Bringing Up The Past

We saw shards of glass in the SUV we’re told told took Charlie Kirk to Timpanogos Regional Hospital. Charlie was wearing a tempered glass lav mic. We can plainly see glass shards flying everywhere when Charlie was killed. Stop the Tyler Robinson bullshit. Let’s be serious.

‼️🇺🇸: TYLER ROBINSON CHARLIE KIRK JUDGE FINDS PROSECUTOR IN CONTEMPT FOR TAINTING JURY 👀 Today in Utah the Judge issued Contempt order to prosecution for saying too much to the media, violating the gag order. Here's what it means: - Robinson requested the d3ath penalty be taken off the table because of a prejudiced jury—the judge said no (weird?) 🤔 - Robinson will be allowed extra jury selection privileges; more strikes, more qualifying questions etc. (You think it will make a difference?) During the order, the judge made several slip-ups while—READING FROM HIS SCRIPT 👀 Does it seem VERY UNLIKELY it will be a fair trial at this point? 🤔

If you think the mic on Charlie Kirk’s shirt was a “shaped charge” like the grifter Ian Carroll, feel free to watch this video. The idea it was a miniature shaped charge is more stupid than his pedo mustache.

Candace just stated that Shawn Ryan told her that Brian Harpole (head of Charlie’s security) wanted to give Shawn a bag that was stained with Charlie's blood AS A GIFT. Um, WHAT!?

There are a lot of opinions on this video. Below is my assessment. For a defensive encounter to be justified, you need to meet three elements: intent, opportunity, and ability. Intent is the desire of the attacker or the likely outcome of their actions. Opportunity is the existence of the attacker and victim in the same place at the same time. Think imminence. Or the ability to touch someone. Ability is the physical ability or capacity to carry out the attack. If any of these three are missing, then force is not justified. In this video, a threat was made against parties who were not present at the time. The pastor then leaves his property and finds the man in public. At which point, he confronts the man aggressively. At the point of the confrontation, the threatener has the intent and ability. But opportunity is not there. The pastor does not have the authority to use force; only the state does. You cannot use force preemptively. Next, as the pastor approaches the man. The man can now argue self-defense. The pastor clearly has intent from his body language. He is walking with proven ability. And when he gets close enough, he will have the opportunity. Not to mention the man seems to be in fear as the pastor approaches. The pastor's actions could arguably place the man in fear, thus justifying the first punch. Then the pastor would be committing battery by punching. Now, you could chalk that up to the mutual combatants, understanding that mistakes get made. That will work civilly; those mistakes matter ethically. Furthermore, the pastor continues to use force past the point it’s needed. If he is claiming self-defense or the defense of others. Then he must use the least amount of force necessary to address the issue. Once the man is on the ground, the altercation is done. However, the pastor continues to strike him. Again, the pastor does not have the authority (legally or ethically) to continue to force; only the state can do that. Defensive force must be imminent. Citizens cannot seek retribution, revenge, or punishment. Nor can they use force for what may happen. As much as I appreciate the pastor's vigor and willingness to stand up for his family. This is not the way. Unfortunately, emotions take over, and poor decision making occurs. Christians must do better at teaching what makes defensive force ethical and legal.