Charlie Kirk's beliefs

[MsAmerica]

If You're Wondering What Charlie Kirk Believed In, Here Are 14 Real Quotes
In light of his death, Charlie Kirk's legacy is being remembered through these viral quotes.
BuzzFeed

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexalisitza/viral-charlie-kirk-quotes

A. Maximal Restraint Technique – Use (06/13/14)
The Maximal Restraint Technique shall only be used in situations where handcuffed subjects are combative and still pose a threat to themselves, officers or others, or could cause significant damage to property if not properly restrained.
Using the hobble restraint device, the MRT is accomplished in the following manner:
a. One hobble restraint device is placed around the subject’s waist.
b. A second hobble restraint device is placed around the subject’s feet.
c. Connect the hobble restraint device around the feet to the hobble restraint device around the waist in front of the subject.
d. Do not tie the feet of the subject directly to their hands behind their back. This is also known as a hogtie.

1. A supervisor shall be called to the scene where a subject has been restrained using the MRT to evaluate the manner in which the MRT was applied and to evaluate the method of transport.

B. Maximal Restraint Technique – Safety (06/13/14) 1. As soon as reasonably possible, any person restrained using the MRT who is in the prone position shall be placed in the following positions based on the type of restraint used: a. If the hobble restraint device is used, the person shall be placed in the side recovery position.

1. When using the MRT, an EMS response should be considered.
2. Under no circumstances, shall a subject restrained using the MRT be transported in the prone position.

4. Officers shall monitor the restrained subject until the arrival of medical personnel, if necessary, or transfer to another agency occurs.

1. In the event any suspected medical conditions arise prior to transport, officers will notify paramedics and request a medical evaluation of the subject or transport the subject immediately to a hospital.
2. A prisoner under Maximal Restraint should be transported by a two-officer squad, when feasible. The restrained subject shall be seated upright, unless it is necessary to transport them on their side. The MVR should be activated during transport, when available.
3. Officers shall also inform the person who takes custody of the subject that the MRT was applied.

C. Maximal Restraint Technique – Reporting (06/13/14)

1. Anytime the hobble restraint device is used, officers’ Use of Force reporting shall document the circumstances requiring the use of the restraint and the technique applied, regardless of whether an injury was incurred.
2. Supervisors shall complete a Supervisor’s Force Review.
3. When the Maximal Restraint Technique is used, officers’ report shall document the following:
4. How the MRT was applied, listing the hobble restraint device as the implement used.
5. The approximate amount of time the subject was restrained.
6. How the subject was transported and the position of the subject.
7. Observations of the subject’s physical and physiological actions (examples include: significant changes in behavior, consciousness or medical issues).

https://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/minneapolis-pd-use-of-force-policies/

The text on the training slide shown by his defence at the trail

Ok they are in handcuffs now what

• Sudden cardiac arrest typically occurs immediately following a violent struggle
• Place the subject in the recovery position to alleviate positional asphyxia
• Once in handcuffs, get EMS on scene quickly to monitor and transport
• Sign a transport hold on these individuals
• Complete a CIC report

Ummm The film was produced by Liz Collin, who is married to Bob Kroll, the former president of the Minneapolis Police Federation, a detail the film omits despite Kroll's prominent role in post-Floyd events, raising concerns about undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Multiple critics, fact-checkers, and analysts describe the film as propaganda, particularly for its pro-police, far-right perspective that seeks to exonerate Derek Chauvin and portray Minneapolis police as victims while blaming media, politicians, and activists for the 2020 unrest. Hardly surprising when the producers husband was the president of the Minneapolis police Federation!!! It has unsurprisingly been labelled it shameless lies or police propaganda. Honestly you should look into your sources better! The film core claims rely on omissions, out-of-context quotes, and debunked theories to push a revisionist narrative. Courts, experts, and independent reviews affirm the homicide ruling and conviction.

@Alicealig The film blames “lies" about Floyd's death for the riots, portraying officers as abandoned heroes whilst downplaying Minneapolis Police Dept. issues. It completely omits the police departments history of huge settlements for misconduct and federal findings of systemic bias/excessive force. It also ignores video evidence of police escalating (e.g., rubber bullets on journalists, one causing freelance journalist Linda Tirado to loose an eye and cause brain damage). Early narratives evolved with the evidence, not by fabrication. The unrest stemmed from real grievances, not just "lies." The film selectively uses interviews (mostly ex-officers) while ignoring counter-evidence like Tobin's testimony (shown 166 times at trial).
However, all of this is a diversion. Back to Kirk -who knew that Floyd’s death was a murder (as admitted) but continued peddling this disinformation because it suited his racist narrative

@Circularmadness It is racist propaganda. There is no reasoning with this poster though, she’s another one with extreme intransigent beliefs who thinks Kirk is aspirational, women should be denied abortions in all circumstances and racism doesn’t exist. This thread would be a fascinating case study! 🤣😱

So there is plenty of links and evidence claiming to show that CK was not racist or homophobic. Just as many will post links claiming to show that he was racist.

I strongly disagree with his views on abortion but I recognise that as a strong Christian he adopts an anti abortion stance and he is entitled to his own views.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvvvl9zq4eo?app-referrer=deep-link#:~:text=In%201973%2C%20in%20a%20case,on%20a%20%22trimester%22%20system.

Interestingly the abortion time limit is 24 weeks in the UK and any attempt to reduce it would be strongly resisted (including by myself) Yet it is only 12 weeks in Ireland and 14 weeks in France but nobody seems to care or complain about that. Indeed abortion was only legalised in Ireland in 2018!

DEI differentiates and discriminates based on skin colour or sex or sexuality. It is fundamentally racist and sexist but many on this thread would happily defend this racist ideology.

He was a racist, misogynistic bigot and I’m very glad that he will not be able to enforce his abhorrent views onto the population, which is what he wanted. 😄

“So there is plenty of links and evidence claiming to show that CK was not racist or homophobic.”

You mean like the clip you linked to, where he was in fact being homophobic?

The main thing that I find objectionable about his beliefs was that he thought he should be able to inflict them on the rest of us.

His "brand" was all about free speech, but he was a prominent election denier, who wanted to overturn the results of the 2020 election (and whose role saw him subpoenad by the Jan 6 Committee, although he pled the 5th to everything...)

Without the freedom to vote, and have your vote counted, there is no freedom of speech (or any other rights, for that matter).

He was a vile, weasel of a man. Shouldn't have been murdered, of course, but he was a radical, anti-democracy lowlife.

And was only a devout Christian for about 5 minutes, too...

Again @1dayatatime why won’t you address this? When met with facts and challenged with some of the racist lies that Kirk has passed off (and you’ve repeated) you blank it- refuse to see it or acknowledge it. You pivot to a different tact, leap to something else. Can you see why people call it a cult, It truly is as if you are indoctrinated.

“So there is plenty of links and evidence claiming to show that CK was not racist or homophobic. Just as many will post links claiming to show that he was racist.”
There is no evidence he’s not racist because evidence of his racism would negate that. You either are or are not racist, surely.

Plenary evidence has been provided to you of his racism and lies, lies which you have gone on to parrot (but you won’t address)
The actual evidence of him being a racist tends knock the whole “not racist” argument on the head, surely!!

So you believe in freedom of speech except where you disagree or find "objectionable "with those views at which point he becomes "a vile weasel ". This typical of the far left view that their view is the only acceptable view and all other views should be suppressed. Pol Pot and Mao would be proud of you.

Charlie Kirk whilst influential in right wing politics was not a politician and was not able to enforce his views on anyone, any more than any other political commentator.

Calling someone a “vile weasel” is part of free speech!! She is entitled to her opinion of him!! What do you have to say about Trumps administration doing the following, actual suppression of free speech;

1. Pulled press passes from CNN and other media outlets deemed critical, limiting their access to White House events. 2)Banned certain words (e.g., from a "banned words list") in scientific reports and grants, leading scientists to self-censor. 3)Threatened to deploy military or National Guard against racial justice protests in cities like Washington, D.C., to "dominate" dissent. 4)Revoked visas and detained foreign students (e.g., Mahmoud Khalil at Columbia) for pro-Palestine protests, using immigration laws to target activism 5)Withheld federal funding from universities like Columbia and Harvard unless they curbed pro-Palestine speech or DEI policies 6)Sanctioned law firms (e.g., Susman Godfrey) via executive orders in retaliation for legal work against allies like Fox News. 7)Banned the Associated Press from White House events for not using preferred terminology (e.g., "Gulf of America") 8)Dismantled Voice of America by placing staff on leave and accusing it of being "anti-Trump." 9)Encouraged public to report critics (e.g., of Charlie Kirk) to employers, leading to discipline for teachers, police, and federal workers.

These are just a few examples

@1dayatatime your hypocrisy is staggering. I’m not expecting you to answer because you have form for just ignoring evidence that counters your world view. The poster condemns his murder, and I see no evidence of a wish to silence him but hates his beliefs. Her expression of this IS an example of free speech. You seem to imply she shouldn’t be entitled to this!
All the while you ignore the very real, tangible and demonstrable evidence of suppression of free speech by the right. The hypocrisy is absolutely wild!!

So let's look at the exact quote by Charlie Kirk you are referring to:

Please fact check the following quote by Charlie Kirk:

Firstly he was discussing four specific women, Michelle Obama, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, political commentator Joy Reid, and the late Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, while talking about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs.

If we had said [those women] were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now ... They're coming out and saying 'I'm only here because of affirmative action.' We know. You do not have the brain processing power to be taken really seriously."

Now let's look at the quotes from those women in question:

Sheila Jackson Lee (speaking on the House floor post-SCOTUS ruling): Acknowledging she “may have been admitted on affirmative action” to Yale and the University of Virginia School of Law but emphasizing she graduated on her merits.

Joy Reid (on MSNBC): Stating she got into Harvard “only because of affirmative action.”

Michelle Obama (from her memoir Becoming and related interviews): Describing how her high school counselors doubted her Princeton admission due to low test scores, implying affirmative action helped overcome barriers.

Ketanji Brown Jackson (during her 2022 Senate confirmation hearings): Noting she benefited from diversity initiatives in her career, though she didn’t explicitly tie it to her Harvard admissions.

So three of the four explicitly stated that they were assisted by DEI. The exception is Michelle Obama where it is implied that she benefited from DEI for university entry because of on low test scores .
However it is entirely possible that she may for example have done a stellar interview?

Indeed. The most concerning thing to me though, which his defenders and supported conveniently never have a response to, is the fact he wanted to mandate his abhorrent beliefs into law. Therefore imposing his sexist, bigoted views onto the population. He wasn’t just quietly living his life, if he had his way then women wouldn’t be allowed autonomy over their own bodies - women and girls would be forced to give birth to their rapists babies. Kirk was a massive hypocrite, wanting ‘free speech’ but only for those who agreed with him.

Some of these posters live in an alternative reality where Kirk isn’t a condescending, slimy little racist bigot who wanted to set women’s rights back hundreds of years. But hey its fine. because he doesn’t support trans people that is reason to defend and endorse him apparently 🤷🏻‍♀️

I am sure they think Trump is an exemplary man too, not a sexual predator who doesn’t give a shiny shit about women and girls.

The delusion is off the scale and would be laughable if it wasn’t deeply concerning.

I do think there are quite a few men on these Charlie Kirk threads.

There absolutely are. A lot of far right men from the US have been posting here lately, we see you. 👀 The worst is when they masquerade as ‘liberal’ though yet still defend Kirk. Make it make sense?!

@Circularmadness This poster also fundamentally doesn’t understand how DEI works and believes it is ‘racist’… 🤦🏻‍♀️

She was an honour student with good grades

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ryZtvaz9Xqs

DEI or affirmative action takes someone's skin colour into account on any hiring decision or university entry etc. When it should solely based on merit with skin colour being completely irrelevant.

As such DEI is discriminatory and racist.

Out of interest 43% of highly paid male premiership footballers identified as black compared to only 4% of the English population. I believe this is because they are there on merit and superior ability in footballing skills., nothing else. Would you support DEI initiatives to reduce this percentage to say increase the number of Asian players who are represented at less than 1% of all Premiership players despite making up 9.3% of the population?

Again that’s not how DEI works. Have a read into it and stop embarrassing yourself.

You also don’t seem to understand discrimination and racism.

White people can’t experience racism, as systemic racism is a power dynamic whereby white people hold the most power. The whole point of schemes such as DEI is to give marginalised groups certain opportunities that they are usually held back from due to systemic barriers.

I don’t think critical thinking is something Kirk and his supporters possess. They are too busy trying to remove women’s freedoms, making racist remarks about ‘prowling blacks’ and then gaslighting anyone who calls this what it is - racism and bigotry. Support him all you like, but you aren’t a feminist if you do.

I've no doubt that she had good grades as she is clearly an intelligent woman.

However in the opinion of her high school counsellors they were not sufficiently high enough to enable entry to Princeton.

Now you could argue that the grades were indeed sufficiently high enough or that her High School counsellor were being racist or that she got in under DEI.

The reality is that no one will know for sure why.

One thing is for sure - she didn’t get in due to racism! You really don’t understand how racism works do you?