Prosecutors in Charlie Kirk ‘s killing pointed Tuesday to an engraved bullet, arguing that the inscription “Hey Facist! CATCH!” demonstrates that Kirk was targeted for how the defendant perceived his politics.

Whether defendant Tyler Robinson acted out of political animus could be key for prosecutors seeking the death penalty — or for his attorneys in taking that punishment off the table.

The prosecution and defense have filed dueling documents focused on whether the crime included aggravating factors that would make Robinson eligible for the death penalty if convicted. Those include political targeting and whether the shooting endangered thousands of others who attended Kirk’s Sept. 10 event at Utah Valley University.

Robinson is charged with crimes including aggravated murder and has not yet entered a plea. The 23-year-old defendant turned himself in a day after the shooting.

The latest batch of court documents follows a five-day preliminary hearing in July, when prosecutors presented what they said was “overwhelming” evidence against Robinson, while defense attorneys worked to sow doubt about analysts’ findings.

Judge Tony Graf said he will decide if the case should advance to trial after he hears again from both sides on Sept. 1.

In a document filed late Tuesday, prosecutors argued the engraved bullet found in the suspected murder weapon was an “overt political reference.” They also noted that Robinson allegedly wrote in a text message about Kirk: “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

Robinson’s attorneys have argued that the text message is not strong enough evidence to prove a political motivation. They did not immediately respond to a request for comment on prosecutors’ new filing.

all 88 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 72 points 2 months ago (55 children)

As opposed to his shoe size? This is nonsense. Of course it was.

  • source
  • hideshow 55 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Whether defendant Tyler Robinson acted out of political animus could be key for prosecutors seeking the death penalty — or for his attorneys in taking that punishment off the table.

    In science and law, it’s one thing for something to be apparent, and another for it to be proven. I take this to basically mean that the death penalty is now available for sentencing, and I’m sure there are a lot of people who would like to watch this man receive it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    In (US criminal) law, you need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". If no reasonable person would have a doubt that the killing is political then legally it is proven. The point of the jury is to be a representative sample of reasonable people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (50 children)

    Sadly, a lot of right wingers and anarchists are convinced that Charlie was on track to be President someday because he was chosen by the Billionaires deep state and that his assassination was an internal power struggle.

    I almost wish these morons could kill each other faster.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 50 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (44 children)
  • [+] -9 points 2 months ago (33 children)

    Basically people who think the billionaires control both parties will subscribe to the idea that they decided Kirk was no longer useful. Generally, democrats wouldn't assume Kirk was killed for any reason other than that he was Charlie Kirk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    I think there is plenty of evidence that billionaires DO control both parties. The fact we only have 2 viable parties is a problem too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Imo we have 1 viable party and 1 centuries-old antidemocratic force. DNC platform looks fucking lit: tax the rich, money out of politics, single payer medical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    DNC wants money out of politics and single payer medical? Since when?

    I dunno man, Hakeem just said no to single payer the other day. Schumer has been in office for fifty years, he hasn't done a fucking thing but lip service.

    I think you're confusing the DNC with Democrat voters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    In 1997 they introduced bills to limit campaign contributions, in 2003 they passed it, in 2007 to 2010 it went to courts and the Republican majority SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional. This is referred to as Citizens United.

    Single Payer was the original 2010 healthcare reform passed by the DNC in the house and would have had the 60 votes to bypass filibuster if not for Independent Joe Leiberman, and after about a month in session they lost the needed seats in the senate, but we still got a medicaid expansion which today over 70 Million Americans rely upon.

    Since about 2013-2015 then they have had 48 or less senators.

    Obama and Biden both increased taxes on the Rich via the 2013 tax reforms and increased audits.

    In 2018 to 2020 the DNC attempted to pass an H.R. 1 For the People Act to enact much of the necessary changes, but ended up making concessions to overcome Republican Fillibuster.

    Kamala Harris campaigned on n Unrealized Capital Gains tax for amount over $1 Million.

    They still publish a Party Platform every two years, though. https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2024-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    and none of that was enough. and it sure as fuck isn't enough now.

    we need sweeping, aggressive, anti-capitalist reforms to reclaim what's left of the government from the hands of corporatist clowns. we need wealth redistribution like hasn't happened since the New Deal.

    I appreciate you bringing facts. but those facts don't prove your argument. they prove the opposite, the Democrats were not getting it done then and still aren't getting it done now. if they understood how to actually engage in politics (ie convincing people you are aligned with their interests) then they would win more elections and get the votes needed to control the legislature.

    we need a real opposition political movement and Dems ain't it. they need to be shamed and motivated to do better, or they need to get the fuck out of the way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The current Democrat leadership opposes single payer healthcare and accepts corrupt money

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Majority/Minority Leaders aren't really "leadership" so much as the ones most likely to get bipartisan bills pushed through so as to avoid impasse.

    Hakeem Jeffries says he wouldn't introduce or support a Single Payer bill but he spent the last ten years cosponsoring such bills. I doubt he will keep his position even if he wins reelection for his seat in Congress in November.

    But hey, if you don't believe them, make them put their money where their mouths are. Give them supermajority and they'll have no choice but to improve our lives or spark a revolt.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (13 children)

    Basically people who think the billionaires control both parties

    So, everybody, right?

    Does anyone think that billionaires don't control both parties? Jesus, that scares the shit out of me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    Yeah I actually think you're a dumbass being spoonfed propaganda if you think the DNC isn't going to tax the rich if we gave them more than 48 seats for the first time in 13 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    The DNC is not going to tax the rich. Unless they get taken over by the DSA, but that still seems like a long shot

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    Rhe DNC already increased taxes on the rich under Obama with the 2013 tax plan, Biden increased audits against them, it was in Kamala Harris' campaign as an unrealized gains tax starting at $1M, and it's part of the DNC official policy platform to increase their taxes in a variety of ways: https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2024-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf

    So you can let the GOP and foreign powers push this bullshit bothsides narrative, or you can call their fucking bet and put them in a position where they actually have to follow through.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    DNC already increased taxes on the rich under Obama with the 2013 tax plan

    Deckchairs on the titanic.

    Source https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/economists-tax-rich_n_6024430

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    So we've established that the RNC has been the anti-tax party since right before Reagan and that the DNC have been responsible for any tax raises in that period. Glad I could help you see the light.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    I have never had any doubt that the republicans are worse. That's not news.

    But I also don't think the existing DNC and their policies are a solution. Multiple things need to change: the republicans need to be ousted, and the democrats need to be more progressive/socialist/whatever you want to call it. Defending the DNC doesn't help with either of those things. The DNC are unappealing to a large majority of voters (including a lot of progressives, which is a large part of why Harris didn't win).

    Ideally the US also implements a more progressive voting system, but that's not really on the cards until the other two conditions are met.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    So you yourself cited the DNC being the solution and refuse to believe it? I think we're done here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Are you intentionally misinterpreting things? Where did I say that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Idk, that earlier one seemed a lot like willful ignorance to me.. But I appreciate your generous perspective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Most people with such beliefs are not anarchists. Seems like a weird call out.

    Although it's pretty clear that billionaires do control both parties, so I'm not sure why you're acting like that isn't true. That has little to do with CK's death though.

    Overall a pretty puzzling comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

    Be careful, if you claim to be an authority among Anarchists they might shoot you for it.

    Jokes aside, anarchists aren't a monolith and well describes people who don't subscribe to either US party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    I dont think you understand what Anarchism is. Anarchism is a form of horizontal organizational socialist "government", its not the "nonpoliticals" or pop culture lawlessness

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism

    1 a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

    2 the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchy

    a state of society without government or law.

    political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.

    Synonyms:
    turmoil, disruption, lawlessness

    anarchism.

    lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I glad you can find dictionary sources, but that just kind of reinforces my opinion that you dont actually know what Anarchist theory is. Below you can follow a more in depth write up about it. While I dont have the current time to read it all in full, it will be millions of times better than the dictionary.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/

    Anarchism is a political theory that is skeptical of the justification of authority and power. Anarchism is usually grounded in moral claims about the importance of individual liberty, often conceived as freedom from domination. Anarchists also offer a positive theory of human flourishing, based upon an ideal of equality, community, and non-coercive consensus building. Anarchism has inspired practical efforts at establishing utopian communities, radical and revolutionary political agendas, and various forms of direct action.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Ah, right, because Anarchists don't believe in authority they also don't believe in dictionaries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    This kind of disingenuous response makes me take all your other comments way less seriously

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Am I supposed to respond genuinely to a disagreement with the dictionary?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Dictionary definitions are constrained and flawed (otherwise why would we have multiple dictionaries that sometimes provide conflicting definitions?)

    Trying to use a dictionary as a blunt debate instrument is a thought-terminating cliche and is avoiding actually engaging with @Bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world's argument

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

    Anarchists are pretty crazy. They even deny what the word means.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

    anarchy noun:
    1.
    a: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
    b: absence of government
    c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
    2.
    a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
    b: absence of order : disorder

    Despite that, it's pretty popular in some places for people to call themselves Anarchists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

    That's because there's anarchy and Anarchy. Think like liberal and Liberal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Liberal means a proponent for guaranteed civil rights and freedoms, so long as they don't infringe upon others, perhaps you meant to say the differencd between liberal and the Libral Party of Australia?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It can mean a member of an official Liberal party (which can go from center left to center right), someone who favours a broad education, it can mean having plenty, being permissive, or a person who wants laissez-faire policies and self-regulating markets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

    Notice it is with a large A!

    The word "anarchy" was first defined by Ancient Greek philosophy, which understood it to be a corrupted form of direct democracy, where a majority of people exclusively pursue their own interests.

    This is with a small a.
    So large and small a or A is the same meaning.

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anarchy

    anarchy
    a situation in which there is no organization and control, especially in society, because there is no effective government:

    In none of the dictionaries I have looked, is there a definition that depend on using small or capital letter.
    It would also make no sense, as you would always use capital letter in the start of a sentence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I get you. See liberal vs Liberal for an example of the capital letter confusion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    Sorry wrong place. Response was meant for LibertyLizard below.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Anarchism is a political philosophy of non government, laws with no leaders if you will, perhaps read some Graeber as a starter ?

    https://davidgraeber.org/articles/are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-maysurprise-you/

    I say this as an Anarchist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago*

    lmfao yeah okay I'll believe the author of "Bullshit Jobs" over multiple dictionaries.

    Look, if you want the dictionary updated then contact them and ask, but we already have a word for "rules with no leaders" and it's called direct democracy. Any form of rules is a form of governance which is explicitly opposed by Anarchism by definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 162 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Maybe if your entire career is to say divisive and disgusting shit you shouldn't be too surprised when someone stops your money maker for good. This is literally what Kirk fought for.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 80 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment

    -Charlie Kirk

    Say what you will about the guy, at least he put his money where his neck is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Charlie Kirk radicalised young white men, one of those young white men went down the rabbit hole and ended up as a Groyper, and then that Groyper shot Charlie Kirk in the neck.

    It couldn't be any more obvious the result of Charlie Kirks own actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The groyper thing isn't real. Is was a misidentification of a symbol on a casing. The initial articles about it have retractions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago

    While no evidence has been released to the public, the chances of a chronically online, pepe-for-halloween, right wing memelord who hates Charlie Kirk not being a Fuentes fan seems unlikely. Disrupting TPUSA's events was there whole MO for years.

    I will admit that there was misinformation going around at the time claiming he was a Republican, when in actuality he was unaffiliated and did not vote in the past 2 federal elections, but according to his Grandma "this family has no Democrats".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 54 points 2 months ago

    Maybe he should have thought about having better politics.

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Defense attorneys also have argued against a possible sentence enhancement for endangering others, saying the shooter “hit the intended target.”

    In my clients defense, he made the shot...

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    That's a wild defense strategy. I'd personally go for "how do we know his neck didn't just do that?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    true. its also why hitler was targeted.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago

    I believe in Ankh-Morpork, this would be considered a suicide.

    If you walk into a troll bar and say "rocks suck. Should smash em all" and you end up dead, that's suicide.

    You walk around screaming "I got a big sack of gold!" And you end up dead and robbed, also suicide.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Was it an engraving, or just a fascist catching a bullet?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Are we certain that he was killed by a bullet?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Ask the people who tore up the concrete he was sitting on and repaved it the next day what the words on the casings meant

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    So the whole wiring on the bullets (or actually casings is just weird).

    So majority people know (and especially someone who has and uses gun) that when you shoot, the bullet gets out and the caring stays in your gun.

    So why would a shooter write "Hey, fascist! Catch" on the casing. There's no satisfaction that the text would penetrate the victim. In fact if he got successfully away no one would ever see that message. So was he intended to be caught?

    2nd thing is that there seems to be lots of fakes of the picture, although I found one that looked like real. That bullet was never fired, so I guess they are going with what was found in his gun or ammo box, so how is that related to Kirk?

    I also find it suspicious that nearly anyone they caught somehow all had writing on their bullets of some kind. The weirdest one was the "Anti-ICE" written with a marker by a guy who entered one office and actually only killed immigrants that were held there.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    I guess when you really want to kill someone, you focus more on practicing your aim, and less on spelling.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago*

    Did he do it in cursive? Fucking practically in subscript to fit a whole sentence on the thing?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    I think I could've told everyone that without the engraving. I'm pretty sure if someone asked me, I would've said this.

    👍

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Sometimes bullets engrave themselves

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    This shit again

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Sources tell me charlie is stable

    Please god.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    obviously political and yes, other people were in danger of accidentally being shot

  • source