Imagine being so far gone that your argument against the death penalty for a cold-blooded killer is that he managed to kill his intended target.
That's the line the defense attorneys for Tyler Robinson are taking.
He hit Charlie Kirk dead on, so he shouldn't get the death penalty.
From the AP:
The man charged with killing Charlie Kirk shouldn't get the death penalty because the shooter ‘hit the intended target' and no one else was endangered when the conservative activist was shot from a rooftop at an event in Utah last year, his lawyers said.
Defendant Tyler Robinson's attorneys say the bullet traveled above the crowd of several thousand people at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10 and ‘there were no threats to others.'
By the way, the potential for harm to others elevates the case to a capital crime.
The defense made this argument because the prosecutors pointed out that Robinson brought four bullets with him, indicating that he anticipated missing and potentially causing harm to others in attendance.
The defense dismissed the evidence:
But defense attorneys said ‘it is just as likely that the shooter did not believe he would miss.'
Regardless,
Prosecutors last month during a weeklong hearing presented what they call 'overwhelming' evidence against Robinson, including DNA tests that tie him to the suspected murder weapon and apparent confessions by the defendant.
Since the death penalty in Utah requires proof of aggravated first-degree murder, meaning not just murder but murder while committing other crimes (like shooting into a crowd at a university), the point about the crowd is an important one.
But "he didn't miss" still seems like a weird tactic to take when trying to defend your client in a murder case.
Watch our latest video 👇
