Is This the Rights' Fight? Wrong Turn on Right 3: Utah Murder Trial, Extremism, and Political Scapegoating

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman explores DNA evidence ambiguities, possible manipulation or false confessions, and gaps in the prosecution’s narrative. Tsukerman emphasizes due process, fair trial concerns, and the influence of political figures like Kash Patel. The conversation broadens to scapegoating in U.S. politics, parallels with antisemitism, and the rise of nihilistic “social media kills.” Tsukerman warns of shifting Republican attitudes toward immigration and the dangers of fringe grievances entering the mainstream.

Interview conducted on October 3, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Quick background for readers: Based on the best available data from September 30—though newer details may exist—the subject is a 22-year-old Utah resident from Washington, Utah, a third-year student in the electrical program at Dixie Technical College, born April 16, 2003. He was not a student at Utah Valley University. He allegedly shot and killed Charlie Kirkland on September 10 with a Mauser .30-06 bolt-action rifle equipped with a scope. Early reports claimed a DNA match on the rifle’s trigger, but filings state the DNA was “consistent with Robinson,” which is not the same as a definitive match.

The charges include aggravated murder—a capital felony under Utah law—felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily harm, two counts of obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering, committing a violent offense in the presence of a child, and a victim-targeting enhancement (political expression).

Irina Tsukerman: Those are very serious charges. Even with the gravity of what happened, the prosecution still has to prove its case. Several pieces of evidence suggest Tyler confessed in certain forums, but gaps in the timeline raise questions. It is possible he was manipulated into taking credit for something committed with assistance, or even by another associate. It is also possible he acted alone, disturbed and reckless, and then bragged about it on Discord. Both scenarios remain plausible.

Jacobsen: There was also a bizarre twist involving a 71-year-old who briefly claimed responsibility. He was later apprehended and charged with another crime, not murder.

Tsukerman: It raises the possibility that some early suspects were red herrings or decoys. That confusion underscores the complexity here. Tyler could be exactly what he seems: a disturbed young man who carried out a horrific crime. But he also might have had help or encouragement.

The real question is whether prosecutors will pursue speculation about conspirators without clear evidence, or stick to what they can prove. There is also concern about whether Tyler will face a fair trial, given that the death penalty is on the table under Utah law, and whether federal charges could come into play.

Jacobsen: So far there is no evidence of terrorist intent, aside from his personal extremism, which seems to have emerged over the last year or so.

Tsukerman: The added complication is whether remarks from officials—and especially Kash Patel’s involvement in handling the case—could jeopardize the prosecution’s strategy.

Jacobsen: Are these types of charges for a 22-year-old white male in the United States unusual? Is this a serious set of charges for someone like that?

Tsukerman: It is not unusual overall, but unusual for Tyler—not because he is young, male, and white, but because he comes from a Republican family in Utah, which is not a high-crime profile. We have had high-profile cases involving young, somewhat charismatic white men—like Scott Peterson, accused of murdering his pregnant wife. He is still on death row, facing execution. Some similar cases have been commuted to life in prison, but originally it was a death penalty case.

Jacobsen: So Tyler represents something new?

Tsukerman: Yes. He appears to be part of a new type of killer: more nihilistic, less motivated by clear goals. In Scott Peterson’s case, it was getting rid of his family, possibly for insurance money. In others, the motive is profit, an affair, or sociopathic tendencies. Tyler’s case looks more like a “social media kill”—a crime committed partly to boast about.

We saw something similar with the Jack Teixeira case. Who knows if he would have committed a serious security violation without the audience to whom he could perform, claiming a moral stand? This modern obsession with validation seems to be pushing confused young people into crime.

Jacobsen: In my research, disturbed young white males in the U.S. peak around age 17 for school mass shootings. They make up well over 90–95% of those killers. That is not to say Native American, Hispanic, or Black boys do not kill, but they tend to express alienation through gangs rather than individual school shootings. Does that match your assessment?

Tsukerman: Yes, though, it has evolved. There used to be no shortage of white American gangs—Irish gangs fighting on the streets decades ago. That pattern has shifted.

There is now a sense of young men either self-isolating or congregating in groups that are not built on initiation ceremonies or ritualized violence, but instead on informal violence—boasting and proving credibility to anonymous onlookers, rather than building real community.

Whether this comes from social media, family environment, politics, self-perception, or a faltering sense of identity, there has clearly been a shift.

Jacobsen: Are the attempts to connect this murder with a possible roommate, a brief romantic partner, or someone who may or may not identify as transgender—primarily by the American right—legitimate in any way? Or is this more of a scurrilous attempt to smear a group of people?

Tsukerman: Investigators should look at all possible angles and motives. It is not unreasonable to question and seek evidence. But the key is evidence. You cannot drag someone’s name through the mud, project guilt by association, or treat an individual as an unindicted co-conspirator when there is absolutely no evidence linking them to the crime.

Jacobsen: We recently completed a glossary-length set of interviews on anti-Semitism. Even after interviewing people in strange domains, I was still shocked at the degree to which people expressed such detached, extreme views. It raises a similar mechanism: a Jewish American who happens to have an Israeli passport gets accused of “dual loyalty.” That trope has centuries of history. Is it the same kind of cognitive glitch that produces this scapegoating?

Tsukerman: It is a chicken-and-egg problem. Some people may have latent anti-Semitism that recent events brought out. Others may have started neutral, but constant reinforcement from media, politicians, and echo chambers planted the ideas until they took root, often feeding off conflicting thoughts and grievances.

I argued with someone recently about anti-immigration politics. The question was whether Trump and his policies created an extreme level of xenophobia and nativism among Americans—or whether that sentiment had always existed, suppressed until now. My view is that constant media reinforcement and policies pushed people toward positions they otherwise might not have considered.

Up until recently, there was no evidence of broad anti-immigration sentiment among Republicans. There was always bipartisan consensus against illegal immigration, which grew stronger on the Republican side in recent years. But Republicans had also been broadly supportive of some forms of migration—perhaps not lottery or chain migration, but definitely skilled migration or policies that could bring tangible benefits.

The Republican Party historically supported parts of the immigration system—working visas, some student visas, and, under certain circumstances, broader migration categories. The current broad rejection of nearly all forms of migration is relatively new.

There have always been individuals focused on visa fraud or who felt disadvantaged by immigration, but it is unclear whether those individuals were representative of Republican sentiment overall, or whether they simply became more politically vocal in recent years because they feel harmed.

That raises the question: is it good for society when previously fringe grievances are suddenly brought into the mainstream? Sometimes it may be best if certain impulses remain beneath the surface. Not every “demon” in society needs to be unleashed. In some cases, restraint itself is a form of victory.

Jacobsen: You mentioned inconsistencies in the case. Should we cover that now or save it for next week?

Tsukerman: Let’s cover it briefly. There are periods of time unaccounted for—gaps in video surveillance, inconsistencies in Tyler’s mother’s account, and contradictions in Tyler’s own social media comments compared to the narrative prosecutors are building. The storyline—how Tyler left his house, ended up at the scene with Kirk, and returned home boasting about it—still contains unexplained elements.

There could be innocuous explanations. Perhaps he stopped somewhere for a drink, perhaps cameras did not cover a particular route, or maybe there was a delay caused by something mundane like bumping into someone or taking a phone call. None of that necessarily means he did not commit the crime.

But given the seriousness of the charges, prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That requires constructing a clear and consistent account of his whereabouts from departure to return, and showing conclusively that he was the one who held and fired the weapon—not simply someone who later took credit.

That is particularly difficult because history shows many people falsely confess to crimes. Police have wasted countless hours chasing false leads when disturbed or attention-seeking individuals claimed responsibility. If Tyler was present but not the shooter, yet still took credit, that would complicate the prosecution further.

Jacobsen: Great. I’ll see you next week.

Tsukerman: Thank you.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.