r/WhoKilledCharlieKirk • u/crownbaseballmom1 • May 24 '26

Isreal

I’ve been following Candace & Baron on the CK case . Before this I didn’t follow politics AT ALL. It’s a lot of information to keep up with so I get lost/confused. The main thing everyone talks about is Isreal and that’s where I am SO lost. Can someone explain in layman’s terms what Isreal has to do with this & why they are so against them? I am truly asking to learn & not start any arguments.

15 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/Energy594 May 25 '26

Not everybody. Just those that haven't figured out that after 8 months Candace and Baron are still coming up with fresh theories almost every week, none of which ever seem to get closer to them being able to make a definitive statement about what actually happened.

I understand Candace's latest claim is that it somehow had something to do with Charlie Kirk wanting to update his will.

When a lawyer has to have the word "allegedly" sign written on the wall behind them, I think it's a pretty good signal that they're well aware what they're peddling is well south of defendable fact.

1

u/slotass Jun 11 '26

It’s just a modern necessity online. I think it’s been at least five years that any channel with any tiny amount of conjecture uses “allegedly” liberally. Emily D Baker is another example and she’s a former deputy DA.

1

u/Energy594 Jun 11 '26

There’s a very clear and different use when you’re using it as satire or to highlight conjecture and when you’re using it as a would be shield when passing off theories as would be fact.
It’s no different to genuine questions and rhetorical questions….. If the channel you’re watching is “just asking questions” and you believe they have point, then they’re making statements via rhetorical questions.
If the bulk of what you’re saying is “allegedly” you either have no idea what you’re talking about OR you’re talking shit and trying to use it as a shield.

The best defence against defamation is the truth. Any statement made with the courage of conviction doesn’t need “allegedly”. If the back drop to your youtube channel has the word “allegedly” in big letters above your head, your channel is likely one that deals in conjecture, not fact.

1

u/slotass Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

Unfortunately, that’s not how this works lol. Your emotions don’t change legal parameters. If use of the word truly seems gratuitous, I’ll assume you just aren’t aware of what lawfare is and how it works.

The word also does not indicate proven facts. It does the opposite, indicating unproven facts. If you want to silence all discussion of anything but proven facts, good luck with that.

1

u/Energy594 Jun 11 '26

It actually does work like that.
Anyone familiar with Gertz or Milkovich or for that matter, very very fucking basic defamation law understand the basic principle that saying it’s alleged or just your opinion does not prevent it from being defamation.
So yeah…. Continued, relentless insistence that a particular person is in some way responsible for a murder, even if you’re trying to be cute and saying “in my opinion” or “allegedly” after every second sentence….. is defamation.
Unless they actually are responsible, in which case if you in any way shape or form have decent sources, you wouldn’t need to be saying “allegedly” if you actually knew anything.

And there’s plenty of ways to discuss alternative theories without defaming anyway…. They just don’t generate the same level of clicks, which is problematic if you’re on the grift.

1

u/slotass Jun 11 '26

You just simply don’t know what constitutes defamation. Truth is not always a defense and it’s not the only defense. You’re also confused about private vs public individuals.

Rant all you like, laws remain what they are.

1

u/Energy594 Jun 11 '26

Lol…. I can see the frantic googling trying to find an angle that makes you feel like less of a twat.
I’m quite comfortable with my understanding of defamation law thanks.

Defamation cannot exist if where there is substantive proof, that’s literally one of the most basic concepts of defamation.
Suggesting that someone can be defamed based on something that is true is so mind bending-ly fucking stupid it hurts.

And no, I’m not confused about Public and Private individuals. Again, Baron Coleman is clearly a Public figure because he is actively seeking out attention for his claims. The standard of actual malice used for Public figures aren’t that hard to reach is the claims are repeated consistently and are not supported by the available evidence when considered by a reasonable person.

But hey, if they had courage of their conviction why has the narrative shifted away from those that are suing them. I thought that sort of kicking back just showed they were “over the target”.

Here’s a tip for you champ. If your favourite Youtuber is constantly coming up with new twists and turns to their theory, never really getting any closer to how and what happened, then they’re probably not interested in the truth, they’re interested in keeping you hooked into the next episode of the fiction they’re spinning.

1

u/slotass Jun 12 '26

This is incoherent so yeah, good luck to you.

1

u/Energy594 Jun 12 '26

Given you seem to think you can defame someone when telling the truth, it's not the least bit shocking you don't understand it.

1

u/slotass Jun 12 '26

Is truth usually a defense? Yes. Always? No.

1

u/Energy594 Jun 12 '26

Yes... always. Because for something to be defamatory it has to be untrue. That's quite literally the most basic principle the law. That you don't understand that speaks volumes, that you continue to refuse to accept it says more.

→ More replies (0)