A hit in the neck is definitely a miss from an intended target anyway. Can’t say how much or to what direction. It could have been that there’s been a target where the bullet would fly 30 cm behind the person to be guarded, but the bullet is taking a trajectory 10 cm off the intended and the person happens to their head 20 cm backwards just at the crucial moment.
But, I do believe that someone wanted that guy dead. I can imagine someone figuring that “he’s actively advocating killing politicians you don’t like, and I don’t like him. Therefore I am following his own instructions and this is acceptable.”
I personally think it’s a bad idea to kill a person like that, because it probably causes other people to get shot as well. It’s not a culture I want to see spread. But at least I do not see it morally as a very big problem that a person explicitly says that something is acceptable and then that thing is done to him. He wanted a certain kind of society and he got the kind of society he wanted. If there is life after death, he can spend that time being content of having changed the society.
What I’m saying is that there was a very much raised likelihood that someone kills him intentionally.
But at least I do not see it morally as a very big problem that a person explicitly says that something is acceptable and then that thing is done to him
This is why one of my wild theories is that the timing of the shot isn’t coincidental, and since there’s so little time between his answer and the shot, there’s a (negligible, too low, ridiculously small) chance that the shooter was waiting for this particular question (and the answer that follows), suggesting some connection between the person asking and the killer. I am aware of how tinfoil hat it sounds, and I don’t think that’s actually the case, but it makes some sense.
There’s no way there is a connection between the person asking the question and the shooter. It was a debate with Charlie Kirk. Of course gun violence is going to come up. Especially since it started by asking about gun violence involving trans people.
A hit in the neck is definitely a miss from an intended target anyway. Can’t say how much or to what direction. It could have been that there’s been a target where the bullet would fly 30 cm behind the person to be guarded, but the bullet is taking a trajectory 10 cm off the intended and the person happens to their head 20 cm backwards just at the crucial moment.
But, I do believe that someone wanted that guy dead. I can imagine someone figuring that “he’s actively advocating killing politicians you don’t like, and I don’t like him. Therefore I am following his own instructions and this is acceptable.”
I personally think it’s a bad idea to kill a person like that, because it probably causes other people to get shot as well. It’s not a culture I want to see spread. But at least I do not see it morally as a very big problem that a person explicitly says that something is acceptable and then that thing is done to him. He wanted a certain kind of society and he got the kind of society he wanted. If there is life after death, he can spend that time being content of having changed the society.
What I’m saying is that there was a very much raised likelihood that someone kills him intentionally.
This is why one of my wild theories is that the timing of the shot isn’t coincidental, and since there’s so little time between his answer and the shot, there’s a (negligible, too low, ridiculously small) chance that the shooter was waiting for this particular question (and the answer that follows), suggesting some connection between the person asking and the killer. I am aware of how tinfoil hat it sounds, and I don’t think that’s actually the case, but it makes some sense.
I’m not saying that it’s correct, but it’s not unrealistic.
There’s no way there is a connection between the person asking the question and the shooter. It was a debate with Charlie Kirk. Of course gun violence is going to come up. Especially since it started by asking about gun violence involving trans people.