I published the following text on X in October 2025. It is my commentary of a video by Frank Turek, a TPUSA pastor and "friend" of Charlie Kirk. In his video message, he comments on the events on the day of the murder.

My X account was permanently banned after I published my text:

I find some of what Frank Turek says in this video extremely strange.

He first complains about Candace Owens for describing Mikey McCoy's behavior immediately after the assassination attempt as strange and suspicious.

He tries to defend him by saying

"My friend Mikey McCoy, the brilliant 24-year-old, who was 23 the day Charlie Kirk was shot and was a hero that day,"

Obviously, it is important to him to highlight Mikey's brilliance at such a young age. Suggesting he would be some kind of prodigy.

But what's really strange is his claim that Mikey was a hero that day.

His behavior immediately after the assassination didn’t look heroic at all.

Did I miss something?

Did Mikey fought a dragon and rescued a princess later that day?

Here is what I think:

His father publicly said that Mikey was covered in blood. Frank Turek elevates him to a hero without further explanation.

Could it be that the narrative of the young, brilliant hero Mikey McCoy was planned from the start and is now being enforced at all costs?

Then Frank Turek explains, to excuse Mikey's behavior, that there is no normal behavior in such situations ("there is no normal when you're in shock") and everyone reacts differently.

He then talks about his own behavior immediately after the assassination and says,

"The only reason that I did what I did is that I thought about it beforehand. I was afraid that someone would take a shot at Charlie, and I thought to myself, if it happened, what are you gonna do. And what I wanted to do is anything I could to save him. In that sense, I was glad I was there because now I know there is nothing that could have been done. Nobody could have done anything. He was gone already. We learned that later when we got..., I mean, looking at him, I thought he was gone, ...it was verified later when we got to the hospital."

Apparently, Frank Turek was one of the people who drove Charlie Kirk to the hospital.

I don't know what role Frank Turek played in this. It seems to me that he's trying to portray himself as a hero by implying that he was able to act despite the shock, having mentally prepared himself for it and doing everything he could to save him.

At the same time, he emphasizes that Charlie was already dead (he was gone already, I mean, looking at him)—could he possibly also emphasize this to exonerate the cameraguy with the strange selfie video, and thus TPUSA as a whole, in which he states "he's dead" immediately after the assassination?

At the same time, however, he indirectly practically admits that at that point, none of them could have said with absolute certainty whether Charlie was already dead, adding, "it was later verified by the hospital."

The doctors at the hospital, after hopefully having done everything they could to save his life, obviously confirmed Charlie Kirk's death and determined the time of death. That's their job.

Since it was definitely a so-called "unnatural cause of death," a forensic examination of the body would have been mandatory. Was this performed? By whom?

They presumably assured the people who had brought him to the hospital that there was absolutely no way to save Charlie Kirk and that they, therefore, couldn't have done anything wrong.

To say something like that would absolve not only the possibly grieving "friends" who brought him to the hospital but the doctors would absolve themselves of any blame.

In my opinion, the doctors couldn't have assessed with absolute certainty that he could not have been saved under any circumstances. At least not if it was indeed a normal gunshot wound.

We can now say with certainty that Charlie's injury could not have been caused by a bullet fired from a rifle at a distance.

We don't yet know the actual cause of death.

In my estimation, the injury wasn't inflicted by any other firearm either but rather by a precisely remotely detonated, tiny explosive charge.

But that's pure speculation.