Grok_Jock

47 posts

Grok_Jock banner
Grok_Jock

Grok_Jock

@Grok_Jock

Roodepoort, South Africa Bergabung Ocak 2025
105 Mengikuti11 Pengikut
Colin Wright
Colin Wright@SwipeWright·
All the large accounts that present themselves as truth-seeking journalists or commentators, then quote posts like this and act utterly baffled—“What the hell!?” “WTF!?” “What’s going on here???”—are frauds. It took me less than a minute to see what the court documents actually said and understand what they meant. They do not show that the bullet was not fired from the gun. They show only that the bullet was too fragmented to confidently link it to ANY gun. This is not uncommon, and DOES NOT mean the bullet didn’t come from Robinson’s gun. Of course the defense attorneys are going to spin this as evidence that Robinson is innocent. That is what defense attorneys do. They scrape together every possible fragment of doubt and present it as if it were fully exculpatory. It’s not. Defense lawyers are paid to downplay or ignore evidence pointing to guilt, exploit people’s cognitive biases, and make fallacious arguments sound persuasive. This information about the bullet doesn’t erode the case for Robinson’s guilt in any way. It is totally neutral on that front. And it in no way invalidate the mountain of positive and mutually corroborating lines of evidence we do have for Robinson’s guilt. You should expect more from the commentators you follow, and hold them accountable by refusing to give them your attention in the future. If they could not be bothered to spend even one minute checking the facts before spreading confusion to you and millions of others on X, they do not deserve your attention. They are nothing more than grifting engagement farmers.
Colin Wright tweet media
English
420
1.1K
7.3K
472.4K
Grok
Grok@grok·
The fallacy lies in equating "unable to conclusively match the fragmented bullet to Robinson's rifle" (per ATF report in court filings) with "did not come from it." Fragmented bullets frequently yield inconclusive ballistics—too damaged for rifling marks to link to any gun definitively. This is neutral, not exculpatory. Defense highlights it to sow doubt (their job), but it doesn't negate DNA on the trigger/towel, alleged texts, witnesses, or other evidence tying Robinson. Daily Mail's "DID NOT match" headline sensationalizes the inconclusive as definitive exclusion.
English
4
6
107
1.6K
GAAAAry
GAAAAry@KnockerG·
@RWMaloneMD Colin Wright is doing the same thing he accuses others of doing: making up his own facts. The court documents do NOT show that the bullet was too fragmented. There is no assertion in the documents that the bullet fragmented at all.
English
1
0
1
103
Robert W Malone, MD
Robert W Malone, MD@RWMaloneMD·
True story... "They show only that the bullet was too fragmented to confidently link it to ANY gun. This is not uncommon, and DOES NOT mean the bullet didn’t come from Robinson’s gun."
Colin Wright@SwipeWright

All the large accounts that present themselves as truth-seeking journalists or commentators, then quote posts like this and act utterly baffled—“What the hell!?” “WTF!?” “What’s going on here???”—are frauds. It took me less than a minute to see what the court documents actually said and understand what they meant. They do not show that the bullet was not fired from the gun. They show only that the bullet was too fragmented to confidently link it to ANY gun. This is not uncommon, and DOES NOT mean the bullet didn’t come from Robinson’s gun. Of course the defense attorneys are going to spin this as evidence that Robinson is innocent. That is what defense attorneys do. They scrape together every possible fragment of doubt and present it as if it were fully exculpatory. It’s not. Defense lawyers are paid to downplay or ignore evidence pointing to guilt, exploit people’s cognitive biases, and make fallacious arguments sound persuasive. This information about the bullet doesn’t erode the case for Robinson’s guilt in any way. It is totally neutral on that front. And it in no way invalidate the mountain of positive and mutually corroborating lines of evidence we do have for Robinson’s guilt. You should expect more from the commentators you follow, and hold them accountable by refusing to give them your attention in the future. If they could not be bothered to spend even one minute checking the facts before spreading confusion to you and millions of others on X, they do not deserve your attention. They are nothing more than grifting engagement farmers.

English
349
102
724
65.1K
Grok_Jock
Grok_Jock@Grok_Jock·
@LauraLoomer Why are you assuming he's guilty before proven to be so? Assuming he's innocent until proven otherwise is the way the justice system is supposed to work over there, isn't it? The only ones tainting the jury pool are people like you and TPUSA who are assuming guilt with no proof.
English
0
0
0
492
Laura Loomer
Laura Loomer@LauraLoomer·
Why are so many “conservative” influencers on Tyler Robinson’s defense team?
English
1.8K
418
4.4K
139.7K
Emily 🦋
Emily 🦋@EmilySm43·
As the man of the house, what’s your next move?
Emily 🦋 tweet media
English
5.5K
119
1.8K
200.1K
Grok_Jock
Grok_Jock@Grok_Jock·
@Outspoken_Sam You do realize that the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, right? Right now they can't even prove it was a 30-06, nvm Tyler's 30-06 that fired the round. Regardless of your "context," there is no hard evidence...
English
1
0
1
32
OutspokenSamantha
OutspokenSamantha@Outspoken_Sam·
I haven't checked... Is Candace Owens already running with the Daily Mail Headline about the bullet from Tyler Robinson's rifle, knowing her mindless followers won't read the article for important context and realize they're being manipulated? Just trying to keep up...
English
98
12
300
14.8K
Grok_Jock
Grok_Jock@Grok_Jock·
@Kekius_Sage Hopefully we'll have stunning visuals like this...
Grok_Jock tweet media
English
0
0
0
16
Kekius Maximus
Kekius Maximus@Kekius_Sage·
REMINDER 🚨: TOMORROW, APRIL 1, HUMANS WILL RETURN TO THE MOON FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 53 YEARS We’re living in history! The entire mission is being streamed live by NASA, don’t miss it.
Kekius Maximus tweet media
English
1.9K
907
6.2K
365.6K
Grok_Jock
Grok_Jock@Grok_Jock·
@Kekius_Sage On April Fool's Day....it's like they want it to be a conspiracy...
English
0
0
4
922
Grok_Jock
Grok_Jock@Grok_Jock·
@stelzner_n1150 It's usually the spouse and usually involves a life insurance policy...or CEO position of a multi-million dollar company.
English
0
0
0
167
Nicholas J. Stelzner
Nicholas J. Stelzner@stelzner_n1150·
If you were Erika Kirk wouldn’t you be interested in finding out who your husband’s killer is?
English
592
225
5.1K
75.9K
EMEKA 💭
EMEKA 💭@Okoliemeka_·
In one sentence prove that you've watched Game of Thrones:
English
7K
293
3.9K
995.9K
Grok_Jock
Grok_Jock@Grok_Jock·
He "implied" guilt to his parents and the texts and note don't really prove anything. There was a guy at the shooting that was shouting publicly that he shot Charlie. Maybe they should check and see if he had a handgun with him and test it for his DNA. It would equal the evidence against Tyler.
English
0
0
5
109
George Mullins
George Mullins@usunited1157·
@BigDaddyAwest17 You're forgetting one very important fact. He confessed to killing Charlie Kirk. Twice in fact, once on the phone with his 'lover' and the second time in his parent's home to them.
English
7
0
6
1.2K
Big DaddyAlex
Big DaddyAlex@BigDaddyAwest17·
Bookmark this post. It is possible Tyler Robinson was instructed to go to the roof as backup, while someone else took the shot. Watch his body language! “Hey buddy, you won’t go to prison for long if caught, we only need you to take the shot if our guy misses. $10,000 to do this” Then, of course, they pin the entire Charlie Kirk assassination on him. All evidence points right to the fall guy. Meanwhile, the primary assassin goes back to their home country and Tyler is kept in silence, or killed if any indication is shown that he plans to talk.
English
177
313
1.8K
243.7K
Nature & Animals🌴
Nature & Animals🌴@naturelife_ok·
After a wig.....he suddenly looks so handsome. 🐒😂
English
752
3K
36.9K
7.6M
Dave
Dave@GamewithDave·
For those who used a computer between 1995 and 2001, what's the computer game from that time that sticks with you the most, and why?
English
12.3K
146
4K
2.1M
Grok_Jock
Grok_Jock@Grok_Jock·
@SundayTimesZA @Bruceps Yes, it's super duper hard to get rich by simply having deep government connections and being given businesses and money for mahala...
English
0
0
0
59
Sunday Times
Sunday Times@SundayTimesZA·
Patrice Motsepe — mining magnate, philanthropist and football club owner — is going to be the next leader of the ANC. There’s no question. He’s ethically clean, dynamic, charming, rich as Croesus and smart, writes @Bruceps. sundaytimes.timeslive.co.za/opinion-and-an…
English
703
139
414
341.7K