Thread 2 Turn your son in knowing he’d get the death penalty

[Idinnaenah]

1st thread is full - this is to continue the convo. My original question is below:

’Kirk’s killer has apparently been turned in by his family - or persuaded to hand himself in.
Trump &’his supporters have been very vocal about getting the death penalty for the shooter.
would YOU hand your child over, knowing that the electric chair would be the likely outcome?

YANBU - I wouldn’t turn him in to die.
YABU - I would he’s a killer and deserves all he gets

No point in showing unity with people who cheered your husband’s death.

Yes - if my son turned out to be a political assassin I would turn him in.

And to be honest, from what I've read about him, I don't think he would fare very well spending a life sentence in a US federal penitentiary, so...

As a parent what are your choses though ? You wouldn’t be tempted to say - here’s some money - go

That's vile.

Both sides have vile people, you're blinding yourself if you think it's only the left.

It's not leftists who injured 25 police officers today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydezxl0xlo

Look at this man at the protest caling for our PM to be shot.

https://x.com/evolvepolitics/status/1966882758028128502

Look at Melissa Hortman, John Hoffman, Josh Shapiro, Nancy Pelosi, Gretchen Whitmer, Esther Salas (whose son was shot), Mike Pence. All murdered or faced attempted murder from right wing US people.
An abortion clinic in late 2024 faced a bomb plan from a neo Nazi Marine who planned to also target Jewish & LGBT people. There are many more examples. People like you who only acknowledge the evil of one side are only making the situation more polarised.

Go where? To commit suicide by cop, because that’s about the only option, and then you’re going to jail yourself for obstruction of justice.

It’s a big country, it’s a big world.

I was responding to that particular comment, not any of the other items you’ve listed.

Extremists of any kind are dangerous, right, left ,‘religious- makes no difference.

Despite the many repeated copied and pasted soundbites that have been quoted totally out of context and without the fuller picture, done in order to misrepresent Charlie Kirk and twist his words to fit a hateful narrative; despite all of that, Charlie Kirk was a Christian man of God who spoke Truth. His stance came from deep love for humankind and for Truth. He was not afraid to stand for what he believed in by inviting debate, and being open to discuss in a forceful but gracious and polite way with those who did not agree.

His wife's words are now being misunderstood by those with hate in their heart. Words of condemnation against Erika reflect the hearts of those who are now turning on her.

'You don't know what you have unleashed', means that there will be an uprising of those who stand for Truth but not in the way that is being purported here by those who do not understand her deep Christian faith. There is spiritual warfare happening: Truth vs lies; Love vs hate; Good vs evil. It was ever thus - this is the battle.

The ones taking up actual physical arms against Love, Truth and Good in this 'spiritual battle' are encompassed in people like the young man who is alleged to have murdered Charlie Kirk simply for expressing his freedom to think and freedom to speak.

Those who continue to misrepresent Charlie and who somehow 'relish' in his murder and who are now continuing the hate against his grieving widow are on the side of hate and darkness, not Love and illumination; They continue to want to close down honest, open debate by using the usual tactics of actual lies at worst, and misrepresentation at best.

Christ Jesus was killed as a result of speaking Truth. A baying mob demanded His death. Behind Him, and behind people like Charlie Kirk is a whole Christian 'army' of people who will rise up to continue the great commission. I am certain this is the heart of what Erika Kirk meant.

You do know that we don't all believe in God? For those of us that don't believe in God or a Christian God, we may disagree.

The woman is clearly unhinged. In addition to her first performance, she’s now shared pictures with his dead body in the coffin. Who the hell does that.

Charlie Kirk was a Neo Nazi. If you want to equate that with Christianity feel free.

We are being gaslighted to have empathy for someone who held absolutely abhorrent beliefs because the only remotely "good" thing you can say about him is that he was a husband and father.

They're trying to make him out to be like MLK (snort!) but when you look at his actual quotes they are frickin' sociopathic. That's why people are being punished for sharing his quotes! They don't want his actual beliefs shared! That's why they keep pushing the husband and father thing on everyone.

His wife, it turns out, is just as vicious as he was, she's no innocent little woman sitting in the kitchen, crying piteously over her husband's death. Maga women are almost always just as vicious as their men.

Any God who inspired the kind of vile hatred Kirk espoused is not one I would want any part of.
I don't celebrate Kirks death but I think that blame should be laid at the door of Trump and his supporters who created an America where this sort of thing happens.

Of course.

And Charlie Kirk was happy for you to disagree and happy to debate your points of disagreement.

@ILikeDinosaurs Charlie Kirk was a Neo Nazi.

No, he was not, and to continue that lie fits narrative of hatred which is coming only from those who hate the Truth for which Charlie stood.

@Hoppinggreen Any God who inspired the kind of vile hatred Kirk espoused is not one I would want any part of.

I don't blame you. Nor would I. However, Charlie Kirk never espoused vile hatred. The Truth he spoke, however, certainly attracted vile hatred because lies hate Truth.

Someone who either wants to protect the brand and income, or someone being encouraged to do so.

It's not wholly a smear, though some certainly is. Let's take this one by one.

Kirk explicitly believed wives should submit to their husbands. He stated this multiple times, including in some marriage public discussions w Erika. She likewise believes this and has preached it on her podcast Midweek Rise Up.

I have read a lot of various kinds of conservative Christian thought, and it is unusual for all but ultraconservative/explicitly misogynist types like 'redpill Christians' to say that women should not be allowed to lead AT ALL. Most believe that women are only barred from leadership in the church and in marriage. I strongly disagree with this, but I also dislike people exaggerating what people believe. It makes it harder to spot actual Christian extreme misogyny, which does exist.

That said, there was certainly opposition to Sarah Palin's run on account of gender by people who might have fewer issues with someone like Bondi or Coney Barrett who does not hold ultimate power.

It's interesting to note Erika herself has a job preaching (I need to check). So women speaking about religion is OK, but not priesthood or church leadership roles.

As to Kirk's view on women and careers, I don't think he was explicitly opposed to them. He emphasised the importance of having marriage and kids first, which has pros and cons imo, but he didn't say it was forbidden.

That would be hypocritical anyway, when his wife has the podcast, clothing line, charity work, modelling & acting work & preaching/speaking gigs.

Maybe not hateful exactly, but I don't think it was very helpful or accurate to call England a 'third world hellhole' full of 'Mohammedans and fully burqa-wearing women, no native Brits'. When plenty of Muslims are native Brits, and besides, less than 1% of UK Muslim women wear the burqa. Only 1% wear niqab, if that's what he meant.
(Burqa is terrible, only mesh to let you see, niqab is a full face veil too but reveals eyes. I think both should be banned, but I also think it's a moral panic somewhat as so few women wear them. To hear Farage, Kirk & co. take you'd think most Muslim women did! 🙄)

Not to mention UK Muslims are only 6.5% of the total population.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/articles/religionbyageandsexenglandandwales/census2021%23:~:text%3DDownload%2520the%2520data,-.xlsx%26text%3DIt%2520is%2520important%2520to%2520note,2011%2520to%2520642%252C855%2520in%25202021.&ved=2ahUKEwjlhcSo3NiPAxUyUUEAHXM5Ax4QzsoNegQIHhAW&usg=AOvVaw0L3NXK39pmoX2cbS1sgiLs

If it is possible, might you be able to say what statements Kirk made that you feel have been misrepresented? Personally I feel several controversial ones were NOT, but at the same time, I feel that his comments on race, empathy, and guns have been.

Describing a woman having to grieve the sudden violent death of her husband in public as 'unhinged' and as making a 'performance' says much about you.

Lots of cultures view the deceased's body in the coffin, it's not unusual to do so and I suppose in today's online culture photos of that are a logical extension of that tradition.

By all means dislike the Kirks and their views, but no one knows how they'd behave in these circumstances.

That's not accurate, Kirk was not wholly opposed to women having careers, he didn't mind her working. I doubt he'd approve of a mother of young kids having a full-blown career like lawyer, doctor etc. But I doubt carrying on his work would mean a full-time career for her, at least not now.

Yes thee comments about poor Erika are vile & should be deleted.

Have you any evidence that he was a neo nazi? Or sociopathic?

Having views you (or I) don't share doesn't make someone a neo nazi or a sociopath.

Describing his wife as vicious because she isn't sitting in the kitchen crying is misogynistic.

This is the Facebook page of the killers mother before she deleted it. They obviously worshipped guns.