560
Charlie Kirk bullet analysis finds no conclusive link to rifle found near scene
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
560 points (97.6% liked)
News
36867 readers
3242 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A disturbing number of people seem to be reading this as:
"The bullet does not match the gun." i.e. that there is 'proof' that the bullet didn't come from his gun
Instead of
"They can't say if it is or is not from the gun due to being a small fragment and not an entire bullet"
It probably doesn't help that there are a bunch of communities/subreddits who've editorialized the headlines to say 'bullet does not match gun' and the tendency of people to only read the headline.
Yes, and…
The way I understand the evolution of bullet science is that the days are gone when bullets can be used like finger prints because too many cases have been overturned.
The way we should be thinking about this type of forensics is that it can link a bullet to a family of guns ie “this could have been the weapon or this couldn’t have been the weapon” - it’s almost never definitive, in the affirmative.
The headline here could also be “bullet investigation does not rule out Robinson as the shooter”.
It's a non-story.
The thing that happened is that the defense asked for more time before the trial. This is incredibly common and will likely happen in every criminal case multiple times.
From a legal point of view, nothing important is happening here. Reporting on this is about as relevant as writing an article stating the the judge called the court in session.
The only reason that it is getting traction is because the headlines can be crafted to attract the conspiratorial-minded people by focusing on one tiny part of that motion that is useless without the context of the full report.
It's entirely clickbait/conspiracy nonsense.
OJ's glove didn't fit, therefore he's innocent
Using this metaphor, OJ's glove is shredded to pieces so determining if it fits or not is not possible.
Under the requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt, "they can't say if it is or is not from the gun" is huge, having a gun becomes circumstantial, and requires additional evidence, and depending on the strength of additional evidence, a good lawyer maybe able to get him off the hook.
There's a lot of other evidence, I think you're substantially grasping at straws with "a good lawyer may be able to get him off the hook."