this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
85 points (96.7% liked)

politics

29181 readers
3235 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Murse@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 minutes ago* (last edited 3 minutes ago)

Plot twist: the guy they arrested only tried to kill Kirk, but missed. Turns out some someone else had the same idea at the same time, landed their shot, and spent the next several days confused as hell reading headlines about the shooter turning himself in.

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 11 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

could not conclusively connect a bullet fragment recovered during Charlie Kirk’s autopsy to the rifle found near the scene

No confirmed match =/= confirmed to not match.

They didn't find a link, not that they proved that a link was immposible. Don't fall in to the Klandece Owens crazy hole.

[–] Carmakazi@piefed.social 45 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Even in the best of circumstances, ballistic matching is bunk science used to secure confessions. When the bullet is mangled, nobody is going to take the stand as an expert witness and say "yeah that came from this gun."

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Yep, everyone that thinks this is some huge deal doesn't just not understand guns, they don't have a basic understanding of physics or even basic critical thinking...

It means absolutely nothing either way, but there's a lot of shit that does make it look shady.

[–] nightwatch_admin@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

Not true. CSI taught me that you can make a phone photo and then do an enhance enhance ENHANCE and you will instantly see the shooter’s dna and birth certificate.

[–] RePsyche@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago

Despite the legitimacy of your statement I will continue to suggest that this was just one of those ‘1 in a Billion’moments when a carotid artery spontaneously just went pop.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago

The version of this crossposted to news@lemmy.world is a shitshow of ridiculous conspiracy theories.

I haven't really kept up with the stories about the Kirk killer, but I remember all the initial evidence suggested he had moved to the left and opposed Kirk's rightwing stances. Yet many here were convinced that he was a rightwinger himself and that all the statements from the police, roommate, and family couldn't be trusted. What are the current, rational views about the killer's motives?

[–] cobysev@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago
[–] iThinkDifferentThanU@lemmy.world 11 points 3 hours ago

if the bullet doesn't fit, you must acquit!! no play in the case just need to know where gis shitter/grave is!! lmao

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

That’s because he spontaneously exploded.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

Necks just do that sometimes. It was probably just a really bad pimple that finally popped.

[–] Fishnoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Yup, he just had a super fierce neck aneurysm

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Are they trying to say that there was a different shooter, or that "necks just do that sometimes"?

[–] Krono@lemmy.today 4 points 1 hour ago

They're saying that, when a bullet is fired from an ancient gun and ricochets off of hard objects, then that bullet will likely be mangled beyond identification. This means that there is not enough evidence to positively connect the bullet to the gun in court. This is normal.

I think there's a list of questionable things about Crooks and the FBI allegations. The timeline, the re-assembly of the gun, the sketchy discord messages, etc. This bullet doesn't make the list.