Tyler Robinson's Defense Team: Yes, Our Client Shot and Killed Charlie Kirk, But "The Shooter Hit the Intended Target," So No One Else Was In Danger and So the Death Penalty Should Be Off the Table

To get the death penalty, there must be an enhancement to "mere" murder. I would think that premeditated murder is enhancement enough, but in Utah, mistakenly regarded as a red state, you need to murder someone in a bad way.

Those "bad ways" of committing murder include putting additional people in danger or killing someone for a political motive.

Robinson's team concedes that he murdered Charlie Kirk -- I mean, he admitted it eleven times in texts and verbal admission to his parents.

But they say his shot was well-aimed and did not put anyone else in danger, so he should not be executed for his murder.

NBC "News:"

Lawyers for the man charged with killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk say he shouldn't be eligible for the death penalty because the shooter "hit the intended target" during the assassination last year at a Utah event attended by thousands of people.

Defendant Tyler Robinson's attorneys say prosecutors have not proven that others who attended Kirk's event at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10 were endangered by the shooting -- a potentially aggravating factor under state law that would make it a capital crime.

...

Utah law states that if a defendant "knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual" other than the victim who was killed, it can be used as an aggravating factor. But Robinson's defense team notes that the state needs to show there was a "high probability" that Robinson put the thousands of people gathered at the Turning Point USA rally where Kirk was speaking at risk for death, and not just a "possibility" of that happening.

"The state has failed to show that the actual conduct created a 'high probability' that someone other than Mr. Kirk would be killed and, thus, this theory fails as a matter of law," according to their briefing. "Where no other person was injured in a manner creating a great risk of death, and no other shots were fired, the allegation of ... (an) aggravator cannot be sustained."

Defense attorneys contend there was no one else in the "line of fire" when the fatal shot was fired. Furthermore, "the firing of a single shot at an intended victim that hit only the intended victim" is not an aggravating factor "merely because other people were in the vicinity."...

"The bullet that struck and killed Mr. Kirk was not fired in an enclosed bedroom or space but rather, an open-air arena with what the state's witnesses termed, 'a clear line of sight.' There were no threats to others in the course of conduct. There was no one 'directly' next to Mr. Kirk when he was shot, and there was no one under the tent on the side that Mr. Kirk was struck or behind him in the breezeway. Multiple shots were not fired. There were no ricocheting bullets."

They also claim there is no evidence that Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk for political reasons... despite Robinson marking his bullets with slogans indicating this was a Trans Vengeance Execution.

Now, it may occur to you that this is rather bad news for the world's stupidest narcissist Candace Owens.

But if you believe that, then you have kept admirably clean of information about Candace Owens.

This retard says the defense's admission that Robinson murdered her "best friend" Charlie Kirk hardly puts a scratch in her Grand Theory That Erika Kirk, French Intelligence, Egyptian Planes, Mormon Bee-People and of course The Jews Killed Charlie Kirk.

Candace Owens @RealCandaceO

Ugh... I've barely had my coffee and I can already tell that the "overwhelming evidence" crowd is lying about the recent case filings in the hope that no one will actually read them or understand them.

How are they not tired of running the exact same strategy and losing every time?

"Pay a bunch of influencers to make emotive claims, and hope people don't actually read through the filings"

It is exactly as they did with the ATF report and every other element of this case.

Lie quickly, repeatedly, and hope no one will take notice.

I will report on what's actually in the filings later today.

As the announcer said of one of the candidates for Twit of the Year: "He doesn't know the meaning of 'losing.' He doesn't know the meaning of 'winning,' either, he has no sensory apparatus of any kind..."

Blake Neff @BlakeSNeff

Candace is having her latest blowup because the defense's new 41-page filing in the Tyler Robinson case uses exactly none of the wild claims she's spent the last 11 months pushing. Rather than make the case that Robinson is not guilty, the filing focuses almost exclusively on trying to spare him from the death penalty.

-The filing spends only one page contesting the actual murder evidence, by arguing that Lance Twiggs's testimony was improper hearsay. ALL the rest of the filing concerns aggravating factors or secondary charges.

-The filing admits that Charlie was killed by a rifle shot from the Losee Center -- it explicitly describes the person captured on camera on the Losee rooftop as "the shooter." There is absolutely no effort to talk about exploding microphones, either directly or indirectly by contesting the idea Charlie was killed by a rifle round.

-The filing never argues that Robinson was not at UVU -- in fact, on page 22, it says "the evidence shows Mr. Robinson walking up and down stairs at UVU" and calls it a "reasonable inference" that his impaired gait was caused by a "fully-assembled rifle."

-The filing admits that Robinson was texting with Lance Twiggs, telling him "Im gonna turn myself in willingly." When Lance asks if there's any way he avoid prison, he replies "I highly doubt it."

Professional lawyers, unlike dishonest podcasters, have ethical obligations that bar them from saying things they know are untrue. So, unsurprisingly, their defense bears absolutely no resemblance to the one Candace has spent months shilling to her audience.

The "I Know You Are But What Am I" Rhetorical Gambit:

Andrew Wilson is giving this retard $300,000 to debate her stupid ideas, and yet she's spamming out reasons why she can't do it this day or at this place or with this moderator:

Have you ever watched Cavernous Nostrils trying to pronounce simple words?

It's always an adventure.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 05:41 PM

| Access Comments