My understanding at present is information that has been provided by the FBI regarding the killer is inaccurate, at best, and blatant lies is a better description. I don't think the claims of the FBI have merit, and don't believe the alleged murderer has confessed, or that anything the FBI has said about them can be taken at face value to be accurate.
Because of that I cannot say what the motive or reasons for the murder were, nor assume guilt of the accused. From the pics and video the FBI has released they claim were of the accused ascending to the roof with a Mauser long action .30-06 rifle, and jumping down from the roof after shooting Charlie Kirk, with that rifle, it does not appear the accused had such - or any - rifle in his personal possession. Therefore I, from the provided information regarding the FBI's claims, can only point out that without that firearm, the accused could not have shot Charlie Kirk.
Otherwise I completely agree with your sentiments regarding free speech and your personal right to speak in agreement or disagreement with anyone about anything.
Thanks!
Thank you for pointing that out. @agmoore seems to accept that the person of interest is guilty of the crime, but there is a great deal to cast doubt on that. That the FBI is the source of this pronouncement makes it even less likely to be true. They haven't even found the bullet, without which they can't prove the gun is the gun that murdered Kirk. The official, government sponsored and approved story, is largely bunk.
Hi, Really, I don't accept. It doesn't matter who the murderer was. He was murdered, and since then there has been an effort to clamp down on any honest assessment of Charlie Kirk's legacy. That is a valuable legacy, politically, to some people. I here assert my right to look at it, honestly. To question the orthodoxy. Who killed Charlie Kirk? That doesn't really affect my research. Even if it was the government (which is what some people will say), it's his legacy that is important, that needs honest appraisal.
I don't know who killed Charlie Kirk. I certainly don't believe anything the government tells me, not now anyway. Maybe if the case is fully developed I will. It doesn't matter to me really who killed him.
It's his importance on the political scene that matters to me. His death is tragic. Horrible, but I want to be sure that a mythology doesn't grow up around his life and words. This is the time to set the record straight. Not everyone will want to hear the truth, but I sure will try to find out what that truth is.
Thanks a lot for commenting.
Please correct me if I am wrong about that bullet. Same with the Trump assassination show a year ago. No bullet. In both cases, it couldn't have gone far. When a tree falls in a forest...
My understanding is that the bullet is claimed to have been found, prevented from exiting Charlie Kirk's neck by his 'miraculously strong' spine. Too many magic bullets in FBI investigations of assassinations for me.