Charlie Kirk shooting suspect Tyler Robinson could face firing squad

[bèlla]

I don't know... That attitude does make things "easy" but I can hypothesize a lot of scenarios where this wouldn't have been obvious to them. For one thing, he was 22 and likely not even having lived at home for a few years. Second, this is the age where a lot of mental illnesses start popping up. Somebody brought up in a conservative religious household would've likely had a lot of practice disciplining themselves to put on a good face in public or code switching to act nicely around others.

I realize it's a piece of fiction, but the Netflix show Adolescence dealt with this situation very well.

It takes an honest person to acknowledge the truth. Parents see a lot of things they don’t want to admit and it starts pretty young. They’ll focus on the good stuff and ignore the problems. Because it’s not their child or they’re really special or misunderstood and the like. They’ve been confronted with proof and still deny it. I didn’t see this often growing up but I definitely saw it with millennials.

~bella

 

[iluvatar5150]

It takes an honest person to acknowledge the truth. Parents see a lot of things they don’t want to admit and it starts pretty young. They’ll focus on the good stuff and ignore the problems. Because it’s not their child or they’re really special or misunderstood and the like. They’ve been confronted with proof and still deny it. I didn’t see this often growing up but I definitely saw it with millennials.

~bella

That's one possibility, sure. But a lot of people are also clueless about how to read others; andome people are good at compartmentalizing their feelings and keeping them bottled up in certain contexts. And especially if you're only talking to your adult kid for maybe an hour or two a week? You can hide all kinds of stuff from a parent in that scenario.

 

[Freth]

I wouldn't be surprised if Charlie's wife talked with Tyler directly and asked for clemency concerning the death penalty. Doing so would have a lasting impact on the boy's life, and he may well be saved.

 

[bèlla]

That's one possibility, sure. But a lot of people are also clueless about how to read others; andome people are good at compartmentalizing their feelings and keeping them bottled up in certain contexts. And especially if you're only talking to your adult kid for maybe an hour or two a week? You can hide all kinds of stuff from a parent in that scenario.

You’re assuming the behavior never reared its head. That’s why I mentioned honesty. I don’t think he’s mentally ill for what it’s worth. Just hateful.

Now they’re accusing Israel of the crime on social media and referencing a video he supposedly made mentioning his concern about being killed by them. And the story continues.

~bella

 

[iluvatar5150]

You’re assuming the behavior never reared its head.

I’m not assuming anything, just exploring possibilities.

 

[bèlla]

I’m not assuming anything, just exploring possibilities.

That’s fair.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Again, I don't log on to CF to teach you reading comprehension. Figure it out yourself, or not.

Have you seen that meme that says something to the effect of “when a woman says ‘huh?’ it’s not because she didn’t hear you. It’s because she’s giving you a chance to correct the goofball thing you just said.”

I was giving you a chance to elaborate or correct the goofball thing you just said. Because flat out admitting that you used to do something and it wasn’t any big deal, but when other people do it you find it obnoxious is a rare admission of a hypocritical double standard on your part.

So you can go ahead and board the fuss bus and be snarky to me over a goofball thing you said that I clocked you for, but you’re the one who said the goofball thing, not me.

 

[Chesterton]

Have you seen that meme that says something to the effect of “when a woman says ‘huh?’ it’s not because she didn’t hear you. It’s because she’s giving you a chance to correct the goofball thing you just said.”

I was giving you a chance to elaborate or correct the goofball thing you just said. Because flat out admitting that you used to do something and it wasn’t any big deal, but when other people do it you find it obnoxious is a rare admission of a hypocritical double standard on your part.

So you can go ahead and board the fuss bus and be snarky to me over a goofball thing you said that I clocked you for, but you’re the one who said the goofball thing, not me.

I want to be nice, I want to be fair, I want to be patient. Please specify what about my post was "goofball", or what about it you didn't understand, and I will try to mansplain it to you.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I want to be nice, I want to be fair, I want to be patient. Please specify what about my post was "goofball", or what about it you didn't understand, and I will try to mansplain it to you.

You personally attacking my reading skills is you being nice? You must be a real peach when you’re being rude.

No need to mansplain, maybe just click back through this set of posts, and adult-splain like a normal human being who’s a willing participant on a forum where the intent is to share ideas. You can do it, I believe in you.

 

[RileyG]

If he is found guilty and faces the death penalty, I can't imagine how his dad would feel. He forced Tyler to turn himself in. Assuming he's guilty, my feelings are there are consequences for actions. He committed a diabolical act. If other people in his state get the death penalty for their acts, why should Tyler be exempt?

I can agree to a certain extent, but I really hate the death penalty.

 

[RileyG]

yes, it's a defense. But, it rarely works.

Agreed, sister.

 

[RileyG]

I sincerely hope not. He's 22; hardly out of adolescence, born into a time of political division, social media and disinformation. Society is partly to blame. Prison yes; firing squad no. I don't like capital punishment anyway, but if he was an older man who had years of being hateful and violent then I'd be less against it, but not for a 22 year old.

The fact that Kirk was well known, liked and a friend of Trump's is irrelevant. It would be unjust to regard the taking of one life as worse (or better) than taking another. Would there be the same degree of outrage over a tramp's death? If not, why not? A human life has been taken. The courts must not let public outrage affect their decision.

I agree completely, that being said, i’m 100% opposed to the death penalty. Life without parole should be sufficient.

 

[wing2000]

Normally I'm against the death penalty. But in this instance, would the death penalty being carried out by firing squad be a "pressure release valve" of sorts that could stave off more extreme outcomes (that could cause even more deaths) resulting from pent up "need for retributive justice"?

While I oppose the death penalty as a general rule... if doing it in these more high-profile situations gives the hungry wolves their "pound of flesh" and quenches the "retributive justice thirst" and prevents 10,000 people from showing up at the opposing side's speaking engagements with "hair trigger defense" mentality, it might be worth the trade-off.

IMO, a firing squad execution would not quench the thirst of the wolves.
And it would be cruel to his family. I can't imagine what his parents are going through....

 

[Freth]

IMO, a firing squad execution would not quench the thirst of the wolves.
And it would be cruel to his family. I can't imagine what his parents are going through....

And it wasn't cruel for Charlie's wife and daughters to see him be shot and bleed out in front of them? Horrific.

 

[rebornfree]

And it wasn't cruel for Charlie's wife and daughters to see him be shot and bleed out in front of them? Horrific.

It was terrible for them. There are no winners in this situation (except Satan) but I feel for Tylet's dad; he was decent enough to turn him in. He's an honourable guy.

 

[Larniavc]

I do think one can make a pragmatic case for why the death penalty is the lesser of evils (in the long term) in some specific cases.

Often the easiest option is the most deadly one. Problems can be forgotten if they are dead.

 

[rebornfree]

I’m not responsible for his decision to murder Charlie Kirk nor is society. It’s interesting you overlooked the most likely party who bears accountability for his character. At 22 years of age the bulk of his time has been spent in the company of his parents not the strangers you have in mind.

They raised the miscreant and well adjusted citizens don’t murder people they disagree with. It’s unlikely there weren’t signs he had a problem or hostility towards certain subjects or groups. You don’t wake up and become a killer. Put the buck where it belongs. He did the deed and it’s on him entirely.

Capital punishment is fine. He killed a law abiding citizen with a wife and family in the prime of his life. Arguing the merits of rehabilitation in light of his age while ignoring the other is reckless. Charlie was young as well but he didn’t have a say. Sparing his life isn’t an equitable trade. What was lost was greater than what remains.

~bella

No, of course you are not responsible Bella, nor are any of us responsible for his actual decision, but I think that society is partly to blame for creating the sorts of conditions in which some people make those bad choices. We live in a fallen world.

Tyler is young. (Would he have been eligible for the death penalty if he were two years younger?) The political world in the USA has become divisive and social media can contain hate speech and disinformation. He is probably too young to remember a time before social media and definitely too young to have known life before the internet. This is the world that he's grown up in. If he were older, and had spewed hate and violence for many years, I might feel differently, but he's only 22. That shook me when I read it.

I agree with you about parental influence being important. The reason I didn't mention it is that his father turned him in (or encouraged him to turn himself in) so he seems to have a family with good moral values.

This is not to take anything away from the terrible loss suffered by Kirk's family.

 

[DaisyDay]

If he is found guilty and faces the death penalty, I can't imagine how his dad would feel. He forced Tyler to turn himself in. Assuming he's guilty, my feelings are there are consequences for actions. He committed a diabolical act. If other people in his state get the death penalty for their acts, why should Tyler be exempt?

Unless Charlie Kirk is a public official, Tyler doesn't qualify under Utah State law.

I didn't know about that. I'm in the UK, so am viewing things from a distance. However there seems to be so much hate atm. Did this happen under Reagan or either of the Bush Presidents? I think not, but maybe we didn't hear about it this side of the pond.

Yes, Reagan was shot by a man, John Hinkley, who wanted to impress the young actress Jodi Foster (who was not impressed). He got out of prison in 2017 and became fully free in 2021.

George HW Bush had a gun pointed at him by would-be assassin Squeaky Fromme, of Manson Family fame. The gun didn't go off. She was granted parole in 2008 and released from parole in 2009.

Someone threw a shoe at George W Bush, but missed. I don't know what became of him.

It's because of all the rhetoric and diviseness, as well as Trump being a controversial President, that I don't think the murder was purely the shooter's fault. It's true of other offenses in other countries too, including my own. We have knife crime, but we have too much violence on tv imo. The culprits are responsible for their crimes, but so is society. If Trump stays out of it and the courts judge by the facts of the crime and not the popularity of the victim then maybe justice will be done. I hope they will apply mercy, in view of the shooter's age and the toxicity of the political environment, and not execute him.

I think under Utah law, his crime doesn't qualify for the death penalty because although Kirk was a public figure, he was not a public official nor a cop, nor a child - the penalty depends on the status of the victim(s).

Could he be tried under federal law, rather than state law? That, I don't know.

 

[rebornfree]

I don’t think the victim of a crime being the friend of a sitting president should factor in to the judicial process. This isn’t North Korea.

I agree totally, and am concerned that because Kirk was well-known, a friend of Trump and was seen as doing good, that the trial may be biased. The Governer has promised the death penalty. I think that is wrong. He should wait until the evidence has been presented.

I think that it is tragic that a wife has been widowed and children lost their father but I don't think that should be taken into account. Would it be less bad if a single, childless man was killed? Surely all life is equal. I just hope that the court is not swayed by all these factors but concentrates on the actual crime of taking a life.

I wouldn't be surprised if Charlie's wife talked with Tyler directly and asked for clemency concerning the death penalty. Doing so would have a lasting impact on the boy's life, and he may well be saved.

That would be wonderful; a difficult thing to do but a very loving, Christian act.

 

[rjs330]

This will probably discourage outdoor speaking events. One guy came close to killing the president and another random guy succeeded in killing Kirk at outdoor events. I wouldn’t be surprised to see speaking events moving indoors.

I know this is why Ben Shapiro does his events indoors. Its because he can control rhe security for the event much better.