It is now proven almost beyond the shadow of a doubt that Charlie Kirk was not wearing any body armor. The attending sheriff, Erika Kirk, dozens of photographs showing the outline of his pectoral muscles and nipples, and front row witness statements all concur that he was just wearing a t-shirt.
The idea that he was wearing body armor was based on a few frames of Charlie's t-shirt jerking up, and a good faith attempt to make the FBI story make sense. But the most credible proponent of that theory, Paramount Tactical, admitted (before statements from Erika Kirk etc) that there was already a "90% chance Charlie wasn't wearing body armor."
For their part, Turning Point USA's version of the story, and the FBI's, do not mention body armor at all. The official version of the story is that the bullet didn't exit and was trapped under the skin of Charlie's back.
So what are we left with? The officially blamed weapon is a Mauser 98 firing a 30-06 round over less than 200 yards. A typical 30-06 round has a muzzle energy of 2,500-3,000 ft-lbs. That's enough to shoot through solid buckets of ice, cow bones, steel plate, and bear skulls. Conclusion: there is no way that a 30-06 round shot Charlie in the neck and did not exit.
The official story is provably false. So what really happened?
edit: Paramount also threw cold water on the idea of a frangible 30-06 round.
So you're assuming it happened the way you were told it happened, even though the evidence suggests otherwise?
Yeah what evidence? Kirk is dead from a gunshot wound, somebody looking like the claimed shooter was on the roof with a gun.
What's the contrary evidence to that? He "couldn't" have shot Kirk because "reasons"? Ok well prove it couldn't have happened that way. Go ahead.
Then make it make sense. There is obviously video of the guy on the roof. Maybe they could show us - I don't know - the eight seconds before and after which would definitely show him taking the shot or stashing the gun? But they won't, probably because it didn't happen that way they say it happened. Until they release that, it would be stupid to assume this is anything but a professional hit.
lol what, if you don't have the evidence you shouldn't assume anything not the most convoluted explanation you can possibly imagine.
But regardless, I asked you what evidence and your evidence is a lack of evidence. Okay...
Nice try but that's not how this works. The evidence is the rifle, the round, the "lack" of exit wound, the suspicious video and text messages, the old Jewish guy yelling that he was the killer after the shot was fired. After 9/11 and Vegas, I am going to assume a lot, because history has shown what these people will do to cover up their crimes. I don't believe some angsty gay guy from UVU did this.
Then make it make sense. There is obviously video of the guy on the roof. Maybe they could show us - I don't know - the eight seconds before and after which would definitely show him taking the shot or stashing the gun? But they won't, probably because it didn't happen that way they say it happened. Until they release that, it would be stupid to assume this is anything but a professional hit.