like it was some shocking expose' (which it was not). These types of slanted and misleading reports are standard fare for the left-wing media, but Tucker Carlson's show used to be a cut above them. If he continues on this path, his ratings will start to follow theirs.
Not what happened. You misrepresented both instances.
 
A knowing accessory to a robbery, wherein there is a victim murdered by the main culprit, is easily within the scope of a felony murder charge every bit as much as the main culprit.

A wants to rob a bank. B agrees to be the getaway driver with the engine running. A enters bank with a gun. B knows A has that gun. During the commission of the bank robbery A shoots and kills a security guard.

When they get arrested, B believes he is exposed only as an accomplice in the robbery. But he’s wrong. The Felony Murder rules applies to him, too. He could go down for murder.
 
Tucker is simply an actor.
He performs as he is instructed.
It Doesn't bother him to violate any moral reasoning, because the $$$$ means more to him.

Half a dozen shared intimate shared personal secrets ?

You never mentioned that TC was your close pal !!

Or, just your vivid imagination plus deliberate nonsense ?
 
Half a dozen shared intimate shared personal secrets ?

You never mentioned that TC was your close pal !!

Or, just your vivid imagination plus deliberate nonsense ?
You are just one of the MANY right wing Sheep if you believe:

a). what tuckums actually spews.
b). that tuckums actually believes what he spews.
 
A knowing accessory to a robbery, wherein there is a victim murdered by the main culprit, is easily within the scope of a felony murder charge every bit as much as the main culprit.

A wants to rob a bank. B agrees to be the getaway driver with the engine running. A enters bank with a gun. B knows A has that gun. During the commission of the bank robbery A shoots and kills a security guard.

When they get arrested, B believes he is exposed only as an accomplice in the robbery. But he’s wrong. The Felony Murder rules applies to him, too. He could go down for murder.
And yet you cling to the false narrative that the J6 insurrectionists were NOT armed.
You sheep are so easily conned.
 
A knowing accessory to a robbery, wherein there is a victim murdered by the main culprit, is easily within the scope of a felony murder charge every bit as much as the main culprit.

A wants to rob a bank. B agrees to be the getaway driver with the engine running. A enters bank with a gun. B knows A has that gun. During the commission of the bank robbery A shoots and kills a security guard.

When they get arrested, B believes he is exposed only as an accomplice in the robbery. But he’s wrong. The Felony Murder rules applies to him, too. He could go down for murder.
These are the facts that would have to be proven. BTW, it was B who shot and killed a bystander who had chased A into a parking lot and was assaulting A.
 
These are the facts that would have to be proven. BTW, it was B who shot and killed a bystander who had chased A into a parking lot and was assaulting A.
I was not referring to this case’s narrative.

However, a reasonable and fair prosecutor could still charge A with felony murder assuming A knew that B had the gun.

That particular scenario isn’t as clear cut as the hypothetical I’d offered.
 
Like a pro wrestling character. And, as with pro wrestling, some believe it's real.
For some reason they are showing Fox News on the TV in the waiting room lately. When I go to 3 south to the nurses's I walk through the waiting area. The screen is on but the sound is down so I don't know what is saying. I'm continuously tickled by the massive 3-4 word synopsis Fox puts on the screen to sum up what the talking head's point is. Its about all the RAM the average Fox viewer has.
 
For some reason they are showing Fox News on the TV in the waiting room lately. When I go to 3 south to the nurses's I walk through the waiting area. The screen is on but the sound is down so I don't know what is saying. I'm continuously tickled by the massive 3-4 word synopsis Fox puts on the screen to sum up what the talking head's point is. Its about all the RAM the average Fox viewer has.
They know their audience. Simple, single-celled concepts, short sentences, consistency, repetition.
 
For some reason they are showing Fox News on the TV in the waiting room lately. When I go to 3 south to the nurses's I walk through the waiting area. The screen is on but the sound is down so I don't know what is saying. I'm continuously tickled by the massive 3-4 word synopsis Fox puts on the screen to sum up what the talking head's point is. Its about all the RAM the average Fox viewer has.
Yet you listened to the liberal main stream news that lied to you all the time Trump was in office and you believed all the lies. Most likely you still do.

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks.


 

Forum List

Back
Top