Charlie Kirk assassinated in Utah

[Behold]

Yes, the only option to spare his life is to claim some from of insanity- in this case they will go for temporary insanity/passion. Having a legal background I can't tell you how often that is used as defense when there is no other viable alternative. At this point, it is only an attempt to spare his life. The problem is that there is clear premeditation. A crime of passion is a sudden extreme emotion causing violence. This is not that.

If they prove he had an extreme (Charlie Kirk) persecustion complex.....all related to his warped idea of Trans love.......then they can try to establish that he was not in his right mind over a period of time... that led to the eventual premeditation.

I noted that Utah has charged Him with ""aggravated" murder.
This is probably going to be explained as "he might have killed others had the bullet richoet'd in the large crowd, ect, ect... and he had no care or concern for any other people he might have killed.""""""

So, we'll see just how SLICK is his defense team.
And then, once CNN and MSNBC, and ABC and CBS, and all the Talk shows... and half the Democrats in the Gov. start agreeing on the Talk shows that "he was not in his right mind" and that is 24/7 fed to the American public....during the entire Trial and leading up to it..
This type of twisted Media manipuation has been going on for years in the USA, and tends to lead a large part of America into the wrong point of view both morally and culturally and also regarding international politics.

Charlie Kirk was the antidote to "WOKE" mentality, and they killed the antidote.
However, by murdering Him, they have only increase the lasting effect of His MESSAGE.

Hopefully the Jurors and Judge wont be deceived by the upcoming Media onslaught.


And of course if all this fails, then there will be a last plea............."well, Would Charle have wanted Him put to death?.. Would JESUS have wanted Him put to death".
Yes, they will try that also....
We'll be having that debate on this Forum before this court case is decided.......no doubt.

 

[Matthias]

One thing is for certain: he won't escape man's justice.

What do you anticipate ”man’s justice” is going to look like in this case? Will the prosecutor get the penalty he’s asking for? If he does / doesn’t, will it be justice in your eyes?

 

[PS95]

If they prove he had an extreme (Charlie Kirk) persecustion complex.....all related to his warped idea of Trans love.......then they can try to establish that he was not in his right mind over a period of time... that led to the eventual premeditation.

No. If he was not in his right mind premeditation goes out the window. It was clearly premeditated. Nothing will change that.

I noted that Utah has charged Him with ""aggravated" murder.
This is probably going to be explained as "he might have killed others had the bullet richoet'd in the large crowd, ect, ect... and he had no care or concern for any other people he might have killed.""""""

Agg Murder is Utah's highest. Yes, his team surrounded him as well as hundreds in close proximity. Imagine if you will, anyone could have stepped into the line of his bullet and been killed.

So, we'll see just how SLICK is his defense team.
And then, once CNN and MSNBC, and ABC and CBS, and all the Talk shows... and half the Democrats in the Gov. start agreeing on the Talk shows that "he was not in his right mind" and that is 24/7 fed to the American public....during the entire Trial and leading up to it..
This type of twisted Media manipuation has been going on for years in the USA, and tends to lead a large part of America into the wrong point of view both morally and culturally and also regarding international politics.

None of that should be surprising.

Charlie Kirk was the antidote to "WOKE" mentality, and they killed the antidote.
However, by murdering Him, they have only increase the lasting effect of His MESSAGE.

There aren't many Charlie's. His message will continue-but we need to pray for the right messengers- it's about the heart. How we say it matters.

Hopefully the Jurors and Judge wont be deceived by the upcoming Media onslaught.

A judge is not to use bias. Hopefully, Utah still has many conservative judges, since liberal judges have been revealed to be terribly biased therefore, unqualified.

And of course if all this fails, then there will be a last plea............."well, Would Charle have wanted Him put to death?.. Would JESUS have wanted Him put to death".
Yes, they will try that also....
We'll be having that debate on this Forum before this court case is decided.......no doubt.

I will not rejoice at his death. I would prefer that he comes to Christ in jail. It will be what it will be.

 

[Riven]

What do you anticipate ”man’s justice” is going to look like in this case?

Everyone is pushing for the death penalty, which includes the firing squad in Utah.

Will the prosecutor get the penalty he’s asking for? If he does / doesn’t, will it be justice in your eyes?

I think anything short of the death penalty is a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Matthias]

Everyone is pushing for the death penalty, which includes the firing squad in Utah.

I think anything short of the death penalty is a miscarriage of justice.

You’ve guaranteed that the accused murderer won’t escape man’s justice. We’ll see.

I’ve been involved in quite a few court cases - none of them involving murder (although I narrowly avoided being murdered twice by criminals) - where man’s justice was subverted.

 

[Riven]

You’ve guaranteed that the accused murderer won’t escape man’s justice. We’ll see.

Indeed. What about you? What does justice look like to you in this case?

 

[Matthias]

Indeed. What about you? What does justice look like to you in this case?

Best case scenario, if the accused murderer is guilty he will plead guilty. I think there’s a good chance that he will try to cut a deal in order to avoid the death penalty. (Personally, I’m opposed to the death penalty in man’s court of justice.)

Should criminals be allowed to cut deals with the state?

 

[lforrest]

I forgive him, but he needs to be put to death for killing another human being in cold blood, premeditated.

A date of execution is a literal deadline to repent.

 

[Riven]

Should criminals be allowed to cut deals with the state?

It depends. If the evidence isn't strong enough, perhaps it is worthwhile. But in cases such as this, where the evidence us overwhelming, I would say no.

 

[Matthias]

It depends. If the evidence isn't strong enough, perhaps it is worthwhile.

Criminals negotiating with the justice system is allowed by the justice system. What could be possibly go wrong with that?

But in cases such as this, where the evidence us overwhelming, I would say no.

Cases where the evidence is overwhelming are commonly negotiated. Justice in man’s court is whatever the deal allows, if a deal is agreed to.

Murder a man in a state where the death penalty is allowed? The convicted murderer might or might not receive the death penalty. Murder a man in a state which does not have the death penalty as an option? The convicted murderer will not receive the death penalty. Justice, in this scenario, depends on location.

 

[Matthias]

Immense.

With the problem of selecting an impartial jury already being immense, what are the chances that an impaneled jury will recommend the death penalty even if they do return a guilty verdict?

Should justice depend on the political environment? Will it?

 

[lforrest]

With the problem of selecting an impartial jury already being immense, what are the chances that an impaneled jury will recommend the death penalty even if they do return a guilty verdict?

Should justice depend on the political environment? Will it?

You are right that the justice system assumes a majority of those in the Jury pool are reasonable. But I am concerned that those on the left have become unreasonable, increasing the probability of injustice. Either through false conviction of their enemies or through Jury nullification for their political allies.

 

[PS95]

You are right that the justice system assumes a majority of those in the Jury pool are reasonable. But I am concerned that those on the left have become unreasonable, increasing the probability of injustice. Either through false conviction of their enemies or through Jury nullification for their political allies.

Just pray he gets a public defender. If he has his own attorney via the left- that lawyer will be sure to ask questions to tip him off to who is left minded for the jury.

 

[Matthias]

You are right that the justice system assumes a majority of those in the Jury pool are reasonable. But I am concerned that those on the left have become unreasonable, increasing the probability of injustice. Either through false conviction of their enemies or through Jury nullification for their political allies.

That’s one reason why I don’t think we can guarantee that justice - even if everyone was able to agree on what that justice should look like - will be done in man’s court of justice.

 

[Riven]

Criminals negotiating with the justice system is allowed by the justice system. What could be possibly go wrong with that?

A verdict that doesn't satisfy the family of the victim. That's very common.

Murder a man in a state where the death penalty is allowed? The convicted murderer might or might not receive the death penalty. Murder a man in a state which does not have the death penalty as an option? The convicted murderer will not receive the death penalty. Justice, in this scenario, depends on location.

I agree. Tyler's biggest mistake was committing this crime in a deep red state. Blue states build statues to the honor criminals. If he had committed this crime in the state of Oregon, they might have given him a medal instead.

With the problem of selecting an impartial jury already being immense, what are the chances that an impaneled jury will recommend the death penalty even if they do return a guilty verdict?

Pretty high I'd wager, given that its in Utah.

Should justice depend on the political environment? Will it?

No. But it often does.

 

[Matthias]

Has too much information been released to the public?

 

[Riven]

Has too much information been released to the public?

I don't think so. Do you?

 

[Matthias]

I don't think so. Do you?

I do. He’s been put on trial in the court of public opinion and found guilty. (A hero to some, a villain to others.) For a great many, a trial in the criminal justice system is just a costly formality with the only thing left to decide being to execute or incarcerate.

Truly presumed innocent going into the formal trial? I don’t think so. The trial will now be perilously close to a sham.

 

[Riven]

I do. He’s been put on trial in the court of public opinion and found guilty.

That might have something to do with the fact that he confessed to his trans boyfriend and to hrs parents, among other things.

For a great many, a trial in the criminal justice system is just a costly formality with the only thing left to decide being to execute or incarcerate.

In these kinds of cases, yes.

Truly presumed innocent going into the formal trial? I don’t think so. The trial will now be perilously close to a sham.

But the pubic has a right to this information before a trial. You can't have a completely unbiased jury in any case.

 

[Matthias]

That might have something to do with the fact that he confessed to his trans boyfriend and to hrs parents, among other things.

If he really did. I think he probably did but it should be proven in front of a judge and jury.

In my opinion, involvement in a transgenderism relationship - if in fact he is, as he appears to be - makes him mentally ill.

In these kinds of cases, yes.

Then the presumption of innocence would be “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” in these cases.

But the pubic has a right to this information before a trial. You can't have a completely unbiased jury in any case.

I think the public should get the information in the trial, as the case unfolds in front of judge and jury.