TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker, a retired Green Beret and sniper, believes the shooting of President Trump was a planned attack due to security measures in place. He questions how a 20-year-old could access the president and take shots without help from insiders. He offers to protect the president for free.

The notion that the shooter is a hero for targeting a healthcare executive due to perceived injustices in the healthcare system is misguided. While there are valid criticisms of the system, resorting to violence is not the solution. It's essential to engage in constructive dialogue and advocate for change through argumentation rather than through harmful actions. The motives behind such actions do not reflect heroism; instead, they highlight a failure to address issues through peaceful means.

“While I didn't agree with his ideas, shooting someone that we disagree with, even if they're vociferous and loud and out there, is so colossally wrong headed.” “you won't find me shedding any tears.” “We cannot think or talk that way.” “That is not okay.” I lost my brother through gun violence. “There's no winning. We'll never win this way. There's no idea that if we cheer on our opponents being hurt or harmed in any way, that we win as a society. And we all lose.” This is a tragedy that not only the person who is killed experiences, but the entire family and community around that person. “Where do we go when violence is the only solution? … the final solution.” “People are walking around with weapons of war. This is a weapon of war.” “I don't know what killed him.” “But more often than not, we're seeing people killed with weapons of war … It was a sniper rifle.” “That's what these weapons are for.” “If that's why he was murdered. I'm assuming that's what it was. We don't know.”

Pro gun advocate Charlie Kirk just got shot in the neck at his debate rally. The speaker laments political violence: “I try to avoid American politics... but I've opened X to a bunch of little bitches crying and whinging about how political violence is never the answer.” They claim, “These people are gunning for politics that are inherently violent to its people, to to marginalize people, to people who need access to health care.” The message: this is “the same across the West”—“This isn't just The US. This is England too.” The speaker adds, “I'm sick of this idea that you can't meet violence with violence. If somebody was smacking you... you're going to hit them back. You have to.” They conclude, “These people do not care if you live or die... They want you to die.” “Why is anyone anyone condemning that fucking kill them all kill them all”

Speaker 0 asks why the president hasn't acknowledged the shooting at CDC headquarters that took place earlier in August where a police officer was killed, and it was reported that the motivation for the shooting was somebody who was really unhappy with the effects of the COVID vaccine. Speaker 1 responds: "We absolutely were very much aware of that shooting. The secretary of health and human services put out a statement immediately. He was in touch with the CDC, and he actually traveled to Georgia, to assess the situation and to mourn, with the the people who work in that building there. So"

The speaker argues that the Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege, but with restrictions that include having an ID and a permit on hand. He notes that current reports claim Alex Pretty did not have either on, implying he was not carrying legally. Beyond legality, the speaker emphasizes a responsibility to carry a firearm with foresight and understanding of the situation, recommending that someone who carries take a training class for their state, and even suggesting taxpayers fund it if possible because it’s a right. Regarding the shooting incident, the speaker states that only one person could have absolutely prevented Alex Pretty from being shot that day: Alex Pretty himself. He asserts he does not think the shooting was necessary to save a life, but he watched the incident from behind Pretty and not as an arresting officer or as the person who might have fired. He questions why Pretty had 10 rounds, arguing that if someone is shot, the shooter should have aimed to kill because they are trying to kill you; he attributes this to police training and the reasonableness doctrine. The speaker references the Supreme Court’s reasonableness doctrine, explaining that a police officer may protect themselves when someone has resisted arrest, disobeyed orders, and shown the means to harm. He concedes Pretty should not have been shot, noting there were ten minutes prior to the event with alternative actions that could have been taken, but he did not see those ten minutes. He describes Pretty as a protester versus an agitator, noting Pretty arrived with a cell phone and stood in the middle of a street during an operation, which the speaker labels as common sense. He asserts that carrying a weapon and entering the middle of a police operation is lawful, but suggests another prevention: a police cordon by the Minneapolis Police Department to prevent people like Pretty from entering the middle of the operation, instead of standing 100 feet away with a sign. The speaker acknowledges potential liability for any federal agent who acted prematurely or shot when they shouldn’t have, but reiterates that Pretty had no business where he was at that moment and did resist arrest. He states that in Minnesota, a carry permit is revoked at the moment of resisting arrest. Finally, the speaker blames politicians for letting the event happen, naming Donald Trump and Tim Walz as figures discussed. He calls for Border Patrol agents to secure the border and for the Minneapolis Police Department to be present to manage crowds. He mentions Jose Huerta Chuma, describing a violent rap sheet including domestic assault, and argues that sympathy for someone who is willing to risk the safety of others should diminish. He emphasizes a desire for no one to get hurt and urges people to use common sense, especially when carrying a weapon.

Why are we cheering for someone getting shot? He's dead. Like, no matter what political beliefs are, should not be cheering that someone got shot. He has a family. We do. We I value everyone's beliefs, but we should not be cheering as a class that someone got shot. He has a family. Yes. And who shot them? A transgender person. Oh. Oh. Oh. So that's what it is. Yes. Five males. It doesn't matter. You should not be cheering that someone got shot. Yes. You should not be cheering that someone got shot. Yeah. He's still, like, attacking you guys don't care what other people got.

"Talk to me about the environment in which a shooting like this happens." "we don't know any of full details of this. We don't know if this was the supporter shooting their gun off in celebration or so. We have no idea about this." "He's been one of the most divisive, especially divisive, figures in this who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups." "I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions." "And I think that's the environment we're in, that people just you can't stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place." "And that's the unfortunate environment we're in."

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about expressing "joy" over a CEO's death and posting an image of another CEO. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of condoning assassination. Speaker 1 denies celebrating the death itself, but expresses joy that the "brutality of our healthcare system was finally being acknowledged." Speaker 1 claims 70,000 Americans die yearly due to lack of health insurance, calling the healthcare system "murderous" and "violent." Speaker 1 says they were describing the mentality of supporters, not their own beliefs. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who praise assassination. Speaker 1 refuses to condemn those who praise the CEO, stating they don't "believe in things like souls." Speaker 1 says they specialize in extremism and want to understand ideologies, even those of violent extremists. Speaker 1 condemns the violence of the healthcare system. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 condemns people that call for assassination. Speaker 1 wants Speaker 0 to acknowledge that half of bankruptcies are due to healthcare costs. Speaker 0 states anyone who wants to assassinate any innocent person is wrong. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who want to be involved in assassination.

The speaker believes the focus should be on mental health, not guns, stating that most gun owners are good people. They argue that the issue is a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem. They believe people should be able to defend their homes and property, and that disarming law-abiding citizens won't make the world better, especially considering the vast number of guns in circulation. The speaker questions the logic of giving up guns, stating a desire to stay alive and be capable of defending themselves against bad people. They want to be the one making the decision in a confrontation and to be trained in firearms.

"A human being with a soul, a free man, has a right to say what he believes, not to hurt other people, but to express his views." "that thinking that she just articulated on camera there is exactly what got us to a place where some huge and horrifying percentage of young people think it's okay to shoot people you disagree with, to kill Nazis for saying things they don't like." "Well, there's free speech which of course we all acknowledge is important so so important." "But then there's this thing called hate speech." "Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way." "They define it as speech that hurts people, speech that is tantamount to violence." "And we punish violence, don't we? Of course, we do."

Speaker 0 argues that “they are not here to cause safety in this city” and that “what they are doing is not to provide safety in America.” They claim those actions are “causing chaos and distrust,” and that such actions are “ripping families apart,” and “sowing chaos on our streets,” adding that in this case they are “quite literally killing people.” The speaker contends that the opposing side has already begun to frame the incident as an action of self-defense, and, after having seen the video themselves, states directly that this portrayal is “bullshit.” They insist that the situation does not reflect self-defense but rather that “this was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying, getting killed.”

"As a nurse, I am disgusted by the amount of health care professionals that I see making light of mocking and justifying yesterday's tragedy." "As a medical professional, I treat everyone, every with the most respect regardless of your beliefs, regardless of your background. You are a human life first and that is how I treat all of my patients and that is how we should treat everyone." "It is appalling. It is an outrage." "I am disgusted and I just cannot believe that we are here now in this state, in this country, that we are justifying hate crimes on people because of their beliefs." "But the fact that I see medical professionals making fun of and justifying an innocent man being taken out in front of thousands of people watching livestream of the event in front of his children and his wife is unforgivable and disgusting."

Speaker 0: He delivered a speech at Riverside Church on 04/04/1967, a year to the date before he was assassinated. And that was a powerful anti war speech that he delivered. Speaker 1: What would you say was the significance of that particular speech? Speaker 0: The real significance was that it put him, his footprints heavily into the anti war movement for the first time. And he termed The United States the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. And so he was rising as a severe principal critic of the government in that speech. Another negative significance is that he was attacked from all sides. He was called a traitor by mainstream media. Millions of dollars were withdrawn from his organization, Southern Christian Leadership Conference. So he lost a great deal by taking that position. All of that is significant. Speaker 1: What do think was the primary motivation behind the killing? Speaker 0: I think assassinations, political assassinations are a last resort, as a rule. But I think in terms of The United States from what I've observed and throughout its history, and there have been assassinations other than those in the sixties, remember, I think it's a last resort. I think if they can, if a person is troublesome to them and potentially can develop a following, I think they have to stop him. Now they can do that by rendering him unemployable, by having him set up in some kind of a scandal or sexual activity that destroys his credit or her credibility. They can buy him off by giving him a job or position. There are a variety of techniques by blacking them out in terms of the media. And so if they can't control any other way, and the person is that critical in terms of potentially mobilizing people, that's when political assassinations take place. Assassination is the last resort. Martin King was assassinated not only because he was bringing enormous thought to the whole Vietnam War effort opposing it and the corporate militarists of the society, the weapons providers, energy providers, all of that were going to lose huge fortunes of money if that war ended. So it was not only that but it was the fact that he was going to bring half a million people to Washington in the Poor People's March. And the military believed that they would see their mission as a failure because they would go to the congress, try to get them to change the the priorities for public funding from from the military, take some money from the military, and bring it into social services programs, and they wouldn't be successful. And that would that would radicalize the group to such a point where they might have a revolution on the streets of Washington with masses they couldn't control. They didn't have the troops. Westmoreland wanted 200,000 more in Vietnam. They didn't have those. They certainly didn't have the troops to put down that kind of revolution on the streets. So they had to kill King, make sure he didn't bring that kind of dynamic into Washington.

The speaker urges stopping the use of the word "assassination," arguing that from a death investigator’s/forensics perspective, this is a murder investigation and a homicide. They state, "You politicize it when you say assassination."

I'm all alone, you said. Why celebrate the execution of another human? Aren't you supposed to value life? I believe in the sanctity of life, but many Americans felt a sense of justice because of the harm caused by this individual. Joy in a man's execution? Not joy, but certainly not empathy. This man was responsible for the deaths of many innocent Americans due to healthcare policies. Should all health care executives be killed? No, that wouldn’t solve anything. You seem to find this hilarious. I find your question absurd. I don't find it funny that thousands die from lack of care. This incident has drawn attention to the healthcare crisis. You view the execution as joyful? Joyful is the wrong word; it feels like justice when someone responsible for so many deaths faces consequences. It's shocking that anyone could feel joy over a murder, regardless of the person's role.

The speaker addresses a video from a person in nursing who asks if insurance or the government should pay for the care of those who contract vaccine-preventable diseases if they chose not to vaccinate, and about liability if they infect others. The speaker claims the person in the video is unhealthy and pushing unhealthy products and vaccines, so is in pharmaceutical sales, not healthcare. The speaker hopes they will research vaccines and learn that there are more vaccine-injured than not. The speaker asks if obese people, smokers or alcoholics should be refused healthcare, and says they don't want to live in a society where people decide who lives and dies based on health choices, as they claim happened during the pandemic. The speaker hopes the person in the video will absorb information on the internet and that being called out will wake them up.

Speaker claims, "Brother Charlie got murdered, assassinated a few days ago, but the truth is he was assassinated a few years ago." They argue that electing people who demonize their political opponents leads to violence, adding, "So you might have pulled the trigger yourself." The speaker asks, "Who demonize political opponents? Who call political opponents enemies, Hitler, a threat to democracy, who say because we disagree, if you see someone, walk up to them and if they're eating in a restaurant, tell them they're not welcome, get in their face." They warn, "When you start saying stuff like that, calling your political opponents Nazis, fascists, stuff like that. Well, sooner or later, a kook is gonna hear that. A crazy person is going to hear that, and they're going to act on it."

The speaker was asked about a statement where they said they carried weapons in war despite never deploying to a war zone. The speaker responded that they are proud of their 24 years of service and their record speaks for itself. They speak candidly and passionately, especially about children being shot in schools. When asked if they misspoke about being in war, the speaker said the conversation was about carrying weapons of war after a school shooting, and their grammar isn't always correct. The speaker stated they will never demean another member's service.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who call for assassination. Speaker 1 responds that they condemn the violence of the system and wants Speaker 0 to acknowledge that. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 condemns people that call for assassination, and Speaker 1 says they would love for Speaker 0 to acknowledge what they're actually saying. Speaker 1 states that 70% of Americans believe that insurance company practices are responsible in part for Thompson's death. Speaker 0 says anyone who wants to assassinate anyone is wrong. Speaker 1 says that to prevent further deaths and gun violence, one needs to understand motives and ideology. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who want to be involved in assassination. Speaker 1 says they are describing his supporters who do believe that, and it's important to understand the ideology of anyone that would advocate for violence. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 condemns his supporters. Speaker 1 says they believe in free speech. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 condemns those that support violence. Speaker 1 says people are exercising their right to free speech and talking about the fact that over 320,000 people died from lack of health insurance in the first two years of the pandemic alone. Speaker 1 says we have a violent health care system that needs reform.

The speaker was asked what they would say to those who think a shooter is a hero because he killed a healthcare executive who he believed was presiding over a system that kills thousands of Americans by denying them coverage. The speaker responded that they don't know what to say, but that one should try to make an argument and convince people to change the system that way, as violence is not the answer. The speaker stated that they don't think there is anything heroic about the shooter's motives.

A health insurance CEO was murdered, sparking a surprising reaction among younger people, with 41% expressing support. This reflects a deep-seated anger towards insurance companies, which many believe contribute to America's chronic disease crisis by prioritizing profits over patient care. The discussion highlights the profit-driven nature of health insurance, particularly through pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which inflate drug prices and create barriers to necessary care. The system favors medication over preventative measures, leading to widespread chronic illness. Advocates emphasize the need for a shift towards proactive healthcare that focuses on prevention and transparency, rather than a reliance on prescription drugs. The conversation underscores the urgent need for reform in the healthcare system to prioritize patient well-being over corporate profits.

Speaker 0 begins by saying he’ll give you some credit, then asks: 'Do you mind do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last ten years? Counting or not counting gang violence.' The brief exchange ends with 'Great.'