I am saved, I have received the gift of eternal life, have you?
Oh right, you do not believe being born again is a one time event as Christ Jesus clearly taught.
Charlie Kirk - so what now ?
- Thread starter the_seeker
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
I am saved, I have received the gift of eternal life, have you?
Oh right, you do not believe being born again is a one time event as Christ Jesus clearly taught.
It means there are still questions that have not been answered and they don't think they have sufficient evidence to convict. I think it is clear they have enough evidence to indict, if they thought they were sure to convict they would go to trial, but they clearly do not think that and they have made that clear publicly. Erika Kirk was even asked in an interview if she thought they had the killer and she refused to answer that saying "she trusts the investigation". So anyone who thinks this is tin foil hat conspiracy is delusional. No one who is in the know on this feels they have concluded the investigation yet.
None the less, they have the perp in jail now and he will be prosecuted
You can ask all the questions you like to see if you can pollute the jury pool to see if you can get the perp acquitted but it won't work.
Yep, this is true.
All other topics are side bars that are used by the devil to distract Christians from what's really important.
Ah okay, based on this statement i agree with you.
So if there are questions that haven't been answered, they will be answered in due time.
And of course we need to know WHO is asking the questions and WHAT type of questions are they.
Some are Christians as defined by scripture, yes, it is especially troubling when they are distracted....... the posers well that is to be expected.
Why not? Evidence is withheld in order to prevent people claiming they committed a crime when they didn't. At this point they should have the bullet, they should be able to confirm the bullet came from that person's gun, and they should have the autopsy. If those things support charging that man with the crime, then of course, why not let people see the evidence.
To prevent jury bias in a high-profile case, lawyers and judges use several strategies, including conducting extensive jury selection (voir dire), using questionnaires to assess media consumption, and implementing procedural measures like moving the trial venue or sequestering the jury. Judges also issue strict jury instructions to disregard media coverage, and both sides try to remove biased jurors through "challenges for cause" and peremptory strikes.
For example they could ask if jurors watch people like Candace Owens and they could be excluded based on the media they consume. Now it is up to the judge whether or not to put a gag order on the evidence being released to the public. There are compelling reasons to release it and often there are compelling reasons not to release it before the trial.
However, you can't have it both ways. If you don't release the evidence then you will encourage speculation. You can't condemn speculation when at the same time you refuse to release the evidence.
Yep, it's one of the tactics the devil uses to get people in to the ditch one one side or the other
Sadly it's why so many Christians are distracted with political stuff
I know I'd like to see some common sense policies from politicians but I'm not deceived in to thinking that would last for very long
You think the jury pool in Utah is being polluted by this forum? I expect when they select the Jury they will ask them about the media they watch and particularly about those who covered this like Candace Owens. But you are indicating the defense team is going to ask if they read ZNP's posts on Christianchat.com?
Well I guess that is a compliment, thankyou.
It's all over the internet and it's one of the causes the abortion loving liberals have taken up.
Just like how they support that guy who shot the insurance company CEO in cold blood.
Liberals seek to protect evil be as they celebrate evil like their father the devil does.
I found a picture of you and your buddy!
And Christians seek to know the truth and don't judge someone until they have heard from them first and examined all the evidence.
Some good points, but the main weakness IMO is suggesting releasing evidence will stop or slow speculation. And, yes, you can condemn some speculation and refuse to release evidence for a time. In this time, we're rightly sensitive to that last phrase, but we're still not owed everything we may want for whatever reasons we may want it.
FWIW, I have no issues with asking questions. There are a lot of reasons for our lack of trust in the systems and powers. I also think that rolling our eyes at some questions is probably appropriate and surely to be expected. And, I like some of the responses I sometimes hear from leadership and authority - e.g. Trump when he simply tells some that he's not going to answer them at this time and on some issues rightly so.
For those defending Owens: I 100% support asking questions, digging further and not accepting official narratives [such as covid, which is off-topic here]. I don't ever take anyone's word for it, which is exactly why I question Owens. It's a bit ironic that some of you want everything questioned and dug into... except when it comes to yourselves and your sources. 
How odd.
Owens was recently interviewed by CNN [Elle Reeves]. Shockingly the interviewer pretended to be a journalist for a moment -
CO: I do not believe that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. I want to be very clear on that. Whether he was involved I think the answer is yes. I think that's obvious.
ER: And your basis for saying he didn't act alone is what?
CO: I don't know, maybe the weird Fed messages that were concocted out of thin air that had no time stamp and were written like they were speaking in 1822, among other things. Their lack of an ability to answer any basic questions about what took place.
ER: But do you have any proof that the messages were made up because that would be easily proven.
CO: But they didn't put timestamps on them and Discord came out and said they didn't exist.
ER: This was supposedly text messages not Discord messages - it's my understanding from the indictment.
CO: I actually did not read that they were text messages.
CNN interview
She had no clue the messages were text, so that was her mistake. But based upon that mistake, she concluded and stated, AS FACT, that the feds made up the messages and publicly accused them of lying, covering up, dereliction of duty, etc. That's slander. Her other solid evidence was 'very strong sources' and 'leaks', so yeah... impeccable.
Maybe it has to happen to YOU before you understand how devastating it is to be publicly accused of something - without evidence - you may not have done, and you and your family have to deal with the fallout.
How odd.Owens was recently interviewed by CNN [Elle Reeves]. Shockingly the interviewer pretended to be a journalist for a moment -
CO: I do not believe that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. I want to be very clear on that. Whether he was involved I think the answer is yes. I think that's obvious.
ER: And your basis for saying he didn't act alone is what?
CO: I don't know, maybe the weird Fed messages that were concocted out of thin air that had no time stamp and were written like they were speaking in 1822, among other things. Their lack of an ability to answer any basic questions about what took place.
ER: But do you have any proof that the messages were made up because that would be easily proven.
CO: But they didn't put timestamps on them and Discord came out and said they didn't exist.
ER: This was supposedly text messages not Discord messages - it's my understanding from the indictment.
CO: I actually did not read that they were text messages.
CNN interview
She had no clue the messages were text, so that was her mistake. But based upon that mistake, she concluded and stated, AS FACT, that the feds made up the messages and publicly accused them of lying, covering up, dereliction of duty, etc. That's slander. Her other solid evidence was 'very strong sources' and 'leaks', so yeah... impeccable.
Maybe it has to happen to YOU before you understand how devastating it is to be publicly accused of something - without evidence - you may not have done, and you and your family have to deal with the fallout.
Since most people are not Christians, the jury will very likely be made up of non Christians or fake "christians" such as mormons.
except when it comes to yourselves and your sources.
That's how the conspiracy theorists roll ya know.
It's very obvious to me that Candance Owens is just trying to be as outlandish as possible to get more viewers on her social media so she can increase her bottom line (make mo money)
Once the Charlie Kirk topic dies down we'll see her being all outlandish on some other topic in her efforts to keep the money rolling in and to keep herself "relevant"
I become suspicious when the guy blamed for committing the crime is not the one who profited from the crime. Then when the guy who profited from the crime tells me to shut up, and stop asking questions, then I get very suspicious.
- Status