CO shooter turns out to be LGBTQ+.....

"Non-binary". AKA- Confused about your gender.... because some jackass told you that your emotions and imagination, rather than your physical biological components determine your gender. Like if you change your mind, it changes your sex. Anyone confused enough to buy crap that DOES have a significantly compromised mental condition.

 

So a mass shooter at a Colorado gay club claims to be non-binary with a history of attacking his own support group, his mother, and now these gay bar patrons, but YOU say he's lying.
So what information do you have to prove this or are you just pulling that statement out of the air because you want the shooter to be some crazed conservative?

 

There is no evidence that he is non-binary. Just a self-serving claim he made after being arrested.

If you can find a single social media post of his from before the shooting that gives any indication he is non-binary, ill say I was wrong for calling the murderer a liar.

 

Deflection
He claims to be non binary
You claim he's lying
I asked you to provide information that shows he's lying.
You can't

 

well that proves it! all lib'rul transgenders lie. , so this guy must be one of them.

i'm tending toward the insanity defense but if "they" is "nonbinary" somebody must know it.

 

yea, if he turns out to actually be non-binary, there should be plenty of historical evidence to support the claim.

It will probably be something his defense will have to prove in court, if they bring hate crime charges.

 

i think he is, but there have been "nonbinary" killers, i'm sure, or maybe this is the first one.

 

The recent shooting in Ulvalde also included this as a sub contextual theme of the attack. So, the question for progressive folks is, if their propaganda pushing these narratives is creating these little time bombs, and the likelihood that they will continue now.

 

yet, here I am continuing to claim that he's lying and that anyone who truly doesn't see that is so gullible i don't understand how they can function in the world.

 

Those charges have already been charged. Again, you suggested this couldn't possibly be the case. You assured us you had insight and preternatural knowledge etc... And now this?

 

the uvalde shooter as tranny was a proven hoax.

 

You were asked to produce the evidence of this charge, which you have continued to not support. The filing was done by the public defender. Take your specious assertion to their office. Explain to them that you just "know" that they are lying.. see how far that gets you.

 

The defense attorney isn’t lying.

 

Those damned non-binary MAGA Republicans!

 

Interesting perspective. So accounts, that aren't verified simply asserted that the pictures of the shooter in cheerleading togs was them and not the shooter is "proven hoax"? That seems pretty convenient. Are you going to be willing to accept that kind of evidence for future controversies? Just asking.

 

You have no evidence of your claim and you can't provide any evidence of your claim but everyone else is gullible for not taking your word for it and you can't understand how they can function in the world without believing everything you say?
Just wow
Thats the most self explaining post I have ever seen on PF to date.

 

I'm not expecting anyone to take my word for it.

It should be a very simple conclusion your own brain does for you.

 

The public defender submitted these as fact based pleadings to the court. The shooter didn't. So explain the contradiction in your own posting. You suggest you know, for a fact, that the shooter is "lying" absent any evidence. And the only evidence so far provided was the court submission which as the penalty of perjury associated to the filing. So, who is at fault then? Since the shooter isn't in the position to actually submit the filing, the only option for manipulation is the PD. So, if the PD isn't lying, and these have been presented to the court, you are going to have a really hard time trying to convince anyone of their disingenuousness....

 

Nah... no "jedi mind tricks" here today. You assert, you should be able to document with credible evidence. Are you trying to tell us that LGBTQ+ folks cannot be violent, hence the "simple conclusion" that we all should be able to make? Laughable.

 

I highly doubt this is a hate crime if this is the case. It’s like charging a black that murdered a black for a hate crime because he called him a ***** while shooting at him. They’re part of the same group of people. Hence the T or + in LGBTQ+

 

Hmmmm, Really?

Hilarious

Says the guy who can't even remember what he posted 5 minutes ago[/QUOTE]

 

Was something in there supposed to be an example of me expecting people to just take my word for it?

 

Partially why a "hate crime" is such a ridiculous legal position. Sounds like in your example there was a considerable amount of "hate" there... Codified victimhood does seem to be the blanket that progressives feel they can reserve for themselves though.

 

Yes, it's a fact that the client said he is non-binary.

This shouldn't be so hard to get.

 

Not that you would obviously understand