Shots fired on my campus today. Charlie Kirk TPUSA leader dead

[Raingirl]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m upset. I was watching a COMPLETELY unrelated video on twitter when auto play jumped right into a closeup video that showed him bleeding out within a fraction of a second. Disgusting and horrifying.

And to think this is what our school children see and suffer from on a regular basis.  No one deserves this. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m upset. I was watching a COMPLETELY unrelated video on twitter when auto play jumped right into a closeup video that showed him bleeding out within a fraction of a second. Disgusting and horrifying.

I am refusing to watch it. I don’t need that in my head. I am sorry that happened to you.  I would have thought graphic videos were not allowed on auto play, but am guessing the person who posted it didn’t identify it as such….if there is any way to identify it as such.

IMO, only vetted for violence, sex, and maybe language videos and clips should be allowed on auto play anywhere on public sites.  A lot of work, but the services should protect customers who do not want to see them. If someone does, they can go look for them. (I don’t do anything but FB to avoid a high level of frustration, so I have no clue what is or isn’t done).

Edited September 15, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am refusing to watch it. I don’t need that in my head. I am sorry that happened to you.  I would have thought graphic videos were not allowed on auto play, but am guessing the person who posted it didn’t identify it as such….if there is any way to identify it as such.

IMO, only vetted for violence, sex, and maybe language videos and clips should be allowed on auto play anywhere on public sites.  A lot of work, but the services should protect customers who do not want to see them. If someone does, they can go look for them. (I don’t do anything but FB to avoid a high level of frustration, so I have no clue what is or isn’t done).

IMO the current owner of the platform doesn’t care. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You are an utter moron.

The foxes have taken over this henhouse.

I'm done.

If you admire Charlie Kirk for being gracious in the face of attacks, why are you choosing this route?

And just to be clear, I don’t see Kirk as always gracious in his debates, but I don’t see him as horrible either.  His manner comes across as calm and confident, I just don’t see him as engaging and instead mostly dismissive.  I watched some of his last one in California and had to stop because it was too depressing.  He was definitely not the worse debater in terms of attempting to humiliate his opponent, or even close, but he did not engage with the primary claims the student made, simply dismissed the stats given as incorrect without explaining why, even stated he wouldn’t debate them, but continued to wave them away with “incorrect”.  In two cases his words were even derogatory of the student imo, though tone was controlled, so while my guess is the student felt embarrassed, it wasn’t a let me crawl under the rock feeling.  The first remark drew laughter from the crowd though (both remarks implying the student wasn’t truly informed, the first implied the student depended on ChatGPT for his info; also even though Kirk had told the student to look something up on the phone to begin with, he threw out the quip when the student actually did which felt like a setup to me).  Overall he took the opportunity not to address the student’s concerns, but to publicize his own.  That’s not being gracious imo when he is presenting it as an opportunity to sit and talk to each other.  He did allow the student to present a rather long list (for an informal debate) uninterrupted at the beginning of their interaction, made me hopeful, but wasn’t continued.  Still want to applaud him for doing that.

I did a point by point analysis of part of his interaction with this student with a link to the debate so people could understand my reasoning and reactions, but stopped detailing it as it wasn’t getting better and I was interested in seeing the positive behaviors my husband and others had talked about being there.  I was going to come back to it after my annoyance level at him refusing to actually engage with the student had dropped.  Still plan to, but taking a day off from research (that’s the plan at least).

I removed the detailed analysis because it was a political debate and while I was focusing on how he made his points, when Nemesis requested less political rhetoric, I thought it best to remove it.  But given your (Zealous) continued insistence that it’s not reasonable to see Kirk as obnoxious, etc, I feel the need to present my conclusions about his tactics in at least this one case.

I didn’t find him obnoxious (I might in the future knowing my strong reaction when I see youth struggling).  If people saw him treat student after student that way though, I don’t find it unreasonable for some of them to consider him obnoxious (I don’t know if he actually does that, but it came across as something he was very comfortable doing and it looked practiced, so my guess is it’s done frequently by him) and others to see it as gracious.  He is not extreme in my view, but depending what one focuses on, there is enough there to view him as insulting just as there is him being considerate.  Like most humans he has a variety of responses.  I did take a break because it was starting to feel that if I kept watching him, my bias against not engaging with others, but acting like you are would inflate my gut reactions to him.  I plan on going back and looking at other students he disagreed with strongly that he talked with to see if he is consistent in not addressing their points or not.

It is harder for me to understand why people see him as gracious, but perhaps it is who they are comparing him with.  He comes across like two of my relatives, one liberal, one conservative…both of whom I love and consider very good people, but both of whom have real problems seeing others’ POVs and seriously engaging with them rather than being dismissive and trying to dominate the conversation.  (I have a lot of talkers in my extended family, including among in-laws and beyond and politics is a favorite topic for several; thankfully I have always been able to find points I agree with that we can have a civil discussion about; one of my grandmothers was probably the hardest to discuss things with since she peppered her comments with “you know I am right, you know I am right”.)

Edited September 14, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

For every quote that Mr. Kirk said that could show him in a positive light, there’s another that could show him a negative light. 

I think this is an accurate assessment.  It’s better than many where you would find far fewer positive examples, but it saddens me this is the style of debate that is being applauded.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

It seems that the shooter did have an LDS upbringing, and there’s a few people on the internet (in the comments of the Amir Odom video) that are attempting to tie the act to that upbringing, which sickens me. The Exmormon subreddit has a thread that is about how the church will respond, and some are saying that they find it funny that the church tries to distance themselves from those that do acts that don’t put the church in a good light. 

From the quotes by neighbors I’ve heard. His family hasn’t even at church for years. Not sure how vetted the quote is. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, manol said:

 

Well said.

Imo we have here before us, both individually and collectively, the opportunity to choose peace over grievance; to choose healing over retribution; to choose love over fear. Imo we each have the opportunity to draw a large enough circle of inclusion that it's no longer “us” and “them”, but rather, only “us”.

Would it be out of place for me to see each of you as a sister or a brother, regardless of our opinions on social and political and religious topics? I hope not because, at the risk of sounding really corny, I do.

 

^^^This^^^

Imo the real battle isn't with "them"; it's with the fear, hate, resentment, indignation, vengefulness, etc. inside of us.  And imo the more we fill our minds with light, the less room there is for darkness in whatever form. 

I’m reminded of someone who said that it is impossible to do good with hate in your heart.   💕

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

some are saying that they find it funny that the church tries to distance themselves from those that do acts that don’t put the church in a good light. 

As in they don’t understand or it amuses them that the Church is in difficulty?  Or something else?

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, gopher said:

If the latest news is true that the killer was in a relationship with his roommate who is transitioning from male to female, I fear that will further incite the Kirk supporters who were looking for a transgender motive for the killing. 

This seems to have been confirmed (as SeekingUnderstanding has already noted).  KSL has a story on it today.  And while that information may help to determine the killer's motive, it just goes further to underscore the utter stupidity of it all, since that roommate association with the suspect in the killing just backs up some of the theories that Kirk was spreading.  Why would the killer do something that goes further to confirm what the person he hates is saying?  Killer dude, you've just made things worse.  What's wrong with people these days?

[Devobah]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

As in they don’t understand or it amuses them that the Church is in difficulty?  Or something else?

They seem to want to tie LDS teachings to his actions. Or the fact that he had an LDS upbringing being the reason that he’s a bit messed up. 
 

Kind of like the Ruby Franke situation but almost worse?

[Devobah]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think this is an accurate assessment.  It’s better than many where you would find far fewer positive examples, but it saddens me this is the style of debate that is being applauded.

It only contributes to talking past each other. Quote mining in the extreme. 

[Raingirl]

Harper Moyski’s celebration of life was held today.  She was only 10 years old when she was murdered in the Anunciation mass shooting.  Her parents spoke of the light she brought to the world.  I see Charlie Kirk being mourned everywhere, but who’s mourning the innocent children? 

[Calm]

Glad to see the full service is offered by the local FOX channel:

I did a search on her name limited to the past 24 hours and 3600+ hits came up, but when narrowed to News only a 23 hits, so that was quite disappointing.

Edited September 15, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1EHu8UqALR/

 

[Okrahomer]

I’ll just leave this here, with a wish that we were a bit more Amish right now.

 

[Vanguard]

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I just watched this, linked below, in its entirety.  If even a fraction of the things Mr. Kirk's detractors are saying about him and about his positions are even close to being true, this gentleman, Amir Odom, has more than a few reasons to hate him that would be perfectly valid.  Yet, Mr. Odom doesn't hate Mr. Kirk.    (Strange, that!) He goes through many of those reasons, one by one, and critiques them: In essence, if not in actual substance, he says, "People hate Charlie Kirk because they say he has said [x] about [y].  This is what he actually has said about [y]."

The whole thing is worth a watch/listen:

My comment on the video was in response to something someone else posted (I can't remember whether Mr. Odom said it or whether Mr. Kirk said, it, but, either way, in this particular moment, it is appropriate:

"Don't Become the Hate You Claim to Fight."

P.S.: I forgot: My comment was, "I think that would be a fitting epitaph for Charlie's headstone."

Nice catch, Kengo. I appreciate this young man's perspective and arguments. As is typically the case, there is so much more nuance/context to Charlie's arguments. The young man is an embodiment of what I'm believe Charlie was and wanted for others. More power to him. : )

[Raingirl]

19 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

I’ll just leave this here, with a wish that we were a bit more Amish right now.

 

I recommend the book “Amish Grace”.  It’s about the forgiveness in the aftermath of the same mass shooting of Amish school girls in Nickel Mines, PA.   It’s powerful.  There is also a movie with the same title. 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

Harper Moyski’s celebration of life was held today.  She was only 10 years old when she was murdered in the Anunciation mass shooting.  Her parents spoke of the light she brought to the world.  I see Charlie Kirk being mourned everywhere, but who’s mourning the innocent children? 

We should mourn the innocent children, but the fact that people mourn Charlie doesn’t mean people don’t care about children.  
The truth is that humans become numb after multiple similar incidents.  School shootings are now awful noise that no longer rattles us for days.  The charlie situation hits a new nerve so peoples’ fears and upset is rekindled.  
 

but the argument “what about the school kids” has me wanting to say, ok then how about cancer? And how about Serbia? And how about the kids being detained? And what about child abuse?

where does it end, or is the list that defines us as monsters if we don’t grieve it all equally actually endless? 
 

 

Edited September 15, 2025 by MustardSeed

[Kenngo1969]

16 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Harper Moyski’s celebration of life was held today.  She was only 10 years old when she was murdered in the Anunciation mass shooting.  Her parents spoke of the light she brought to the world.  I see Charlie Kirk being mourned everywhere, but who’s mourning the innocent children? 

In fairness, this thread was started by someone who works near where Charlie Kirk was sh*t, shortly after that tragic event, so it's only natural that the thread would be about what happened to him, the aftermath, its implications,  and so on.  That does not mean that no other, similar tragic event is worthy of considerable notice or discussion, that no one cares about similar tragic events, or that no one else with the ability to do so could or should start such a discussion.  And speaking of children, perhaps you might be better off not allowing any antipathy you might harbor for Mr. Kirk to obscure the fact that he left behind two very young children who will, at least in mortality, never know their father.

Edited September 15, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Duncan]

18 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In fairness, this thread was started by someone who works near where Charlie Kirk was sh*t, shortly after thst tragic event, so it's only natural that the thread would be about what happened to him, the aftermath, its implications,  and so on.  That does not mean that no other, similar tragic event is worthy of considerable notice or discussion, that no one cares about similar tragic events, or that no one else with the ability to do so could or should start such a discussion.  And speaking of children, perhaps you might be better off not allowing any antipathy you might harbor for Mr. Kirk to obscure the fact that he left behind two very young children who will, at least in mortality, never know their father.

Charlie Kirk isn't any more special than literally any other American, with kids, who got blasted. Melissa Hortman also had two kids. Where is your outrage for her kids? Can you show me your post about them? Thanks!

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Charlie Kirk isn't any more special than literally any other American, with kids, who got blasted. Melissa Hortman also had two kids. Where is your outrage for her kids? Can you show me your post about them? Thanks!

I think one of the reasons that people are reacting like they are to Kirk's killing is because of the reason that he was killed.  

If people are now getting killed because someone else doesn't like what they believe, then that means--in it's most basic iteration--that all of us are targets.  Because we all believe something that someone else doens't agree with.

The move away from "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" to "I hate what you are saying and I will kill you for it" has been a startling transition for many americans.  It's the reason people are reacting the way that they are.

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think one of the reasons that people are reacting like they are to Kirk's killing is because of the reason that he was killed.  

If people are now getting killed because someone else doesn't like what they believe, then that means--in it's most basic iteration--that all of us are targets.  Because we all believe something that someone else doens't agree with.

The move away from "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" to "I hate what you are saying and I will kill you for it" has been a startling transition for many americans.  It's the reason people are reacting the way that they are.

do you see a numbing of the US due to all the school shootings and where does this transition start, was it George Floyd, Kennedy, Malcolm X, or Lincoln or when did this transition began? 

Edited September 15, 2025 by Duncan

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Charlie Kirk isn't any more special than literally any other American, with kids, who got blasted. Melissa Hortman also had two kids. Where is your outrage for her kids? Can you show me your post about them? Thanks!

I am aware, fully and completely, that there is no shortage of tragic events in this world, nor of fully sympathetic victims of such tragedies—"In the world, ye shall tribulation."  If you would like to start a thread about anyone else and any tragic events that have befallen that person, if I have anything useful and of substance to contribute, I will be most willing to participate.

Edited September 15, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, Duncan said:

do you see a numbing of the US due to all the school shootings and where does this transition start, was it George Floyd, Kennedy, Malcolm X, or Lincoln or when did this transition began? 

I think this 4 minute statement from Bernie Sanders (a liberal) perfectly explains why this murder has hit Americans so hard. It’s not the gun violence (which is horrible in and of itself). It’s the reason.

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think this 4 minute statement from Bernie Sanders (a liberal) perfectly explains why this murder has hit Americans so hard. It’s not the gun violence (which is horrible in and of itself). It’s the reason.

 

I sent a letter to Senator Sanders regarding these very comments.  As tempted as I might be, from a political and policy standpoint, to disagree with almost every word that comes out of Senator Sanders' mouth, he is absolutely spot-on here.  I laud[ed] him for it, and I expressed dismay that so many of his colleagues seemed so reluctant to follow suit.  And to the extent it would be true of Republicans if someone from the opposite party faced such a tragic fate, it would be [and is] wrong then, too.  Time was, any incident like the assassination of Charlie Kirk would have received swift, widespread condemnation from people who occupy points all along the political spectrum.  Sadly, not so today.  It seems that, instead, far too many of Senator Sanders' colleagues have engaged in a political calculation to determine whether Mr. Kirk's murder benefits "their [our] side" and, in light of an affirmative answer, have determined to stay silent instead.

If we're not willing to stand up for the basic right even of people with whom we disagree to express those opposing views, how can we expect others to stand up for our rights even when they disagree with us?  I'm reminded of this, from Pastor Martin Niemoller:

Quote

 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller

 

Also, the "some murders are worse than others depending on who the victim is" posture that some [too many, in my view] have taken regarding the murder of Charlie Kirk reminds me of this bit of dialogue from Robert Bolt's play, A Man for All Seasons.   In it, More, his son-in-law, William Roper, More's wife, Alice, and More's daughter, Margaret, are discussing what they believe should happen to More's nemesis, the scheming, conniving Richard Rich.  Although Rich eventually betrays More, leading to the latter's false conviction and execution, at this point in the play, he has not yet done anything that would be worthy of criminal sanction, as More points out: 

Quote

WILLIAM ROPER: Arrest him.
SIR THOMAS MORE: For what?
MARGARET MORE: Father, that man’s bad.
THOMAS MORE: There’s no law against that.
ROPER: There is! God’s law!
THOMAS MORE: Then God can arrest him.
ALICE MORE (exasperated): While you talk, he’s gone.
THOMAS MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law.
ROPER: So now you’d give the Devil the benefit of law.
THOMAS MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
THOMAS MORE (roused and excited) Oh? (advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil himself turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (he leaves him)
This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (quietly) Yes, I’d give the Devil himself the benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

If we want the benefit of law ourselves, we must be willing to give the benefit of law to people even when we wonder if they truly deserve it.

Edited September 15, 2025 by Kenngo1969