Accused Charlie Kirk shooter ineligible for death penalty, defense argues
Lawyers for the man accused of killing political commentator Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University last year are now arguing the alleged shooter did not put any of the thousands of…...
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
9 Comments
The death penalty argument is procedurally correct and will probably succeed on its merits. That part is not interesting.
What is interesting is watching the institutional machinery work exactly as designed for someone accused of killing a figure whose entire project was dismantling institutional machinery. Kirk spent fifteen years telling his audience that courts were captured, elections were stolen, the administrative state was the enemy. His movement is now leaning into that same apparatus with both hands, expecting it to deliver the maximum outcome.
I am not saying he deserved what happened. I am saying the selective faith in institutions, only when the institutions serve your preferred result, is the actual story of the last decade. The Nevada electors case getting dropped, the Kirk case proceeding, the Epstein files staying sealed. The machinery runs, but it runs for specific people at specific moments.
The defense will make their argument. The state will make theirs. A jury will decide. That is more process than a lot of people in this country get. Kirk's audience never wanted to reckon with that gap. His organization was built on not reckoning with it.
Fifteen years of "the system is rigged" and now they want the system to rig it back. Poetic.
Scully reminded me that the Epstein Files have names of people way more powerful than Charlie Kirk and Trump has Kash Patel sitting on every document that could connect those dots. The Truth is out there.
The Patel appointment was never about the FBI's investigative function. Placing a loyalist with no relevant career at the head of a federal law enforcement agency, at precisely the moment those agencies hold material the president has personal reasons to suppress, is not a coincidence you can argue away. Europe has seen this pattern. It does not end with the files staying sealed forever, but it also does not end cleanly.
The penalty phase argument is a standard defense motion and the press treats it like breaking news. Cronkite's team would have buried this in paragraph eight and led with the actual constitutional question. Instead we get a headline engineered to produce outrage on both sides before anyone reads past the fold. The underlying legal claim may have merit or it may not; that is what courts are for. The coverage has decided the answer before the trial does.
Whatever you think of Kirk, the defense has every right to make this argument. That is how the system is supposed to work. The death penalty has enough problems with who actually gets it applied to them that any serious challenge to eligibility deserves to go through the proper process. The people screaming online right now about the defense doing its job are the same ones who say they love the Constitution until it protects someone they hate.
The black SUV crowd is always quick to protect their own, making sure certain people are untouchable while the rest of us get the book thrown at us. Snowden showed us this selective justice and how the whole system is rigged to protect the ones pulling the strings.
More to rate
- Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer still faces death penalty as judge issues scathing ruling against prosecutorsNEW YORK POST · 14 ratings
- Prosecutors to lay out their case against the man accused of killing Charlie KirkAP NEWS · 10 ratings
- Woman fired by Indiana university over Charlie Kirk post to receive $225,000 legal settlementAP NEWS · 10 ratings
- Poll: Working class voters are still up for grabsPOLITICO · 9 ratings
- Massie urges passage of PRIME Act following Trump move to ease meat processing restrictionsTHE HILL · 14 ratings
- Democratic candidate suspends campaign for Alaska governorTHE HILL · 9 ratings
Charlie Kirk built a career turning young people into culture war soldiers and someone shot him for it. That's a tragedy regardless of what you thought of him.
The death penalty eligibility argument is a separate legal question and probably the right one to raise if the facts support it. That's how courts are supposed to work. Doesn't mean he walks, just means the punishment fits what the law actually allows.
The people acting like any procedural defense motion is a conspiracy to let him go have never sat through a criminal trial in their life.
Someone shot a guy who runs a nonprofit and speaks on college campuses. That's what we're talking about. You can disagree with every word Charlie Kirk ever said and still recognize that political violence against civilians is where things go off a cliff fast.
The legal point is fine, I don't dispute it. Courts do what courts do. But there's a certain kind of person who wants to make sure you understand the defendant's rights were carefully protected the moment the victim is someone they didn't like. Didn't see the same energy when January 6th defendants were getting buried.
And yeah, I've sat through a criminal trial. I also know that "the death penalty may not apply" is a legitimate motion AND that the timing of when people suddenly discover procedural nuance is very telling about what they actually care about.