When former Navy SEAL Rob O’Neill – the man widely credited with firing the shot that killed Osama bin Laden – says a high-profile shooting “doesn’t make sense,” people listen.
In a conversation with Clayton Morris on Redacted, O’Neill laid out why he isn’t buying key parts of the early public story around the assassination of Charlie Kirk. He didn’t claim to have all the answers. He did insist on better ones.
This is what O’Neill said, what Morris pressed him on, and where the questions lead next.
A SEAL’s First Reaction: “I’ve Seen Entry Wounds And Exit Wounds”
O’Neill told Clayton Morris he first heard Kirk had been shot and was in critical condition. Then he saw the video clip.
His immediate, visceral take: the movement of the shirt and the damage in the neck looked like an exit wound with a nearby impact. “I’ve killed a lot of people… I’ve seen entry wounds and exit wounds,” O’Neill said. From that experience, “it didn’t make sense.”
That’s not a conclusion – it’s a red flag, grounded in firsthand combat exposure. O’Neill stressed he wasn’t on scene and can’t claim certainty. But he has a high bar for accepting a narrative without corroboration. “With AI and everything else, if I don’t see it, I need verification,” he said.
As a framing principle, that’s healthy: big claims deserve transparent evidence—especially when the stakes are national.
Ballistics, Body Armor, And The .30-06 Question
One of O’Neill’s sharpest points was about ballistics. He reacted to reports that a .30-06 round was involved and to chatter that a ricochet or body armor might explain Kirk’s injury pattern.
He was blunt: “No, it wasn’t,” when told the round might have ricocheted off armor; and “Do you know what a .30-06 would do to a man’s neck?”
He said a high-energy rifle round of that class would cause catastrophic damage – “probably blow his head off” – and leave recoverable bullet remnants. He pushed for the autopsy and the bullet: “Where is it? Is it lodged in the spine? Where’s the report?”
Morris stayed on that thread, asking the obvious: if the projectile and wound profile don’t line up with the stated weapon and distance, show the forensics. That’s the kind of clear, testable data that can silence speculation – or legitimize it.
My read: ballistics is objective math – angle, mass, velocity, tissue disruption, and recoverable fragments. If these reports are accurate, the forensics will either validate a .30-06 at ~140 yards or they won’t. Releasing those details is the fastest path to public confidence.
Evidence Gaps And Chain-Of-Custody Questions
O’Neill raised a different kind of issue: scene integrity. He asked whether Kirk’s lapel mic was removed and handed off, what happened to the SIM card, whether the camera behind him was collected, and why the scene might have been altered quickly (“paved over,” “rebuild it”) – not as a claim, but as a series of questions.
To a SEAL who’s done man-hunting and target exploitation, chain of custody isn’t a bureaucratic formality – it’s the spine of truth.
If crucial first minutes went unpreserved, or if equipment that could hold video or audio was moved without documentation, that undermines confidence later when prosecutors, defense lawyers, and the public all go hunting for clean answers.
Morris echoed the concern with a video question of his own: Why release footage of someone running on a roof but not the first seconds that would show the shot? He noted the absence, so far, of clear video showing the alleged shooter firing.
Again, neither man claimed a cover-up. They said: show the tapes, show the logs, show the forensics.
The Shooter Logistics: “Make It Make Sense”
O’Neill also zoomed in on the practicality of the alleged rooftop shot. As he paraphrased the evolving story, a 22-year-old supposedly assembled a bolt gun, mounted a scope, made a cold-bore shot from a rooftop, broke down the rifle, bagged it, and took off – all around a crowded outdoor event with people filming in 4K.
His reaction wasn’t “impossible,” but “make it make sense.” Anyone who’s spent time behind a precision rifle knows: cold-bore shifts, mount stability, rifle zero, and positional support are not afterthoughts. You can do it – but the more you do in haste, the wider the error bars.
If investigators have the rifle, the mount, and the optic, the test is straightforward: reconstruct the setup, validate the zero, replicate the shot geometry.
That evidence would either confirm that a hurried assembly on a rooftop still produced the necessary accuracy at ~142 yards – or reveal a mismatch that needs explaining.
The Narrative Whiplash – and Why It Matters
Both men flagged the whiplash in early official statements: “We’ve got him,” “We don’t,” “His mother turned him in.” O’Neill and Morris argued that fast, contradictory public updates erode trust when the public is primed to be skeptical.
O’Neill also voiced frustration with the social penalty for asking questions. He said simply questioning the timeline or ballistics got him labeled an “anti-Semite,” though he hadn’t mentioned Israel.
“That’s a tactic to shut you up,” he argued – something he says he’s seen from political actors of all stripes when they’re on their back foot.
You don’t have to agree with O’Neill on everything to see his point: calling people names instead of answering their questions doesn’t build confidence. Evidence does.
What We Know So Far – and What We Don’t
The broad public frame is established: Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at close to 142 yards during an outdoor event at Utah Valley University; a 22-year-old, Tyler James Robinson, later surrendered and was charged, with prosecutors citing political motive.
Within that frame, O’Neill and Morris are pressing for verifiable details:
- Ballistics: caliber confirmation, wound path, recovered projectile, and energy consistency with the alleged weapon and distance.
- Video: release of pre-shot seconds showing the suspect in the firing position, not just moving post-shot.
- Scene integrity: documentation for moved objects, mic/audio capture, and device custody.
- Rifle setup: zero confirmation and a technical explanation of how a rooftop, cold-bore shot was executed under time and pressure.
Those requests are not unreasonable. They’re the kind of disclosures that tighten the narrative and discipline the rumor mill.
Skepticism Is Healthy; Speculation Needs Fuel
Rob O’Neill is not a random internet sleuth. He’s a practitioner with unusual exposure to ballistic effects and the aftermath of gunfire. When he says something looks off, it’s worth slowing down to check the math.
At the same time, precision claims need precision proof. If the shot was indeed from a .30-06, the forensics should sing the same tune – tissue damage, fragment recovery, angle of travel, impact evidence.
If the early communications were sloppy but the core case is sound, comprehensive releases will quiet the noise. If the core case has gaps, better to find them now than in a courtroom ambush.
Here’s the principle we can all live with: Transparency beats certainty theater. Release the ballistics report. Release the unredacted, time-synced videos. Document chain of custody. Let the public see what the jury will see.
If prosecutors are confident, expect a forensic-first narrative soon – projectile recovery, wound ballistics, shot-reconstruction, and a clean chain to the rifle and optic. Expect more video as well, even if under court order. That would answer most of O’Neill’s and Morris’s questions decisively.
If the case is less tidy, expect piecemeal disclosures and more friction. In that world, responsible skepticism – of the kind O’Neill is modeling – becomes even more necessary.
For now, the fairest summary of his position is the one he gave Morris: “I’d like to know why. And stop bullsh***ing me.” Fair ask. Strong institutions should welcome it – and meet it with evidence, not epithets.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
