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

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Why do you find that funny, @Duncan?  (Just asking.) 

because we've seen this before in history and now it's happening again in the US and that ^&**&^ is spilling out all over. I find it funny that people see the "right" as these innocent victims in all this. I don't find it hilarious but it's sad that people don't learn from history and I watched several videos of people saying if Maga's view of Christianity is correct then i'm out, I don't want to be saved or have anything to do with a God that supports attacks on women, immigrants etc. forget it.

We have a married couple that just moved here from the States, both highly educated and they came here to get away from it all and i'm embarrassed for them when it comes over here. My sisters' ward just got a US scientist and family and I don't know them but ugh

Edited September 17, 2025 by Duncan

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"A mark of civilization is that we do not have to go to blows or bullets, that we can have discourse and debate."

             —Charlie Kirk

Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rKiqkRrl4Dk?feature=share

RIP, Charlie Kirk, October 14, 1993—September 10, 2025

so you wouldn't agree with Charlie Kirk who said, in 2023, that Joe Biden should “put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.”???

[the narrator]

18 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No disrespect, but no one's opinion about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ever has harmed anyone, much less any children

No disrespect, but Antonin Scalia's opinion about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in District of Columbia v. Heller has likely harmed hundreds if not thousands of people, including children, by ensuring that guns will be increasingly accessible to those who wish to do harm with them.

And I'll add that the frenzied and unhinged opinions of the idolatrous gun worshippers add to those numbers harmed by pushing legislation to expand their Second Amendment right to worship their gods of steel, leads, sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate.

Edited September 17, 2025 by the narrator

[Kenngo1969]

9 minutes ago, the narrator said:

No disrespect, but Antonin Scalia's opinion about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in District of Columbia v. Heller has likely harmed hundreds if not thousands of people, including children, by ensuring that guns will be increasingly accessible to those who wish to do harm with them.

And I'll add that the frenzied and unhinged opinions of the idolatrous gun worshippers add to those numbers harmed by pushing legislation to expand their Second Amendment right to worship their gods of steel, leads, sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate.

OK.  Your stance illustrates the very reason for the existence of this thread.  Tyler Robinson thought that Charlie Kirk's opinions are so hurtful that he deserved to die for them.  QED.  Thanks.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

so you wouldn't agree with Charlie Kirk who said, in 2023, that Joe Biden should “put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.”???

Too bad you can’t debate his thoughts on this. He’s dead. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

so you wouldn't agree with Charlie Kirk who said, in 2023, that Joe Biden should “put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.”???

Charlie Kirk was talking about President Biden being given the death penalty for an alleged crime.  However ridiculous that might seem to someone who reads or who hears that comment (and I'm not even suggesting that there aren't good reasons for someone to find such a comment ridiculous), the fact is that, in a free society where due process, the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, and so on, prevail, being sentenced to death for an alleged crime is a far different thing than Mr. Kirk being executed summarily for his alleged "crimes" of thought and "crimes" of speech.  And, with all due respect, I think you are intelligent enough to recognize the difference: Your pretending otherwise does not serve you well.

In any event, here's what I said earlier in the thread, which I think you're also intelligent enough to recognize and to consider: Again, your pretending otherwise does not serve you well (though, in fairness, the thread is moving somewhat quickly and is growing rather long, so perhaps you simply missed it.  Here it is again:

 

[the narrator]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Tyler Robinson thought that Charlie Kirk's opinions are so hurtful that he deserved to die for them.

Kirk should not have been killed. That was evil and wrong. Unfortunately, what you said is precisely what Robinson thought, and it is looking more and more like he saw Kirk as the symbolic, if not actual, vehicle of hate that drove a wedge between he and his father. Besides wishing more empathy for himself and other LGBT persons (an empathy that Kirk saw as evil), Robinson seemed to maintain most of the conservative and gun-loving ways he was raised.

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

because we've seen this before in history and now it's happening again in the US and that ^&**&^ is spilling out all over. I find it funny that people see the "right" as these innocent victims in all this. I don't find it hilarious [emphasis added by Kenngo1969] but it's sad that people don't learn from history and I watched several videos of people saying if Maga's view of Christianity is correct then i'm out, I don't want to be saved or have anything to do with a God that supports attacks on women, immigrants etc. forget it.

We have a married couple that just moved here from the States, both highly educated and they came here to get away from it all and i'm embarrassed for them when it comes over here. My sisters' ward just got a US scientist and family and I don't know them but ugh

Yet, still, you laughed: Curious, that.

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

empathy that Kirk saw as evil)

This is a lie. 

Edited September 17, 2025 by bsjkki

[JVW]

I'm reminded of my favorite verse in the Bible, Mark 10:18

Quote

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Anyone who believes that they are the arbiter of what is right, what is good, and what is truth, is wrong. For the record, I do not feel this way about myself. There is none who are good, only God. None of you are God, cut Charlie some slack. I believe that it is right to "mourn with those who mourn" and "comfort those who stand in need of comfort", and I will die on that hill. You are not as right as you feel if you are pouring salt on the wounds expressed in this thread.

I'm also reminded of this quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Quote

The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained

We can find whatever we are looking for. Charlie said a bunch of crap, he said a bunch of good stuff too. And what is the crap and what is the good stuff varies depending on your perspective. Everyone on this message board has said a bunch of crap, and a bunch of good stuff too. Any of us could be roasted and we could feel relief at the passing of anyone if we choose to focus on what we disagree with.

It's worth keeping in mind that for his entire career he was in his 20s. Think about how much any of us have changed since our 20s. How the way we communicate has changed, how we view the world. Some of you who are now anti-church may have been missionaries in your 20s! Perhaps in 30 years Charlie would have changed to align more with leftist positions? Who can say? But we'll never find out. I understand that this year he started questioning Israel, which was a really interesting development.

Someone earlier posted a quote from Charlie that they described as "vile" and I actually really enjoyed the quote. Does that mean that I am vile? If the poster was God, then yes. But he's not, and isn't it great that he can believe what he wants and speak his mind about his views? And isn't it great that I can disagree and we can still hash things out?

My last thought for this post is an article I read recently that offered a unique perspective that I really appreciated reflecting on. https://theradicalcenter.substack.com/p/are-you-cowering-behind-the-courageous Here are some quotes from the article for those who don't care to check it out.

Quote

... you are probably NOT Charlie- more likely you are the person keeping a low profile behind him and other free speech advocates, letting them speak for you ... In a sense, yes, he took a bullet for you. But if you hadn’t been cowering behind him he never would have been in the position to do so.

Did your cowardice lead to his death? Did you value “getting through school” or “keeping your license” [etc.] over pushing back when your values were violated? ... You need to learn to say NO when you are imposed upon and stand by your actual values, rather than hoping some bright, good natured, unflappably articulate guy like Charlie is going to find all the words for you and convince “the left” that they are wrong.

You don’t owe anybody an explanation for your values. You don’t have to come with “all the facts” and convince them. You just need to decide where the line is for you, and hold it. Be respectful in disagreement, find humility, and admit when you’re wrong, but respect yourself enough to draw a line when your values are being violated.

If Charlie Kirk’s horrific assassination hit you in a deeply personal way, maybe in part it was because he was doing what you are too afraid to do but knew you should. Maybe you’ve been cowering when you could be more courageous, and you know you are enabling the very tyranny that intimidates you. No system reforms when those who wish for change hold their breath and hide. Maybe it’s time that you stop whisper-shouting behind your keyboard and put your money where your mouth is while you still have a voice.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, gopher said:

As an admitted news junkie, it's been interesting to see how this story has evolved in just a week.  The killer started out as a far-right, devout Mormon, Groyper, and son of a cop and turned into a far-left, gay, inactive Mormon, and the son of an owner of a countertop and cabinet installation business.

I have been thinking a lot about his parents.  Can you imagine being in their shoes?  The mom recognized her son in the photos and called him to find out where he was the day of the shooting.  He lied and said he was sick all day.  Then the dad confronted him and got him to admit he did it.  It must have been excruciatingly painful to have to turn in their own son for such a horrible crime.  Their lives will never be the same.

I think it might be easier to lose a child, than to have to go through what they are going through. 

Because they have lost him in a way--who they thought he was is gone or never existed--and they have to reckon with their son being a killer.  And moving forward they will suffer with him for the rest of their lives as he deals with the consequences of his horrible choice.  

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Charlie Kirk was talking about President Biden being given the death penalty for an alleged crime.  However ridiculous that might seem to someone who reads or who hears that comment (and I'm not even suggesting that there aren't good reasons for someone to find such a comment ridiculous), the fact is that, in a free society where due process, the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, and so on, prevail, being sentenced to death for an alleged crime is a far different thing than Mr. Kirk being executed summarily for his alleged "crimes" of thought and "crimes" of speech.  And, with all due respect, I think you are intelligent enough to recognize the difference: Your pretending otherwise does not serve you well.

In any event, here's what I said earlier in the thread, which I think you're also intelligent enough to recognize and to consider: Again, your pretending otherwise does not serve you well (though, in fairness, the thread is moving somewhat quickly and is growing rather long, so perhaps you simply missed it.  Here it is again:

 

you said "alleged"  and "crime" not Charlie and it was "crimes"

[the narrator]

3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is a lie. 

If you want to quibble over precise language, he said that empathy "is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage."

I'm not here to litigate Kirk's career of racism, sexism, hate, and promoting violence though. I think Coates does a fine job here.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, JVW said:

I'm reminded of my favorite verse in the Bible, Mark 10:18

Anyone who believes that they are the arbiter of what is right, what is good, and what is truth, is wrong. For the record, I do not feel this way about myself. There is none who are good, only God. None of you are God, cut Charlie some slack. I believe that it is right to "mourn with those who mourn" and "comfort those who stand in need of comfort", and I will die on that hill. You are not as right as you feel if you are pouring salt on the wounds expressed in this thread.

I'm also reminded of this quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

We can find whatever we are looking for. Charlie said a bunch of crap, he said a bunch of good stuff too. And what is the crap and what is the good stuff varies depending on your perspective. Everyone on this message board has said a bunch of crap, and a bunch of good stuff too. Any of us could be roasted and we could feel relief at the passing of anyone if we choose to focus on what we disagree with.

It's worth keeping in mind that for his entire career he was in his 20s. Think about how much any of us have changed since our 20s. How the way we communicate has changed, how we view the world. Some of you who are now anti-church may have been missionaries in your 20s! Perhaps in 30 years Charlie would have changed to align more with leftist positions? Who can say? But we'll never find out. I understand that this year he started questioning Israel, which was a really interesting development.

Someone earlier posted a quote from Charlie that they described as "vile" and I actually really enjoyed the quote. Does that mean that I am vile? If the poster was God, then yes. But he's not, and isn't it great that he can believe what he wants and speak his mind about his views? And isn't it great that I can disagree and we can still hash things out?

My last thought for this post is an article I read recently that offered a unique perspective that I really appreciated reflecting on. https://theradicalcenter.substack.com/p/are-you-cowering-behind-the-courageous Here are some quotes from the article for those who don't care to check it out.

I wish I could like this more than once.

[longview]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"A mark of civilization is that we do not have to go to blows or bullets, that we can have discourse and debate."

             —Charlie Kirk

Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rKiqkRrl4Dk?feature=share

RIP, Charlie Kirk, October 14, 1993—September 10, 2025

It is looking like there will be a stronger legal distinction between criticisms and violent threats. Nehor's signature statement: "always be punching nazis" is toxic and corrosive. This kind of language has led to Riley Gaines being assaulted by campus radicals. It was NOT right for her to be demonized so vituperatively by the LEFT simply for defending Title IX rights for women to have a "league of their own" without the unfair abuse of transwomen. @Raingirl was deeply wrong to use absolutist terms like fascist that now has lost meaning in the national dialogue.

US Attorney General issued this statement - - -

Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over. Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), it is a federal crime to transmit “any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another.” Likewise, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and 18 U.S.C. § 115 make it a felony to threaten public officials, members of Congress, or their families. You cannot call for someone’s murder. You cannot swat a Member of Congress. You cannot dox a conservative family and think it will be brushed off as “free speech.” These acts are punishable crimes, and every single threat will be met with the full force of the law. Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence. It is clear this violent rhetoric is designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals. We will never be silenced. Not for our families, not for our freedoms, and never for Charlie. His legacy will not be erased by fear or intimidation.

Edited September 17, 2025 by longview

[JVW]

37 minutes ago, longview said:

It is looking like there will be a stronger legal distinction between criticisms and violent threats. Nehor's signature statement: "always be punching nazis" is toxic and corrosive. This kind of language has led to Riley Gaines being assaulted by campus radicals. It was NOT right for her to be demonized so vituperatively by the LEFT simply for defending Title IX rights for women to have a "league of their own" without the unfair abuse of transwomen. @Raingirl was deeply wrong to use absolutist terms like fascist that now has lost meaning in the national dialogue.

US Attorney General issued this statement - - -

Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over. Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), it is a federal crime to transmit “any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another.” Likewise, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and 18 U.S.C. § 115 make it a felony to threaten public officials, members of Congress, or their families. You cannot call for someone’s murder. You cannot swat a Member of Congress. You cannot dox a conservative family and think it will be brushed off as “free speech.” These acts are punishable crimes, and every single threat will be met with the full force of the law. Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence. It is clear this violent rhetoric is designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals. We will never be silenced. Not for our families, not for our freedoms, and never for Charlie. His legacy will not be erased by fear or intimidation.

I don't like this. Unless hate speech laws are clear, and followed to the letter, and are hard to change, then it is very easy for anyone to sue anyone for hate speech, or for the government to declare hate speech against a political opponent. There was a girl in Brazil recently that fled her country and became a refugee after facing up to 25 years in prison because she wouldn't honor a politicians gender identity and she was charged with 5 counts of "social racism". https://reduxx.info/exclusive-brazilian-woman-granted-refugee-status-in-europe-after-facing-25-year-sentence-for-misgendering-trans-politician/ What's to stop the next leftist president to declare [insert conservative talking point here] as hate speech? What's to stop current rightist president from declaring [insert leftist talking point here] as hate speech?

Her examples are good examples. Death threats, swatting someone, doxxing, etc. Those are serious things. But how easy is it to change the law here to become more subtle like how it's becoming in other countries? I don't think that government officials, regardless of how they're grieving or feeling, should say anything other than, "We will protect and respect your right to speak freely according to the law, here is the law, have a nice day." This post sounds more threatening than consoling.

I.... feel like I just posted a political post and will gladly delete it if I crossed the line. I'm not interested in crossing that political line on this forum.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, gopher said:

thought the reason they are upset is because many are celebrating Kirk's death, not because people are voicing their disagreements with the things Kirk said. 

I would say that is what is triggering the overall level of anger, but now they are angry simple disagreement can help maintain the anger.  They are more likely to misinterpret civil comments as insults as well…but that’s human nature and is not restricted to this one group (those who are angry) in this broader discussion.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Mr. Robinson's defenders

Is he an actual defender or just someone who craves attention given his past behavior?

[Kenngo1969]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is he an actual defender or just someone who craves attention given his past behavior?

To each, one's own, I suppose, but, as for me, I would think that anyone who attempted to run interference for Mr. Robinson by claiming falsely to have shot Charlie Kirk (and thereby to have [at least allegedly] obstructed justice) would qualify as an actual defender/supporter.

 

Edited September 17, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

you said "alleged"  and "crime" not Charlie and it was "crimes"

With due respect, for all the world, it seems to me that you are avoiding genuine issues in favor of quibbling about semantics.  Whatever crime or crimes former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. did or did not commit, it is an inescapable fact that Charlie Kirk is d*ead due to a bullet fired from the f!rearm possessed by Tyler Robinson.

Edited September 17, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To each, one's own, I suppose, but, as for me, I would think that anyone who attempted to run interference for Mr. Robinson by claiming falsely to have shot Charlie Kirk (and thereby to have [at least allegedly] obstructed justice) would qualify as an actual defender/supporter.

 

Except he didn’t know who the shooter was and why he did it.  I agree he was supportive of the shooting itself, but agreeing he was defending the shooter would require me to know his current feelings.  There is too much easily inferred that could be inaccurate in the ambiguous phrase “defending the shooter” and in this atmosphere I think we need to be very careful in describing or even just implying possible motivations.

How about he was defending who he thought the shooter was?

Edited September 17, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Except he didn’t know who the shooter was and why he did it.  I agree he was supportive of the shooting itself, but agreeing he was defending the shooter would require me to know his current feelings.  There is too much easily inferred that could be inaccurate in the ambiguous phrase “defending the shooter” and in this atmosphere I think we need to be very careful in describing or even just implying possible motivations.

How about he was defending who he thought the shooter was?

Or he’s mentally ill there is no reasonable way to interpret his actions. 

[Duncan]

34 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

With due respect, for all the world, it seems to me that you are avoiding genuine issues in favor of quibbling about semantics.  Whatever crime or crimes former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. did or did not commit, it is an inescapable fact that Charlie Kirk is d*ead due to a bullet fired from the f!rearm possessed by Tyler Robinson.

yes and worshipping Charlie and denigrating the "left" isn't going to bring him back. Some of us would like to put an end to this nonsense, if you want it continue, feel free

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Or he’s mentally ill there is no reasonable way to interpret his actions. 

High probability on that one, imo.

If he’s not, I hope the penalty for obstruction is on the maximum end to discourage such games in him in the future.

Edited September 17, 2025 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yes and worshipping Charlie and denigrating the "left" isn't going to bring him back. Some of us would like to put an end to this nonsense, if you want it continue, feel free

"Put an end to this nonsense"?  Well, I guess Tyler Robinson did a damn good job of that, didn't he?  Tyler Robinson did a damn good job of that.