Shocking moment judge winces as disturbing evidence shown in Charlie Kirk hearing 72%

By Patrick Reilly35%

7/7/2026, 12:15:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 49.3% saturation with 139 hits. Analysis detected 957 faulty-reasoning hits from 282 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.9% and a BS Rank of 72% (6,335 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.10% of the article peer group.

The judge overseeing the Charlie Kirk assassination case visibly winced when the court was shown disturbing footage of the moment accused gunman Tyler Robinson shot the Turning Point USA founder through the neck. 
Judge Tony Graf flinched and moved his seat back while watching his monitor on the bench during Monday’s hearing in Utah  when Erika Kirk faced her husband’s alleged killer for the first time. 
He then gathered himself and calmly stated, “And that concludes state’s Exhibit 8,” the New York Times reported. 
Robinson, 23, is accused of shooting Kirk, 31, from long range while he was speaking in front of thousands of spectators at an event at Utah Valley University in September 2025. 
Horrific footage circulated on social media afterwards captured the moment the conservative activist was shot in the neck  with blood spewing from the wound as the terrified crowd screamed and ran for their lives. 
Erika Kirk, who attended the hearing with her late husband's parents, made her swift exit from courtroom right before prosecutors played three videos showing the gruesome killing. 
Robinson, meanwhile, appeared to smile at various times during the hearing while talking to one of his lawyers. 
During this week's multi-day hearing in Provo, Judge Graf will determine whether there is enough evidence for Robinson to face criminal trial  an alternative to seeking a grand jury indictment under Utah state law. 
Robinson allegedly admitted to the shooting in messages with his trans lover Lance Twiggs, which are among the evidence prosecutors will present at the hearing. 
He has not yet entered a plea and faces the death penalty, if convicted. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.9%Patrick Reilly: 3.2%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias19.9%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 24.1%Patrick Reilly: 3.9%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic24.1%This article: 8.9%Patrick Reilly: 0.8%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.9%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.8%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 1.1%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 28.7%Patrick Reilly: 10.2%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect28.7%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.5%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 12.4%Patrick Reilly: 0.4%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.3%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Patrick Reilly: 1.0%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias14.5%This article: 46.8%Patrick Reilly: 22.7%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias46.8%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.2%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Patrick Reilly: 0.9%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error6.4%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.1%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.5%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 2.4%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.9%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.6%Patrick Reilly: 0.6%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Patrick Reilly: 0.3%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem8.9%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.4%Patrick Reilly: 5.5%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority6.4%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.5%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 3.0%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.4%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 40.4%Patrick Reilly: 12.2%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion40.4%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.6%Patrick Reilly: 1.4%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.6%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.4%Patrick Reilly: 2.6%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal12.4%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.4%Patrick Reilly: 2.0%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.4%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.4%Patrick Reilly: 0.3%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground12.4%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.4%Patrick Reilly: 2.0%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote6.4%This article: 6.4%Patrick Reilly: 2.4%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.4%This article: 49.3%Patrick Reilly: 12.1%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice49.3%This article: 9.6%Patrick Reilly: 0.7%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination9.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.1%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.3%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Reilly: 0.6%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

282 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.