When Charlie Kirk was assassinated and the alleged killer ran from his rooftop perch without being immediately apprehended, I thought he was gone forever.
It turned out, there was surveillance footage and some social media breadcrumbs that enabled the FBI to have him in custody in fewer than 48 hours.
The suspect in Kirk's murder has now been charged, and it would appear that if found guilty, he could find himself on the wrong side of a firing squad.
As we mentioned in our first post on the subject, one of the reasons this investigation was a success, at least in my eyes, was the transparency of the FBI during the manhunt.
Director Kash Patel admitted that his wording during the early hours of the probe could have been better, but that transparency kept the public engaged, and the tips continued to roll in.
He stated, "I was being transparent with working with the public on our findings, as I had them.”
Patel continued, "I stated in that message that we had a subject and that we were going to interview him, and we did and he was released. Could I have worded it a little better in the heat of the moment? Sure. But do I regret putting it out? Absolutely not."
Even with all the evidence the FBI had against the alleged assassin, the key element was DNA that was found at the scene on a tool and on a cloth that was covering the weapon.
Patel stated, "I can report today that the DNA hits from the towel that was wrapped around the firearm and the DNA on the screwdriver are positively processed for the suspect in custody.”
He also explained the shooter's possible motive, stating, "His family has collectively told investigators that he subscribed to left-wing ideology, and even more so in these last couple of years, and he had a text message exchange -- he, the suspect, with another individual -- in which he claimed that he had an opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and he was going to do it because of his hatred for what Charlie stood for.”
Unbelievably, there are still mainstream media outlets (CBS News in particular) that have anchors still saying that no political motive has been uncovered or just blatantly misreporting that the alleged assassin was MAGA.
This assassination was horrifying, and it is a perfect example of why we need the death penalty as a deterrent and why, if found guilty, the suspect should be made to answer for their crimes as quickly as possible.
That may be the case here, as Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray appears to be leaning into the death penalty. He stated, “The murder of Charlie Kirk is an American tragedy. Charlie Kirk was murdered while engaging in one of our most sacred and cherished American rights -- the bedrock of our democratic republic -- the free exchange of ideas in a search for truth, understanding and a more perfect union.”
He continued, “I’m filing notice of intent to seek the death penalty. I do not make this decision lightly, and it’s one I’ve made as county attorney based solely on evidence and circumstances of the crime.”
The biggest problem I have with the death penalty is that it is never carried out quickly enough to be effective. We are no longer in the 1950s, and with DNA evidence, murders such as this can be proven swiftly beyond a reasonable doubt. So, in my opinion, once that guilty verdict is given, the appeals process should be put into express mode to have arguments heard as quickly as possible, then put the guilty party to death if they fail. If you allow the appeals process to play out for years instead of months, the crime itself is long forgotten, and the sentence being carried out has no effect whatsoever on those thinking of carrying out a similarly heinous crime.
