The Patriot Post® · Justice Is Finally Coming for Robinson

Buckle up, Ted. It’s the law.

I remember seeing that message like it was yesterday — on TV, as I recall, on a sign somewhere outside the prison where the convicted serial killer was being held. And although Tyler Robinson isn’t Ted Bundy, and Utah isn’t Florida, and lethal injection isn’t Old Sparky, I find myself with the same sort of yearning for the ultimate sanction.

Yesterday, a Utah judge finally ruled — nearly a year after Charlie Kirk’s assassination — that the 23-year-old Robinson will stand trial for the murder last September 10 at Utah Valley University of a young husband and father, and perhaps our nation’s most compelling Christian conservative voice. For this most heinous crime, the prosecution will seek the death penalty — and that’s just as it should be.

As Utah’s Deseret News reports, “After 4th District Judge Tony Graf bound Robinson over for trial on all seven counts, Robinson pleaded not guilty. The charges include six felonies, including one count of aggravated murder, one count of felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, two counts of witness tampering and two counts of obstruction of justice, and a Class A misdemeanor of a violent offense in the presence of a child.”

Among that laundry list of offenses, the one that really matters is the first one, aggravated murder, because it makes Robinson eligible for the death penalty. Understandably, then, it’s also the count that has consumed the energy of both the prosecution and the defense during these many months.

How dangerous was it for others? This dangerous, according to prosecutor Chad Grunander:

If the defendant had flinched even a quarter of an inch at that distance, math tells us at the target point it would have been a difference of 41.7 inches, approximately three and a half feet. That would have more than covered the security to Mr. Kirk’s right. If he had flinched even a half an inch, that would have resulted in a difference of 83.4 inches at the target point, a seven-foot difference, and that could have impacted a number of people there.

If this wasn’t a case of aggravated murder according to the statute, I don’t know what is.

“The United States Constitution guarantees defendants many rights,” began a statement from the Kirk family’s counsel. “The right to delay is not among them. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial, and he must be given one, but nothing more is owed. We have no doubt that this court will give the defendant a fair trial. We ask that it do so swiftly.”

Indeed, let’s get on with it. Our Sixth Amendment says that the accused “shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,” but nowhere within that document does it say that the accused can deny closure to Charlie Kirk’s family and friends by invoking one foot-dragging legal maneuver after another.

Somehow, I get the sense that if this crime, with all this damning evidence — including multiple confessions by the accused assassin himself — had taken place at, say, Auburn or Florida State or Texas A&M instead of Utah Valley, Robinson would’ve long since been reading his fan mail on death row.

Deputy Utah County Attorney Ryan McBride said there’s a “mountain of evidence” arrayed against Robinson, and he summarized it in yesterday’s closing arguments: “We know that the defendant is the shooter, again, first because of the video evidence, second because of the DNA, third because of his admissions, and fourth because of the circumstantial evidence. We have in this case the classic circumstantial evidence of motive, means and opportunity — and then some.”

CBS News, which shamefully describes Kirk as a mere “right-wing political activist” and fails to use the word “assassination” even once, reports that the key component of aggravated murder in Utah “is a reasonable belief that the defendant knowingly endangered others in Kirk's death.” The state, CBS adds, “argued Robinson targeted Kirk because of his political beliefs, and knowing that children were present and would witness the shooting.”

To the leftist scumbags at CBS, I’d ask: What, exactly, is the targeting of a public figure for his political beliefs if not an assassination? Or are these people trying to argue, like Robinson’s defense attorney, that Kirk had it coming because of his role as a “right-wing political activist”?

“Mr. Kirk spoke hatefully of certain groups of people,” said Robinson’s smear-mongering co-counsel Richard Novak. “He spoke hatefully of people who don’t have traditional norm-conforming gender identities. He spoke hatefully of people who are not strictly heterosexual.”

That’s utterly false — Kirk was remarkably and consistently respectful in his dialogue with anyone. But even if that weren’t the case, this is like rape-shaming, only it’s speech-shaming. She had it coming because of what she wore, and he had it coming because of what he said. Folks, it doesn’t get any more damned despicable than that.

Perhaps if we’d been paying attention to the “startling correlation between proponents of a transgender ideology and left-wing violence,” Charlie’s wife wouldn’t be a widow, and his children wouldn’t be growing up without their father.

Speaking of the Kirk family, they had this to say in the wake of yesterday’s ruling: “We are grateful to all who have continued to pray for us, support us, and stand with us through a year of unimaginable grief. As the next phase of the judicial process begins, our family remains united in our love for Charlie, our commitment to the pursuit of justice, and our prayer for a transparent and timely process.”