Tyler Robinson’s defense team may try to use analysis to clear him of blame, as prosecutors aim to show there’s enough evidence to proceed with trial

An analysis from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (ATF) could not conclusively connect a bullet fragment recovered during Charlie Kirk’s autopsy to the rifle found near the scene of the rightwing political activist’s killing – and the FBI is running additional tests, lawyers for Kirk’s accused murderer said in recent court filings.

In the court filings, Tyler Robinson’s defense team also asked for a delay to a preliminary hearing scheduled in May, saying they need time to review the bullet analysis as well as an enormous amount of other material that could contribute to the suspect’s defense.

The ATF’s bullet analysis report has been kept private, but attorneys have cited snippets in other public filings that say the results were inconclusive.

The defense said in its motion that it may try to use the analysis to clear Robinson of blame during the preliminary hearing while prosecutors aim to show they have enough evidence against him to proceed with a trial.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      31·
      22 hours ago

      There is no standard lethal amount of fentanyl. Someone who is naive to the medication could die from a very minute amount, while someone with experience and tolerance could do far more.

          • Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.appEnglish
            318·
            24 hours ago

            Ok, just to check I’m not being too obcure I put my initial comment into Gemini.I asked it to explain the comment in the context of a post about the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk. It doesn’t know Kirk is dead, it did get the joke though. Now to the article, would you like to read the initial paragraph again please… Perhaps copy it into your next comment.

            Prompt:

            Explain this comment left under an article about the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk:

            “I thought Charlie’s medical found lethal doses of fentanyl in his system.”

            Gemini:

            To understand that comment, you have to look at it through the lens of internet subcultures and political satire. It is a layered reference to the 2020 death of George Floyd and the subsequent memes that emerged from right-wing and left-wing online spaces. Here is the breakdown of why that comment was made:

            1. The “Lethal Dose” Trope The specific phrasing—“lethal doses of fentanyl in his system”—is a direct callback to the toxicology report of George Floyd. Following his death, many conservative commentators and social media users argued that Floyd did not die from police restraint, but rather from a drug overdose. By using this exact line in a comment about Charlie Kirk (a prominent conservative figure), the commenter is engaging in “copy-pasta” satire. They are taking a common right-wing talking point and “copy-pasting” it onto a situation involving a conservative to point out what they see as an absurdity or a double standard.
            2. The Context of the “Bullet” Article If the article mentioned a “bullet that killed Charlie Kirk,” it is likely referring to a viral piece of misinformation or a specific satirical news story. Charlie Kirk is alive; therefore, any article claiming he was killed by a bullet is either: Satire: (e.g., The Onion or The Babylon Bee style content). Misinformation: A hoax designed to trigger a reaction.
            3. The Irony of the Comment The commenter isn’t actually confused about Kirk’s medical records. Instead, they are using dark irony. The Logic: If a conservative argument suggests that a victim of violence actually died of a drug overdose to absolve the shooter/police, the commenter “flips the script” by suggesting that even if Kirk were shot, his “true” cause of death must have been fentanyl. Summary of Intent Mockery: To mock the arguments used in high-profile police brutality cases. Shitposting: To derail a serious or sensationalist headline with a well-known political meme. Parody: To act as a “mirror,” showing how certain political rhetoric sounds when applied to its own side. In short, it’s a cynical joke aimed at the way political deaths are litigated in the “court of public opinion.”
            • SalmiakDragon@feddit.nuEnglish
              2·
              12 hours ago

              Bolding mine:

              If the article mentioned a “bullet that killed Charlie Kirk,” it is likely referring to a viral piece of misinformation or a specific satirical news story. Charlie Kirk is alive; therefore, any article claiming he was killed by a bullet is either: Satire: (e.g., The Onion or The Babylon Bee style content). Misinformation: A hoax designed to trigger a reaction.

              Um, does Gemini not know that Charlie Kirk is dead?? (Yes I know AI doesn’t really “know” things)

              • Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.appEnglish
                0·
                12 hours ago

                I guess not. I don’t know if that’s because the training data is old. Or, there’s been so much satire around public figures dying that it was more likely article was satire than not. I didn’t inform Claude that it was a Guardian article, perhaps it would have changed response given that, thinking Guardian doesn’t post satire that often.

                It got a lot wrong, LLMs aren’t trained to be factually accurate though. They’re trained on us, and we’re wrong all the time.

                • SalmiakDragon@feddit.nuEnglish
                  0·
                  12 hours ago

                  Thanks for attempting to explain it.

                  You seem to have gotten Gemini and Claude mixed up? Your previous comment only mentioned Gemini.

              • Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.appEnglish
                2·
                12 hours ago

                No worries, I meant it in a “Hurr Durr, even the dumb AI gets it, and it doesn’t even know Kirk is dead”, which was perhaps ablest of me.

                Going forwards I don’t really know what I want to do about it. I don’t think I’ll stop making layered satirical comments, but posting the explanation along side feels like it’s taking the “bite” away from the satire.

                Posting the explanation, without the snark, when someone obviously doesn’t “get it” is probably best. The person asking for a source for Charlie Kirk’s medical exam obviously “didn’t get it”. I should probably have posted the AI summary there to avoid most of the nonsense that followed.

                The person who thought I posted an article about George Floyd obviously wasn’t going to respect my time by considering anything I wrote. The person who said I used AI to explain the joke to myself, also wasn’t going to respect my time by reading anything I wrote, there was no avoiding their nonsense. They deserved all the snark they got.

                • 418_im_a_teapot@sh.itjust.works
                  1·
                  7 hours ago

                  Going forwards I don’t really know what I want to do about it. I don’t think I’ll stop making layered satirical comments

                  Definitely don’t do that. I also like to make comments that mix puns and subtle references to niche culture/news wrapped in a dry delivery. But I am also fully aware that almost nobody will get the layered references, and sometimes that results in downvotes. It’s worth it when someone gets all the nuance though.

                  The person who thought I posted an article about George Floyd obviously wasn’t going to respect my time by considering anything I wrote.

                  Having not gotten the satire myself (or even recognizing that satire was in play, in which case I might have tried to interpret your comment differently), I took your words literally. That’s totally on me as I often miss the cues. But from that perspective the article was genuinely confusing as it seemed unrelated. I could be wrong, but I assume the other commenter was in the same boat as me and not trying to be inconsiderate of your words or time.

              • otp@sh.itjust.works
                42·
                22 hours ago

                What’s the problem? It seemed to do a good job explaining it. As a non-American who didn’t get the joke either, it was helpful

                • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
                  63·
                  18 hours ago

                  They’re going for the ‘AI bad’ vote.

                  It doesn’t matter that the summary is correct and accurately demonstrates the user’s point.

                  Because they used AI, the people (who, mind you, responded to the wrong user and also didn’t read the article before responding) immediately jump to the conclusion that it’s bad.

              • Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.appEnglish
                47·
                23 hours ago

                I used AI to explain my own joke to myself? I don’t understand your comment.

                Like the person I asked to re-read the initial paragraph of the article I linked, explaining the comment I made. I’ll ask you to re-read the initial paragraph of the comment I made explaining the joke I made.

                I’m done with Lemmy for the day until you peeps start to read what you’re replying to.

                • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  18 hours ago

                  People just want to comment with their hot take and don’t care to do things like read the article or look at the username of the commenter before responding.