August 14, 2026
"The shooter did not miss his intended target and did not chamber another round, leaving the spent cartridge in the rifle."
Wrote the lawyers for Tyler Robinson, quoted in "Charlie Kirk Suspect Fights Death Penalty, Says No Others Were in Danger/Prosecutors say they can seek the death penalty against Tyler Robinson because he also endangered people near Charlie Kirk, who was shot in the throat last year. Mr. Robinson’s lawyers note that the gunman struck only his target" (NYT gift link).
Posts
63 comments:
A cartridge is the bullet, casing, primer, and powder. A “spent cartridge” is a casing.
Fucking lawyers
What’s that you say, Tyler Robinson, Joltin Joe has left and gone away
So it's not murder if you murder only the person you intended to murder -- if you're a leftist, that is.
One-target jurisprudence 😆
I suppose when your client very obviously planned and executed an ideological murder, his best defense is, "Well, he didn't ever intend to hurt anyone else besides the man he murdered in cold blood for an ideology."
So no death penalty in only one person is murdered in cold blood?
Does it help that the victim was a conservative? IOW, no death penalty if the victim is a conservative. Double death penalty if the victim is a liberal?
OK, but that round enderdangered others because a 30 06 could have gone through Kirk and a hit other people. Its just a fluke that it remained in his body. not to mention he could have missed and killed someone else like Trump's assassian did.
Luigi and Tyler should represent themselves. Judges hate pro se defendants. They will make the prosecutors cut a deal.
People who commit 1st degree premeditated homicide should be executed. Stop with all the nuance. I've never understood how a society can drop bombs on school girls and kill 168 of them, and never bat an eye. But can't execute killers. Crazy.
What’s with these pussies Tyler & Luigi?
Do the Gary Gilmore
For some weird reason you can always find Utah's laws and culture at the intersection of "holy crap!" and "what the hell!?!"
It would be quite the legal precedent to hold that he didn't endanger anyone else because he didn't shoot anyone else. That because he hit his target, nobody near his target had anything to worry about.
RC, the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. You really should grow up.
In The Deer Hunter (1978), Robert De Niro's character, Michael Vronsky, tells his friend Nick (Christopher Walken) during a hunting trip: "You have to think about one shot. One shot is what it's all about. A deer's gotta be taken with one shot."
The "One Shot" Theme
Michael values precision and respect for the animal.He believes using more than one shot ruins the sport and skill of hunting.This hunting philosophy later contrasts sharply with the horror of Russian roulette during the Vietnam War, where "one shot" takes on a deadly, tragic meaning.
Gives a new meaning and life to bag limits.
The Deer Hunter would have been a great movie if De Niro shot the deer at the end.
This was a planned assassination with a scoped bolt-action hunting rifle. A rifle like this has substantial recoil, and it takes time to cycle the bolt to eject/load the second round. The scope blacks out with movement and tends to require slow re-aiming too. As such, the first shot must count and there's a high probability that a second or third target would move or duck before a second shot could be executed.
Consider the historical treatment of military snipers during wartime -- same weapons, same tactics. They have often been killed upon capture, despite official rules and policies.
But, but, but, he did it all for his Furry Friend.
Groucho Marx purportedly once said about something, "That's the silliest thing I ever hoid."
About this, he was right.
Perhaps contrarian view to others here. My understanding of Texas death penalty law is the predicate that is intended to be used to deter those who have killed or likely to kill multiple people to achieve whatever they are accomplishing. It used to be that you killed multiple people (2 crimes), then changed to killed someone in the commission of another crime (the killing somewhat secondary to the other crime, so wanton disregard for life), then later added stuff like murder of infants (even a defenseless child doesn't bother the killer) and first responders (if you would kill a fireman or officer in the line of duty, who wouldn't you kill?). With that frame of understanding; I actually understand the argument being made by the defense and would be partial to it as a juror.
However, in Texas, you can pursue a Capital Murder charge, and if found guilty, the decision to punish by the death penalty is argued in the punishment phase. So, the trial could still be about the murder of Charlie Kirk, the jury finds the defendant guilty, and then perhaps the jury decides to give a lesser sentence as punishment.
I would also be partial that the killer brought with him more than one round, which suggests he was prepared to fire again if he missed his mark. He wasn't just sending a message with one round that he didn't care did or didn't hit the mark. He wasn't expecting like in Butler that he might get only one shot before counter fire took him out. And his own comments after the shot suggests that since the old man in the crowd claimed to be the shooter, the killer had been offered a chance to get away, which he took rather than fire another round.
The deer hunter would have been a great movie if they didn't film The hunting segments in the Rocky mountains
I’m an attorney with about 23 years under my belt.
On the one hand, I do get a little choked up and inspired when I watch the old black and white movie version of To Kill a Mockingbird and the court room address. So I do recognize a vigorous defense.
On the other hand, I think it’s way too easy to advance stupid arguments and keep your law license.
The perp perceived a "burden". He Planned. He entertained.
Social justice was achieved. The ☠.
sounds like he has a very lame defense
I wouldn't blame the defense lawyers. As tim maguire noted, this is due to the weird Utah death penalty enhancement that requires threatening or targeting more than one individual.
Also, I think this is all about avoiding the death penalty, I believe he's already plead guilty to murdering Kirk.
ah - the poor baby leftist wants to keep his life. Fuck. HIM.
and fuck the Canned Ass/ Truq'r corrupt right and left for blaming Israel.
You are all idiots and liars.
This loser etched his bullets with cookie cutter leftist phrases. "Hey Fascist, catch."
and the corrupt left skip on by.
I think he should be shot with the the very riffle and bullet he etched.
The leftwing coward should want to face the death penalty.
But he is a leftist coward.
Charlie Kirk:
Islam: Incompatible With the West, Incompatible With Civilization?
Wow - i bet that really angered the joooooos.
He doesn't deserve the death penalty because he's a good shot? Seriously?
Good. We promise to execute him just once.
O Mike - Exactly.
Sounds like a confession... Get the firing squad ready...
@Original Mike, +1
Yerhanner, my client faithfully conducted the murder in full compliance with all applicable safety practices concerning minimization of risk to other parties which were not on his hit list.
It is indicative of the decline of the American legal system that this argument may determine whether a political assassination is a capital offense.
Oh because Tyler Robinson was a good shot, he shouldn't get the death penalty? What kind of argument is that?
Well, so much for the theory that this guy wasn't the shooter. Remember, that was the left's talking point for a while.
Murder different from assassination?
I think that the Trump assassination attempt in Butler demonstrates that bystanders are in danger when someone shoots a high powered rifle at someone from a long distance. No marksman can truthfully claim that they never miss. (Plus the Magic Bullet Theory, from the Kennedy assassination suggested that a single bullet could actually strike multiple people.)
So now we get to kill one person, just so long as we aren't killing or trying to kill anyone else? Good to know. Does this give hope to Luigi Mangione who didn't waste any shots? And who do you choose to kill with your own get out of jail free card?
No anti-Christian hate crime enhancement? How unsurprising.
MAGA parents raised the assassin in MAGA country and did a great job developing his skills as a marksman.
Maybe MAGA culture failed him in his moral training though.
Baby, do you understand me now?
Sometimes I feel a little mad
But don't you know that no one alive
Can always be an angel?
When things go wrong I seem to be bad
But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
Baby, sometimes I'm so carefree,
With a joy that's hard to hide
And sometimes, it seems that all I have do is worry
And then you're bound to see my other side
If I seem edgy, I want you to know,
That I never mean to take it out on you
Life has its problems, and I get my share,
And that's one thing I'd never mean to do
'Cause I love you
Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood -- The Animals
If anyone would like to know Utah's law on aggravated murder, which is a capital offense, they're here.
FortheloveofIce said...
MAGA parents raised the assassin in MAGA country and did a great job developing his skills as a marksman.
Maybe MAGA culture failed him in his moral training though.
So what you're saying is that it's the individual with agency that is responsible and not the gun.
We're making progress.
Rustygrommet said...So what you're saying is that it's the individual with agency that is responsible and not the gun.
Thank you for pointing that out!
Yes. my beliefs are nuanced, and unlike MAGAts', isn't determined by marching orders from a single entity. In your case, a demented, corrupt pedophile.
So people who are in favor of Tyler Robinson facing the death penalty for assassinating Charlie Kirk in cold blood and then fleeing the scene, are controlled by marching orders from "a single entity." And people who think that there is anything about what Robinson has admitted to doing which justifies that cold-blooded killing are "nuanced."
Got it.
You aren't by any chance a highly rated commenter on NYT articles, are you?
Planned Perphood (PP) in Utah.
Utah Code of Criminal Procedure - Judgment of death -- Method is lethal injection -- Exceptions for use of firing squad.
No scalpels. Go figure.
Why aren't his lawyers calling in Candace Owens as an expert witness?
"But mUh lived-in deadly buT MOSTLY PEACEFUL(TM) murder only killed 1 person!" is quite the defence...
Apparently his attorney went to the Robert Cookie/Forloveofice sockpuppet Learing School for Legalistic Lawyerisming.
Though I don't know all the details of Utah's law, this actually isn't unusual.
In Washington state (before Jay Inslee decided - all by himself - to suspend the death penalty) the perp had to commit aggravated first-degree murder in order to face the death penalty. That is, murder in conjunction with a felony crime.
That seems to be similar to what's going on here.
OK, I buy the "one shot" argument. Execute the murderer only once.
Yes, he was raised by a good home with good parents in a good community. Then he ran into Democrats and became one and then decided to kill people because he was a Democrat preaching the doctrines that "ForTheLoveOfIce" is preaching.
Republicans think of guns for hunting and self defense, because that's what Republicans use guns for. Democrats think of guns for murder and assassinations, because that's what Democrats use guns for.
"With that frame of understanding; I actually understand the argument being made by the defense and would be partial to it as a juror."
Oh, I understood the argument being made (in a vacuum, I'm less likely to be partial to it as a juror, but if the law in Utah is as others have stated, then my personal feelings wouldn't matter). I was actually commenting about the challenge his defense faces: this - he hit his target and only his target - is the best they've got.
I wasn’t challenging any particular point of view. I just think it’s an argument and a reasonable one for the defense. And indeed, if Utah law gives more leeway, then it may be the best defense argument. Honestly, I don’t expect this kid to do well in any prison, and don’t care. He will never grasp the harm he did nor be able to make amends for it.
One shot, that's all. Grant him a human rite. Sequester his carbon. Facilitate his second transition. Rest In Pieces. #HateLovesAbortion
Planned parenthood is the analogous human rite performed to mitigate the recidivism of a baby deemed a "burden". There are liberal precedents in progressive sects for capital punishment doled out for far less consequential causes and without due process. Send him to PP. Let him choose his scalpel and vacuum. Abort him is a humane Choice.
This standard for the death penalty (requiring aggravated murder) is, I'm told, forced on Utah and every other state via a Supreme Court case that required aggravating circumstances and not just a simple murder before the death penalty can be used. So it's not just Utah's "weird law" it's a Supreme Court requirement.
"Republicans think of guns for hunting and self defense, because that's what Republicans use guns for. Democrats think of guns for murder and assassinations, because that's what Democrats use guns for."
It sure seems that way, doesn't it?
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.