(Caveat: I am not ready to die on any molehill I'm building in this post. I'm speculating, and just entertaining some thoughts because goddammit, I love fiction. In another life, I coulda been a writer, I say.)
I've seen comments on line mostly by ammosexuals that claim it was not a big deal to shoot a target from 200 yards away with these newfangled scopes that are on the market these days. Nevertheless, it was friggin bullseye on a fidgety target. Kirk was wearing body armor, so you had to aim at the head or the neck. My guess is an amateur goes for the head. This dude went for the jugular, literally. A single shot. And by the time Kirk was on the ground, the dude was already running away.
This tells me this was not an act of passion. it was planned and methodically executed. It was not necessarily a target of opportunity, like the guy that nicked Trump's ear, by the way. From his notes, we know that he didn't care who he was shooting at. It just happened to be Trump coming to his town. In the Kirk shooting, there is no note, no manifesto. No desire to be known.
The second thing is this article on Raw Story about how the Provo airport was not shut down after the shooting (someone slipped up?) and it just so happens that there was a private jet that took off soon after the shooting (I'm not sure what time the shooting took place) went to Arizona, and then came back to Provo within the hour. (Like Copy said, this is very Jason Bourne.) I don't know how reliable that info is. Perhaps not. But it's a tidbit that asks you to take a step back and think a little. That doesn't mean he's in Arizona right now, by the way. For all we know, the killer may have gone in the other direction to Moscow, Idaho or may be hiding in some shack in the mountains, or enjoying a morning sip at some beach somewhere.
Yes, I am feeling that this may well have been an exceptional well organized action, almost military style. I don't know who has these kinds of resources, but the candidate list is not short, and neither is the list that intersects it with those who would benefit from this assassination.
The other thing that bugs me about this whole thing is I'm racking my brain to see why would anyone on the left want to see Charlie Kirk die? He really had no power. He is just some internet personality who talks. If anyone wants him dead, it would be an act of passion, which this killing is not. If you made a list of people who the left (from moderate centrist to as far left as me -- sorry, no insights on people to my left) would like to see dead is not that long and I don't think Charlie Kirk really makes it. I can see Joe Rogan being hated more than Kirk. I can see Fuentes being hated more, when it comes to internet personalities, even Ben Shapiro, but the main point is, if there is any desire to kill any right wingers out there, the target would be someone who holds actual power, or symbolic power. Not Charlie effing Kirk, who's, at the end of the day, is just some heated gasbag who has had his own internal clashes with other characters on the right over the years.
So does this mean that there is now a secret terrorist group on the left that is somehow very well funded and organized and can pull off something like this? I doubt it because, you know, the left. We're not good at organizing or carrying out orders without long debate sessions that eventually dissolve into a state of indecision and multiple splinter groups deciding to go their own way. Trust me on this. I know my people. We can't even agree on what pizza to order for the meeting.
Also the whole point of a terrorist group is to inflict terror. Some nameless dude shooting some guy named Charlie Kirk in the middle of a debate session spreads fear alright, but not terror. If you're a terrorist group, you need to attach a fearsome name to the action and start forming your own brand just to make you and your group seem more dangerous than it actually is. The time honored way to do this is to claim responsibility with some ominous message. None of that. This is all taking place in the shadows. Terrorist groups like spotlight and glamor.
That leads me to think that this was either an act of provocation or elimination. Again, I am not taking all this too seriously until there is some actual evidence in this direction, but that little voice in me that loves conspiracies as an act of communal fiction says "why not both?"
>>>> end speculation.
I'm hoping we find some facts that can undermine and/or falsify what I'm saying here because as usual, the direction my mind wants to go to is not a very pleasant place at all, and I want to be shown this was a more (forgive the expression) mundane act of killing.
That said, did we ever find out about that umnbrella man during the George Floyd protests?