🚨BREAKING: Tyler Robinson’s defense filing is out, submitted by his attorneys on August 11, 2026, following the preliminary hearing. And the entire filing is absolutely ludicrous. 🚨I’m providing the entire filing in this thread …with my summary. Tyler Robinson’s defense is essentially arguing that yes, Charlie Kirk was deliberately targeted, yes, one shot was fired directly at him, and yes, Robinson allegedly admitted, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I took it” - but somehow the State is reaching too far with the additional charges and aggravating factors. Their argument against the “great risk of death” aggravator is almost absurdly simple: Robinson fired ONE shot. He intended to hit Charlie. He hit Charlie. Nobody else was hit. Therefore, according to the defense, he did not knowingly create a great risk of death to anyone else. Never mind that this happened at a crowded public event. Never mind that he was allegedly firing a high-powered rifle from a rooftop toward an area filled with people. The defense argues that because the bullet traveled downward, hit its intended target, and did not strike anyone else, prosecutors cannot establish the required risk to another person merely because people were nearby. They even attack the significance of the shooting targets recovered from Robinson’s apartment. Their argument? The State supposedly cannot establish when those targets were shot, what firearm was used, or whether Robinson personally fired every shot. They similarly dismiss the screwdriver found on the roof, arguing that its existence doesn’t prove Robinson took the rifle apart or reassembled it. Then we get to witness tampering. Robinson told Lance Twiggs to “ask for a lawyer and stay silent” if police questioned him. The State charged Robinson with witness tampering based on the allegation that he was attempting to induce his roommate to withhold information. The defense says absolutely not. According to them, Robinson was merely giving Twiggs perfectly innocent constitutional advice. Their position is that because Robinson also allegedly said he intended to turn himself in and told Twiggs to be polite to police, this was altruistic advice - not an attempt to interfere with an investigation. Then there are the children. Children under 14 were at the event. The defense doesn’t dispute that. Instead, they argue that prosecutors cannot prove Robinson KNEW THEY WERE THERE. Their reasoning is that Robinson was approximately 400 feet away and allegedly spent only 35-44 seconds positioned on the rooftop before the shot. They literally distinguish this from shooting at an elementary school or daycare, where someone’s knowledge that children were present could reasonably be inferred. Because this happened on a college campus, they say the State cannot establish that Robinson knew children were in that crowd. And then we arrive at perhaps the most ridiculous argument in the entire filing: political motivation. Charlie Kirk was one of the most recognizable political activists in America. Robinson wrote, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I took it.” He also said, “I had enough of his hatred.” But according to the defense, that’s still not enough. Why? Because Robinson apparently didn’t provide prosecutors with a neat little itemized list explaining precisely which Charlie Kirk political position he hated. That is essentially their argument.