Tyler Robinson was a Stevie Wonder marksman in practice shots, thus bystanders at risk says prosecutors

Fox News correspondent Matt Finn reported on the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson in Provo, Utah, where prosecutors prepared to unleash what they described as overwhelming evidence in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. 

The evidence reportedly included video testimony from Robinson's former roommate and text message confessions, because apparently this case decided to skip the subtlety phase entirely. 

Retired FBI supervisory agent James Gagliano also weighed in as the Kirk family demanded transparency, with cameras now permitted inside the courtroom. And prosecutors offered another fascinating detail about Robinson's alleged marksmanship. According to Utah prosecutors, Robinson "seldom hit the bullseye and sometimes missed the target completely" while practicing with the suspected murder weapon.Which, prosecutors argued, was rather important when your alleged plan involved climbing onto a rooftop and firing at a man surrounded by thousands of people.

The state attempted to establish that Robinson knowingly created a substantial risk of killing someone other than Kirk when he allegedly fired from a rooftop toward the crowd. Kirk was taking questions from the audience at a small stage in the campus courtyard when he was struck in the neck. 

Robinson's defense previously argued that the fatal shot came from above the crowd and did not travel through it. The defense noted that only one shot was fired, it struck the intended victim, and no bystanders were hit. 

The prosecution's response, essentially, was that "Nobody else got shot" is not exactly the strongest argument when you are allegedly firing a rifle toward thousands of people. 

An image of shooting targets was displayed during the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, who is accused in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, at the Fourth District Courthouse in Provo, Utah, Thursday, July 9, 2026. (AP Photo/Spenser Heaps, Pool)

Prosecutors had to prove an aggravating factor at trial if they wanted to seek capital punishment. They alleged that Robinson's shooting created a great risk of death to someone other than Kirk and that Robinson knew about that danger.

The defense wanted that aggravating factor removed before trial, which would eliminate the possibility of a death sentence if Robinson was convicted. 

The allegations were contained in a reply made public Tuesday in response to an earlier filing by the defense. The filings followed a week-long preliminary hearing in early July designed to determine whether sufficient probable cause existed to send the case to trial.

Judge Tony Graf Jr. said he would issue a final decision on Sept. 1. 

Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, in Orem, Utah. Kirk was speaking at his "American Comeback Tour" when he was shot in the neck and killed. (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images)

Prosecutors told Graf that Robinson's case should not only be sent to trial, but that the defense team "violated their ethical duty of candor to the Court" by allegedly ignoring basic case law governing how evidence is evaluated during a preliminary hearing. 

When drawing inferences, prosecutors wrote, the magistrate "must" draw all reasonable ones in the state's favor. In other words, if a man allegedly fired a rifle from a rooftop toward a crowd of thousands, the court was apparently allowed to consider the radical possibility that someone in the crowd might get shot. 

Robinson's cartridge had "Catch" engraved on it. (AP Photo/Spenser Heaps, Pool)

Robinson had not yet entered a plea. 

He was accused of driving from his home in southern Utah to Orem and fatally shooting Kirk during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University in September 2025. Prosecutors alleged that he subsequently confessed to several people before surrendering to authorities in his hometown. The case then moved forward with prosecutors arguing that firing at a target from a rooftop into a crowd created, rather inconveniently, the possibility that people other than the target could be killed.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Judge rules on defense's attempt to disqualify prosecutors in Charlie Kirk murder case

In the Fourth District Court in Provo, Utah, Judge Tony Graf presided over yet another hearing in the grim aftermath of what can only be described as a political assassination. Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old accused of murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk, appeared remotely from his jail cell on September 16, 2025, a detail that underscores the gravity and the spectacle of the proceedings.

A Utah judge has now firmly rejected the defense's attempt to disqualify the prosecutors in the case against Tyler Robinson, the young man charged with the killing of Charlie Kirk.

On Tuesday, having considered the arguments aired at a hearing on February 3, Judge Tony Graf ruled decisively for the prosecution. He stated that the court was unpersuaded that a prosecutor’s relationship with his daughter, who had been present at the event, had improperly influenced the decision to pursue the death penalty against Robinson.

The defense had pressed their case with considerable vigor. They insisted that because Chad Grunander's daughter had attended the Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University, the very scene where Kirk was fatally shot, the entire Utah County Attorney’s Office ought to be removed from the prosecution. This familial connection, they maintained, created at least the appearance of impropriety, and that alone was sufficient to warrant disqualifying the whole office from the matter.

The county attorney’s office countered with clarity and restraint. Neither the office nor the deputy attorney in question labored under any conflict of interest, they argued, because AC (the adult child present at the college event) “did not see Charlie get shot” and “did not see anyone [in the crowd or elsewhere] with a gun.” Moreover, “nearly everything [AC] knows about the actual homicide is hearsay,” according to filings submitted by the office.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings, guys. Please consider subscribing, and if you would like to support my work, visit the sponsors on this page, or you can Buy Me A Coffee. 

Robinson’s preliminary hearing is now set to commence on May 18 and is anticipated to span three days. Only upon its conclusion will he face arraignment, and he has yet to enter a plea.One cannot help but observe the deeper irony here. In an age when political violence has become a grotesque currency, the attempt to recuse an entire prosecutorial office on grounds so tenuous speaks volumes about the lengths to which some will go to muddy the waters of justice. Yet the judge, in his measured ruling, has reminded us that the rule of law demands more than mere appearances or speculative bias; it requires actual evidence of impropriety. The prosecution may proceed, and the grim business of determining guilt in this assassination will continue unimpeded.

Tweet

Woman arrested for insulting the police on a hate crime charge

Panguitch, Utah -- An arrest in Utah on June 11th sparked national attention when a police officer made a routing traffic stop at a local gas station.

As he spoke to the motorist, the cop noticed a young woman holding a "back the blue" sign in the parking lot. She then threw the sign on the ground and stomped on it. Next, she picked it up, wadded it into a ball and threw it in the trash as she was "smirking in an intimidating fashion," at the officer.

The officer questioned the 19-year-old woman and arrested her, charging her with criminal mischief with a hate crime enhancement, along with disorderly conduct.

 The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the officer’s account of the incident.

“Due to [the woman] destroying property that did not belong to her in a manner to attempt to intimidate law enforcement, I placed her under arrest,” the affidavit says.

The affidavit also explains that the allegations are being treated as a “hate crime enhanced allegation” due to “the demeanor displayed by [the woman] in attempts to intimidate law enforcement while destroying a ‘Pro Law Enforcement’ sign.”

While I fully support the police and the Thin Blue Line, I also support the First Amendment and free speech and I don't like that this is being called a "hate crime." All crimes are in some respect, hate crimes, but freedom of expression isn't a crime.

The cop said that the woman was “evasive” about where she obtained the sign, but eventually told him that she simply found it laying on the ground. So it doesn't sound as if it's "destruction of property," if that claim is true.

Sure, there's no question that this young woman was despicable and rude, but that isn't a crime. The First Amendment wasn't designed for just allowing speech we like; it's for speech we don't like. The remedy for speech we don't like or that we disagree with, is more speech. 

If a cop or anyone else for that matter, can make a claim of hate speech because they don't like it, this severely impinges on our freedom of speech. And when it comes right down to it, hate crimes are really thought crimes and nobody has the right to tell you what to think.

So in the end, I believe the cop was wrong to arrest that woman, in spite of her rudeness. I may not agree with what she said, but I will defend to a severe head cold her right to say it.

Why not consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against ignorance and evil.

Tweet