Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AZJonnie

(1,637 posts)
7. I agree with this logic.
Thu Sep 11, 2025, 04:49 PM
Sep 11

We have no idea what the shooter was aiming for other than (almost certainly) Charlie Kirk, and the "perfect k*** shot" may have been incidental. It's like comparing the odds of SOMEONE winning the lottery, vs a PARTICULAR someone winning the lottery. They are very different odds, and I'm surprised that someone who seems scientifically competent would be this mathematically not so. Apparently also the shot distance has been reduced to 142 yards. I would bet that striking the upper part of the human body on somebody seated and not really moving around is something probably 10's of 1000's of Americans could do at least 9 out of 10 times.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Charlie Kirks death - a m...»Reply #7