Charlie kirk was shot from behind, it is evident and they paved over the grass where he was sitting when he was shot the next day. Why are there no comments stating the facts?

1. What mainstream reporting actually says about where the shot came from

Major outlets consistently report that Kirk was struck by a “longer distance” shot believed to have been fired from a roof or rooftop area overlooking the event; witnesses and officials described the shot as coming from an elevated position and investigators later recovered a rifle and released images of a person of interest ^{[3] [4]}. Reuters and the BBC summarize law-enforcement statements that investigators found a rifle and sought tips on a rooftop shooter; those accounts align with each other on the rooftop/shooter-from-distance detail ^{[4] [2]}.

2. What reporters documented about videos, witnesses and the immediate scene

News organizations repeatedly note that multiple bystander videos captured the moment and that graphic footage spread rapidly online; outlets including PBS, NPR and Reuters reported that videos were posted almost instantly and were widely shared, which complicated coverage choices for traditional newsrooms ^{[5] [6] [1]}. Witness accounts published by outlets like Slate and the NYT described people dropping to the ground and seeing Kirk slump, with blood visible — those on-the-ground descriptions are consistent across reporting ^{[7] [3]}.

3. The specific claim about grass being paved over: not present in these sources

None of the supplied reports (Reuters, BBC, NYT, PBS, NPR, ABC, Slate, Wikipedia, Fox, Daily Mail, Independent) mention any action the following day to “pave over the grass where he was sitting” or similar alterations to the physical site — I cannot confirm or deny that claim because it is not reported in the materials you provided (not found in current reporting).

4. Why absence of a detail in coverage doesn’t prove a conspiracy — and why people notice gaps

Journalists and readers often flag absent details when they seem consequential; that absence can reflect that reporters did not find corroborating evidence, that the detail occurred outside the reporting timeframe, or that authorities or event hosts managed the scene for investigative reasons. In this case, the supplied outlets focused on the shooter’s location (a roof), released images of a person of interest, and the arrest of a suspect — those were the dominant facts news organizations reported, which can leave other specifics unreported if they were not verified by sources available to those outlets ^{[4] [1] [2]}.

5. How competing narratives and viral content shaped public discussion

After the killing, partisan voices and social-media creators amplified unverified theories and focused on perceived anomalies — for example, the Daily Mail and other outlets catalogued internal disputes about speculation among Kirk’s circle and right-wing media figures amplified alternate takes, while some in that ecosystem also pushed skeptical readings of bystander behavior ^[8]. PBS, NPR and ABC warned about the emotional and political consequences of circulating graphic footage and about how video proliferation can feed conspiracy ecosystems even when official facts are limited ^{[5] [6] [9]}.

6. What to look for next and how to verify the lawn/paving assertion

To verify the paving claim you should seek: (a) official statements from Utah Valley University or local law enforcement about scene remediation; (b) contemporaneous local-government or campus maintenance records; (c) timestamped satellite or aerial imagery, or multiple independent photos showing the site before and after the alleged change; and (d) reporting from established local outlets citing sources on-site. None of the current sources supply any of those records or quotes about paving (not found in current reporting).

Limitations: this analysis uses only the documents you supplied and cites them directly; if you want a definitive answer about the grass/paving, I can search further for campus statements, local news follow-ups, or visual evidence beyond the set you provided.