BREAKING: Judge Gives Suspected Kirk Assassin First Legal Victory
"Instead of dispassionately rendering justice, the courts are coddling a Woke assassin that stands accused of murdering a top conservative figure..."
The American people watched Charlie Kirk die in broad daylight — gunned down while speaking at Utah Valley University — and now they’re watching something else: a judicial system more concerned with preserving the dignity of the assassin than with honoring the life of the victim.
In a decision that’s already triggering national outrage, Judge Tony Graf ruled on Monday that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old charged with assassinating Kirk, may appear in civilian clothing throughout his upcoming capital murder trial. The justification? The “presumption of innocence.”
Notably, the same presumption was never afforded to Kirk by the media, the activist class, or the institutions that treated his very life as an existential threat to the radical agenda.
The judge went further. In addition to granting Robinson a clean image for the jury, he also prohibited the press from photographing or filming the defendant entering or exiting the courthouse. That’s not neutrality — it’s protection. And it’s the kind of special treatment that millions of Americans are tired of watching unfold when the perpetrator aligns with the approved ideological class.
“Balancing these factors, the court finds that Mr. Robinson’s right to the presumption of innocence outweighs the minimal inconvenience of permitting civilian attire,” Judge Graf said, according to a local Fox News affiliate.
Would a Trump supporter who assassinated a leftist public figure be afforded such courtroom dignity and media shielding? Would the ACLU and the press demand his right to appear without handcuffs, without prison stripes, and without cameras recording his every move? Of course not. And we all know it.
Tyler Robinson, after all, isn’t just any defendant. He’s a young man with known ties to radical left-wing subcultures and a personal connection to a transgender activist roommate named Lance Twiggs. Text messages obtained by authorities show that Robinson contacted Twiggs after the murder, expressing regret over not retrieving the murder weapon — a rifle he called “grandpa’s.” He was actively trying to avoid detection and plan his next steps. That’s cold and calculated.
But instead of treating this with the gravity it deserves, woke elements in the judiciary appear more concerned with maintaining the optics of “fairness” than ensuring a full-throated pursuit of justice. This is the soft treatment we’ve seen too often — when violent offenders check the right political or identity boxes, they get deferential treatment from the very same institutions that routinely trash conservatives as threats to democracy.
The timeline is riddled with red flags. Robinson wasn’t just quietly arrested. A separate man — 71-year-old political activist George Zinn — falsely confessed to the murder in the immediate aftermath, allegedly to distract police and help the actual killer escape.
According to police reports, Zinn screamed, “I shot him, now shoot me!” as he was taken into custody. Later, after police searched his phone, they discovered child sexual abuse materials — over 20 images of minors between the ages of 5 and 12, as well as disturbing messages. He now faces charges for obstruction of justice and possession of child pornography.
This case is spiraling into something far darker than a single assassination. And yet, the institutional response so far has not been one of urgency or condemnation. Quite the opposite. What we’ve seen from left-wing social media accounts — many verified — is celebration.
Gleeful posts mocking Kirk, justifying his murder, and treating political violence as cathartic payback. It’s depraved. And it’s not just fringe corners of the internet. The silence from Democrat leaders and media figures has been deafening.
Charlie Kirk was gunned down in a country that claims to revere free speech and political diversity. But instead of mourning, the left laughed. And instead of justice, the courts now appear ready to coddle the killer.
The judge’s latest ruling only confirms what many have suspected for years: there is a two-tiered justice system in America. One for the approved class. And one for everyone else.
This is not the time for woke games, courtroom theater, or legal optics management. This is the time for hard truth and real accountability. The public has a right to see this trial unfold. They have a right to see the killer. They have a right to ask the questions that still haven’t been answered — about ideology, motive, accomplices, and how a high-profile conservative could be killed in broad daylight with so little institutional outrage.
Charlie Kirk’s death should be a turning point. If not now, when?
It IS a far darker event than a 22 yo with a grudge. Anyone who looks at the evidence conveniently wrapped up with a bow and closed down after only 36 hours knows that much of it doesn’t make sense.
I generally agree with your positions on most things. On this one, I’d respectfully disagree. First off, everything else aside, there most certainly is a legal presumption of innocence that must be afforded to Robinson as it is afforded to all Americans under the Constitution. Due process is his right and if we only gave rights to the people we liked, then no one would get them.
Second, the evidence we have been fed is very convenient, fits a nice and tidy narrative of a lone gunman protecting his “lover”. When you think about the details they did provide, it has something for everyone: a MAGA dad, a gay assassin with a transitioning lover, a “furry” fetish component, Christianity and freedom of speech.
Look a little closer. Start asking if all the men really look alike in the fuzzy video clips shown by the feds and state law enforcement. Also, why are they all so blurry? They should release the full video. Ask if those texts seem like a realistic conversation by a young man who allegedly just publicly executed a prominent conservative in broad daylight in front of the world. Or by any 22 yo for that matter? Why aren’t the texts dated and time stamped? To write them on a separate piece of paper they’d must have seen them on a phone screen. Don’t trained law enforcement know to copy all the relevant info? Why weren’t screen shots taken and kept as evidence? What about the note allegedly left for Twiggs under Robinson’s computer keyboard? It was allegedly destroyed so no one could find it but was magically preserved forever digitally bc Twigg took a picture of it? Given his “involvement” why would Twigg have been released from custody so quickly? If Robinson was the killer, explain the picture of him at Dairy Queen. What was Phil Lyman’s involvement? His nephew/cousin brought “high school” friends with him to track Robinson’s path to and from UVU. After ppl started questioning who his friends were (because they were actually NOT from his high school and had international ties with no American footprint), he wiped all his social media accounts. Why? Why did he lie about the men in the picture? There is so much more that doesn’t make sense.
I’m not pointing a finger at anyone other than Robinson at this point. All I’m saying is that there are enough strange coincidences and conflicting bits of info (and possible exculpatory evidence relating to Robinson himself) that we must question the thoroughness of the investigation. We must ask why Gov Cox told the world the investigation was closed after only 36 hours. We must ask why they paved over the location where Charlie was sitting within 48 hours. We must ask why neither federal nor local law enforcement ever asked for the footage of the man in all black running along the roof where the assassin allegedly took his shot mere seconds earlier. And if it was true that the gunman was running along the roofline immediately after firing the fatal shot, how is it also true that he broke down his weapon to be able to fit it in the backpack before he began running? What about the story by the deputy that Tyler had suicidal ideations and later in his presser also said that Robinson wanted to turn himself in to law enforcement a specific way bc he was afraid of being shot? They both cannot be true.
My point: If armchair detectives can raise these and other questions fairly easily, then arguably trained law enforcement can and should as well. If they have, they are hiding it. Why? If they have, they know their case against Robinson has enough holes that getting a conviction will be difficult if not impossible.
All of this gets to the reason ppl are presumed innocent.
They just may be.