It is official. The District Attorney handling the case in Utah against Charlie Kirk’s suspected assassin has made it clear in a press conference a short time ago. Not only did he file a litany of charges against Tyler Robinson related to the murder of Charlie Kirk, but it also included a count of first degree AGGRAVATED murder. And he does intend to seek death as punishment if Robinson is ultimately found guilty. The list of charges includes tampering with evidence and obstruction charges — but that “AGGRAVATED” descriptor on the murder charge is what will carry the most weight in a sentencing hearing. Coupled with the 7th count of a violent crime with children present… Utah’s laws would indeed warrant the death penalty in a guilty conviction. Here’s a breakdown of the 7 charges filled this morning by District Attorney Jeff Gray’s office, along with a clip from the press conference announcing he would be seeking the death penalty: BREAKING: Utah County District Attorney Jeff Gray announces he will be seeking the death penalty for Charlie Kirk’s killer. Tyler Robinson is being charged with the following: Count 1: Aggravated murder. Count 2: Felony discharge of a firearm. Count 3: Obstruction of justice… pic.twitter.com/ScHRVdj3x7 — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 16, 2025 Here’s the full text from that post listing every count against Robinson: BREAKING: Utah County District Attorney Jeff Gray announces he will be seeking the death penalty for Charlie Kirk’s killer. Tyler Robinson is being charged with the following: Count 1: Aggravated murder. Count 2: Felony discharge of a firearm. Count 3: Obstruction of justice – moving a firearm. Count 4: Obstruction of justice – disposing of clothing. Count 5: Witness tampering – telling a roommate to delete text messages. Count 6: Witness tampering – directing a roommate to stay quiet. Count 7: Committing violent crime when children are present. The District Attorney detailed those accounts during the press conference, and although he appeared professional and formal… I couldn’t help but detect that the DA was nearly overcome with the sense of duty weighing on him to ensure justice is done in this case. Here is the full screen version of that clip for convenience, including Gray announcing the “notice of intent” he says he is filing to seek the death penalty: BREAKING: Utah County District Attorney Jeff Gray announces he will be seeking the death penalty for Charlie Kirk’s killer. Tyler Robinson is being charged with the following: Count 1: Aggravated murder. Count 2: Felony discharge of a firearm. Count 3: Obstruction of justice… pic.twitter.com/ScHRVdj3x7 — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 16, 2025 Along with the charges and intent to level a capital punishment sentence if found guilty… The District Attorney’s Office specified he had decided to seek that punishment independently based on the realities of the situation, according to this report from Reuters: Utah prosecutors said on Tuesday they will seek the death penalty for the suspect in conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination and revealed some of the evidence against him, including alleged text messages in which he appeared to confess to the crime. “I had enough of his hatred,” Tyler Robinson, 22, told his roommate and romantic partner when asked why he had committed the murder, according to transcripts of messages in court documents filed by prosecutors on Tuesday. He is accused of firing the single rifle shot from a rooftop sniper’s nest that pierced Kirk’s neck last Wednesday on the campus of Utah Valley University in Orem, about 40 miles (65 km) south of Salt Lake City. Utah County District Attorney Jeffrey Gray said at a press conference that his office had filed seven counts against Robinson on Tuesday, including aggravated murder, obstruction of justice for disposing of evidence and witness tampering for asking his roommate to delete texts implicating him. Gray said he had made the decision to seek the death penalty “independently, based solely on the available evidence and circumstances and nature of the crime.” Some politicians, including U.S. President Donald Trump, had called for the death penalty in the case. The suspect was scheduled to appear via video feed from jail later on Tuesday in Utah County Justice Court in Provo. DNA found on the trigger of what authorities believe was the murder weapon was linked to Robinson, prosecutors said. Prosecutors have added aggravating factors to the murder and firearm charges because Robinson is believed to have targeted Kirk based on political views and knew that children would witness the killing, Gray said. Under state law, only aggravated murder can carry the death penalty. Even the press conference by the DA’s Office was imbued with the same gravity that all of us have felt over the last few days. You can watch the entire press conference held earlier by the Utah County District Attorney’s Office here: Ironically, Charlie Kirk not only believed in the death penalty. He argued that those “aggravated” conditions that will now be used to seek death for his own killer under Utah law… shouldn’t be necessary to qualify for a death sentence. Charlie Kirk fielded a question from a debater not long ago regarding the government’s ability to “kill”, contrasted with his belief in the need for a smaller and limited government. In true Charlie Kirk fashion, he didn’t answer in emotional platitudes or with a false logic based on relative morality. He gave an answer based in PRINCIPLE, as was recently covered by Fox News: Late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk advocated the death penalty on several occasions, arguing it should apply broadly in murder cases rather than only in the most extreme circumstances. Officials on Friday identified Tyler Robinson, 22, as the suspect in Kirk’s assassination on a Utah college campus. Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said the state intends to pursue the death penalty if the case goes to trial. President Donald Trump also voiced support, saying he hopes Robinson receives the death penalty if found guilty. Earlier this year, Kirk discussed his stance on capital punishment during an exchange with a student captured in a video posted to Turning Point USA’s YouTube channel. Kirk was asked about how he could support a “limited government” while also believing it should have the power to execute people. The student countered that the death penalty should be reserved for extreme instances, such as school shootings, mass murders and crimes against humanity, but not for what she described as “eye-for-an-eye nonsense.” “Why is it that if you kill 10 people, such a morally different thing than killing one person?” Kirk asked the student, arguing that even people who claim to oppose the death penalty occasionally make exceptions. “Death penalties should be public, should be quick. It should be televised,” Kirk said. As he was known to do, Charlie Kirk readily identified the moral relativism hidden within the question meant to trip him up. Here’s a clip of that interaction mentioned in the previous Fox News story: The Christian Church in American — and in other nations as well — has already undergone a transition over the last few years. As the world grows darker, and hearts grow colder, there has been a growing remnant of believers who have begun to recognize their own need to hold the line spiritually. That spiritual awakening has already started to translate to practical realities as many of us have “upped our game”, determined to actually be who we claim to be. Charlie Kirk has been at the tip of the spear for that movement for YEARS now. As Benjamin Franklin once put it: “What you would seem to be, be really.” With his death — a true martyrdom — many are describing witnessing a hyper-push from God in that same direction. But not only in our own devotion to God personally. There is a renewed call across the land for JUSTICE. Not the sort of justice that revolves around the degree of sensationalism that can be stirred up for political purposes. But the sort of justice that effects the purposes that the Bible makes clear will happen to a land and a people who turn away from the “social justice” that Charlie Kirk talked about in that clip… And turns instead to the TRUE justice that is predicated on objective right and wrong. We cannot have a revival, like the sort that so many of us believe is brewing on the heels of Charlie Kirk’s death, without a return to JUSTICE in our land. Thankfully, that is exactly what has appeared on the court docket in Utah. Let’s pray that justice does indeed prevail once again in our land where only a false “social” justice has supplanted it for so long. RELATED REPORT: Would Charlie Kirk Support The DEATH PENALTY For His Assassin? His Answer Might Surprise You — WATCH Here! Would Charlie Kirk have supported the Death Penalty for his assassin? His actual answer might surprise you! I've seen a ton of people online saying Charlie surely wouldn't support that because he was a Christian. And while I appreciate the intent behind that sentiment, it's not what Charlie would have said. How do I know? Because luckily we have a VAST database of him speaking on virtually any topic you can think of, and a big hat tip to my friend Pepe Deluxe for finding this clip. Watch Charlie answer that question himself -- not just giving a simplistic "love everyone" message but weighing the balance between Grace and Justice in the Bible.  Too often we go 100% Grace or 100% Justice and each of those is dangerous.  Charlie brilliantly navigated both in this answer: WATCH: Charlie Kirk on the death penalty pic.twitter.com/RNrIQVW4xS — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) September 16, 2025 FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE IF READING IS BETTER FOR YOU: It's like, yeah, we're pro-choice, but then when it comes to like vaccinations and my body, my choice, suddenly they're not so pro-choice anymore. I feel like conservatives do the same thing, but on the pro-life side. So can you ex—can you defend—I mean, come on man, you seem so much smarter than that. What do you think my answer is? I don't—'Cause they did something bad? Well, yeah. But if life is—and, and, and—invaluable—well then why do you not consider it valuable throughout the whole lifespan, not just the beginning? Well, 'cause you believe in putting criminals in jail, right? Yes. Which is a taking of their rights. Not their life. Well, again, but their whole life is completely changed. So I guess it's— Right. Also an insult to the victim, isn't it, saying that your life doesn't matter so much, that your murderer can keep on living but you yourself aren't living? It's— Well— Actually devalues the value of the victim— Mm-hmm. Or the victims, actually, in a lot of times. Mm-hmm. And you have a hat that says, "Make America Holy Again." Yes. God repeated in all 5 books of the Torah, "You take a life, your life will be taken." To the consistency argument, if there is a baby here, you know, in the womb, that baby has done nothing wrong, whereas a guy who went and shot up a school did a lot wrong. Mm-hmm. And so the only answer is to say, "We value human life so much that you don't get to keep on living if you take a precious human life." It's actually an explicitly pro-life position because it's honoring the dead and honoring the victim so much that it's not just one to be discarded. That's, oh, it's not just a clump of cells. You see, to be against the death penalty is actually consistent for the left because they're like, "Oh, you know, it's just a bunch of clump of cells that got shot up at a school. It doesn't really matter. Go put them in a jail." Where we say, "No, that's a life you took and you don't get to, get to keep on having breath if you go take another precious human life." Mm-hmm. Does that make sense? It makes sense. Share!