By Ryan Dickie Thompson – Disruptarian.com

---

When a political figure is gunned down in public, the investigation should be airtight. Every camera should be preserved, every chair and microphone logged, every angle reviewed until the truth is clear. That is not what we are seeing in the case of Charlie Kirk.

Instead of clarity, the public has been handed contradictions, unexplained actions, missing evidence, and even admissions by the FBI that “lingering questions” remain. When the nation’s top investigators openly admit that they do not have everything squared away, the public has every reason to demand more.

The following breakdown brings together what we know, what has been reported, and the long list of issues that make the official story hard to accept at face value.

---

What the authorities say

On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University. The FBI and local police say Tyler Robinson, age 22, fired the fatal shot with a .30-06 Mauser rifle. According to reporting in The Guardian, Robinson left behind physical evidence tying him to the crime: DNA on a towel used to wrap the rifle, and DNA on a screwdriver found on a rooftop perch.

The FBI also says Robinson posted in a Discord chat before surrendering, admitting, “Hey guys, I have bad news for you all … it was me at UVU yesterday. I’m sorry for all of this.” That confession, coupled with forensic ties, became the backbone of the case. Investigators are still probing dozens of others who were active in that chat, according to ABC News.

Surgeons who treated Kirk claimed the bullet did not exit. It lodged under the skin in his neck. The press reported this as a “miracle,” noting that a round that powerful should have gone straight through, possibly hitting others in the audience (New York Post).

So far, that is the official account. But here is where the contradictions begin.

---

Reports of a crime scene taken apart within hours

Eyewitnesses and journalists have raised alarms about how quickly the crime scene was broken down. According to a Facebook post by Josh Rincon, the stage and seating area were deconstructed almost immediately after the event. Chairs were moved, barriers removed, and forensic markers taken down before the scene was secured.

This is not a minor slip. Every detective knows the first step is to lock down the scene and protect evidence. If that step was skipped or rushed, then every later conclusion is compromised. Chain of custody is the lifeblood of justice. Without it, nothing holds.

---

The tent camera that disappeared

Perhaps the most damning claim comes from video evidence of what happened right after the shot.

An Instagram reel shows a man calmly removing the overhead tent camera positioned directly behind Kirk. The man stood on Kirk’s chair, detached the equipment, and walked away while texting on his phone. He wore no law enforcement insignia, and nobody stopped him.

That camera was in the perfect position to record the shooter’s trajectory, Kirk’s body reaction, and the audience response. Yet it was removed within minutes of the assassination.

On top of that, reporting by Interesting-USA highlights that there were two cameras positioned in front of Kirk as well, capturing his face and chest directly. Those feeds have never been released.

So we are asked to accept the official story while the clearest video angles remain out of sight.

---

Exit wound or miracle stop?

Here is the sharpest contradiction.

The FBI and medical staff insist the bullet never exited. But multiple slowed-down clips circulating online suggest otherwise. Viewers see what looks like blood spray downward, then upward, followed by Kirk’s head snapping forward. To trained eyes, this looks like a classic entry and exit wound.

A Marine veteran, himself shot three times in combat, reviewed the video and said he recognized the reaction instantly. He described Kirk’s stiffening as consistent with a spinal injury caused by a bullet passing through.

It is worth pausing on the ballistics here. A .30-06 round is designed for hunting elk and moose. It carries immense velocity. The idea that such a round would stop cold in a few inches of tissue without exiting is extremely unlikely. Surgeons called it a miracle, but skeptics call it improbable.

The only way to settle the matter is to release the autopsy and ballistics reports. Until then, the public is left with two incompatible stories.

---

Security and the bodyguard signals

In the moments before the gunfire, witnesses noted odd behavior from bodyguards. Video clips show gestures, glances, and what looked like signals exchanged just before Kirk was hit.

Were they routine? Were they reacting to something they saw? Or did they know more? Without radio logs or bodycam footage, the public is left guessing. If handlers sensed a threat, why was Kirk still left standing on stage without cover?

---

The false confession

Another twist came when a separate man confessed early on to killing Kirk. Major outlets ran the story, only to retract it when the FBI said the confession was false. That man was released quickly (New York Times).

False confessions happen, but in a high-profile assassination, this kind of confusion feeds public doubt. Who was this man, why did he confess, and why was his story initially treated as credible enough to push into headlines?

---

The FBI admits “lingering questions”

Usually, federal investigators project certainty. Not this time. The Bureau itself told reporters that “troubling lingering questions” remain about Kirk’s murder (New York Post).

This admission is extraordinary. It confirms that investigators themselves cannot reconcile every piece of evidence. Yet they have not told the public what those questions are.

---

Candace Owens adds her own controversy

As if the case needed more fuel, Candace Owens inserted herself with statements that only deepened the confusion.

In a Yahoo News article and in a post on X, Owens suggested that Kirk had been pressured over his views on Israel and implied that she helped expose those pressures. Her timing was bizarre, sounding half like boasting and half like confession.

Owens was not invited to Kirk’s memorial service, something she said publicly. Whether you believe her or not, her claims of internal pressure and blackmail raise more questions about the environment Kirk was operating in before his death.

---

The growing list of questions

At this point, the public has more questions than answers. Here are the biggest ones:

1. Why was the crime scene deconstructed so quickly? Who authorized cleanup before evidence was logged?
2. Who removed the tent camera, and where is that footage now?
3. Why have the two front-facing camera feeds never been released?
4. Did Kirk suffer an exit wound or not? Where is the full autopsy report?
5. What was the bullet trajectory? Rooftop, bushes, or directly behind him?
6. What were the bodyguards signaling before the shot? Are radio logs and bodycam footage available?
7. Why was a false confession pushed to the press, then retracted?
8. Who else is under investigation from the Discord chat? What role did they play?
9. Why did the FBI release suspect photos early, against advice, potentially compromising the case?
10. Are Candace Owens’ claims about pressure and blackmail supported by documents or meetings?

These are not wild theories. These are basic questions of evidence and accountability.

---

Why it matters

Trust in government does not collapse because people speculate. It collapses when evidence goes missing, when cameras disappear, when crime scenes are handled like afterthoughts.

Charlie Kirk’s murder should have been the most carefully investigated crime scene in recent history. Instead, we have conflicting medical claims, missing video, unexplained security behavior, and even the FBI saying there are still unanswered questions.

The only way forward is transparency. Release the uncut video feeds. Release the autopsy. Publish the chain of custody logs. If the official version is correct, then sunlight will prove it. If it is not, then the American people deserve to know what really happened on that stage.

---

Sources

• Josh Rincon Official, Facebook post
• Instagram reel: Camera removal footage
• New York Times: False confession suspect released
• Interesting-USA: Tent camera analysis
• New York Post: FBI probes lingering questions
• Yahoo News: Candace Owens commentary
• Candace Owens on X
• The Guardian: DNA evidence ties Robinson to weapon
• ABC News: Patel faces questions on Discord and investigation

Let me be real with you right from the jump: I don’t worship Charlie Kirk. I don’t always agree with him, and he’s not above criticism. But what I saw last week wasn’t just criticism. It was something darker.

A viral clip was making the rounds. It showed a content creator called “Jolly Good Ginger” basically celebrating the idea of Charlie Kirk getting shot and killed. Smirking. Laughing. Suggesting it would be “karma” if it happened.

And what stunned me wasn’t just the clip itself—it was the reaction to it. Applause. Shares. Likes. People nodding along like this was some kind of moral stand.

We’ve crossed a dangerous line.

---

This Isn’t About Kirk. It’s About Us.

I want you to put politics aside for a minute. This isn’t about defending Charlie Kirk the person. It’s about what it says when people cheer for political enemies to die.

We’re supposed to be the country of civil debate. A place where you argue hard, you speak freely, and then you go home and let the other guy live.

Now? We’ve got folks out there who think wishing death on someone is part of the discourse. That if you disagree hard enough, you’re justified in celebrating a bullet.

Let me be clear: that’s not free speech. That’s bloodlust dressed up in hashtags and memes.

---

Gun Rights Are Not the Same as Driving Privileges

A lot of people are throwing around comparisons trying to justify regulating or restricting gun rights. One I’ve seen a lot is: “You need a license to drive, why shouldn’t you need one to own a gun?”

Let’s break this down.

Driving is a privilege. It’s a government-regulated activity that exists because of modern infrastructure and legal code. You pass a test, you follow traffic laws, and the state lets you operate a vehicle on public roads.

Owning a firearm is a right. It’s written into the Constitution. It’s not about convenience or recreation. It’s about the fundamental human right to self-preservation. Against criminals, yes. But more importantly, against government overreach.

Now, rights come with responsibilities. That’s true. But they are not permissions handed down from the state. They are protections from the state.

If you think your right to bear arms should be regulated like driving, you don’t understand the purpose of the Second Amendment. Or worse, you do—and you just don’t care.

---

The Danger of Celebrating Political Violence

Let me share something personal. I’ve got a family member who’s gay, pro-Second Amendment, owns multiple firearms, knows gun safety, all that. Smart guy. Libertarian-leaning.

Last week, I saw him share the Jolly Good Ginger clip with the caption “karma’s a bitch.”

This is someone who knows the weight of what a gun can do. Who knows how serious lethal force is. And here he is cheering the idea of a political opponent dying.

That shook me.

If people like him—people who own guns, support liberty, and understand constitutional rights—are falling into this tribal “rah rah my team” mindset, we’re in trouble.

Because the Second Amendment isn’t a team jersey. It’s a check against tyranny. It’s not about who you like or don’t like. It’s about the principle behind the power.

---

What Madison Actually Said

Most people haven’t read Federalist Paper No. 46, but they should. James Madison laid out the case for an armed citizenry as a final safeguard against a centralized, overreaching federal government.

He wasn’t talking about hunting deer. He was talking about resistance to tyranny.

The structure was intentional. The Founders put freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the First Amendment. Then they immediately followed with the Second.

Why?

Because speech without defense is just noise. The right to speak freely means nothing if the government can disarm you when it doesn’t like what you say.

And now, in 2025, we have people who own guns celebrating the idea of their political rivals getting killed.

You can’t have it both ways.

---

You Don’t Believe in Liberty if You Cheer for Death

Let’s break it down to basics.

If you support the Second Amendment because you believe in resisting tyranny, then you can’t cheer for violence against people who disagree with you politically.

Why?

Because the second you do that, you’re justifying tyranny. You’re saying violence is okay—as long as it’s your side doing it.

That’s not liberty. That’s tribalism. That’s mob rule.

This is the same logic used by authoritarians throughout history. Stalin did it. Mao did it. Pinochet did it. They all claimed they were protecting the people—by silencing or eliminating “dangerous” voices.

That’s the road we’re on if we don’t check ourselves.

---

Practical Advice for Liberty-Minded Americans

If you actually care about liberty and not just scoring points online, here are a few things to do:

1. Take a Gun Safety Course

Even if you don’t own a firearm, do it. Understand what lethal force really means. It’ll change your perspective.

2. Read the Founders

Start with Madison, George Mason, and Patrick Henry. Understand the context of why the Second Amendment exists.

3. Stop Cheering for Death

I don’t care how much you hate someone’s politics. Celebrate ideas, not body counts.

4. Call It Out

If your friends are sharing content that glorifies political violence, say something. Silence is agreement.

---

Rights Aren’t About Comfort

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:

• Free speech means protecting speech you hate.
• The Second Amendment means protecting rights you might never use.
• Liberty means tolerating things that make you uncomfortable.

We don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we like and ignore the rest. That’s not how this works.

You’re either for liberty or you’re not.

And if you only support the Second Amendment because your team is winning right now, you don’t believe in the right. You believe in power.

---

This Is Bigger Than One Clip

This isn’t just about a YouTube short or a TikTok clip. It’s about the slow breakdown of principled thinking in America.

We’ve traded ideas for insults. We’ve traded reason for reaction. We’ve traded rights for rhetoric.

And it’s not just “the other side” doing it. We’ve got people on the right, people who claim to love the Constitution, acting like political violence is some kind of game.

If we go down that path, we all lose.

---

Final Thought

This isn’t about being nice. This is about being serious.

You can’t defend the Second Amendment while laughing about the idea of shooting your political enemies. You can’t claim to love liberty while cheering for death.

That’s not courage. That’s cowardice.

We’re better than that. Or at least, we should be.

This is Ryan “Dickie” Thompson from Disruptarian Radio. Stay thoughtful. Stay disruptive.

Sources:

• https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-0178 – Federalist Paper No. 46 by James Madison
• https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript – U.S. Constitution
• https://disruptarian.com – Disruptarian Media Network
• https://www.youtube.com/@Disruptarian – Disruptarian YouTube Channel

By Ryan “Dickie” Thompson • Disruptarian Radio

In 2017 I published a breakdown on mass shootings in the United States. I argued then that the media kept forcing simple villains into a complex story. That post still stands. It is 2025 now. The noise is louder, the charts are prettier, and a lot of it is still nonsense. This page puts every claim next to a source, then shows the math with live charts you can inspect.

First things first: what the government tracks and what it ignores

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports and Active Shooter documents record age, race, and sex of offenders. They do not record gender identity. There is no centralized, official dataset that lists the number of transgender offenders in murders or mass shootings. Because of that gap, any sweeping statistic about “how many trans shooters there are” cannot be verified against federal crime data.

Nonprofits like the Human Rights Campaign and Everytown focus on transgender people as victims. They do not publish national offender rolls. On top of that, police and media misgender suspects and victims in early reporting. That makes identity classification even noisier.

Bottom line: when a chart claims precise per capita rates for “trans shooters,” ask for the methodology and raw data. If there is no method note, it is opinion art.

Population matters: the trans denominator changed a lot

• 2015: Williams Institute estimated about 1.4 million adults identified as transgender, around 0.6 percent of adults.
• 2016 meta analysis: roughly 855,000 adults across 2006 to 2016 reported as transgender in surveys.
• 2025: Williams Institute now estimates about 2.8 million transgender people age 13 and up.

Same numerator with a changing denominator will move the per million rate. Five confirmed trans or nonbinary mass shooters since 2013 yields about 3.6 per million using the 2015 adult estimate, and about 1.8 per million using the 2025 estimate. Same five incidents. Different base. This is why cherry-picking population baselines makes viral graphics look dramatic.

Who actually commits mass shootings

Men do. That part is not controversial. Across the best public databases, men account for well over 97 percent of mass shooters. When you drill into race and per capita rates using the stricter “public, four or more killed” definition, the picture is steady over decades:

Group	% of US population	% of public mass shooters	Rate per 100,000	Read the note
White Americans	58%	53%	0.05	Raw totals are high because the group is large.
Black Americans	13%	21%	0.09	Per capita slightly higher than whites in long-run data.
Latinos	19%	9%	0.03	Lower per capita.
Asians	6%	7%	0.06	Very close to proportional.

So the lazy line that “cis white males commit most mass shootings” leaves out the denominator. White men make up a large share of the population. Per capita, long-run data shows Black and white males very similar, with Latinos lower and Asians near proportional. The constant across all groups is sex. It is men.

Chart: racial rates per 100,000 (1966 to 2024)

Rates use the stricter public mass shooting definition over the long window. They are directional, not exact counts for any single year.

Chart: trans per million using two denominators

Five incidents since 2013. Using the smaller 2015 population gives a higher per million value. Using the larger 2025 population cuts it roughly in half.

Known trans or nonbinary mass shooters since 2013

• Snochia Moseley – Aberdeen, Maryland, 2018. Three killed at a distribution center.
• Alec McKinney – Highlands Ranch, Colorado, 2019. One killed, eight wounded at STEM School. Trans boy, pled guilty.
• Anderson Lee Aldrich – Club Q, Colorado Springs, 2022. Five killed. Nonbinary identity claimed in court filings.
• Audrey Hale – The Covenant School, Nashville, 2023. Six killed.
• Robin Westman – Annunciation Catholic School, Minneapolis, 2025. Two children killed, many injured.

These cases are documented by fact-checkers who verified identity claims against court and police records. They are tragic, but they are rare relative to the whole universe of mass shootings. It is notable that the FBI does not collect this information, so there is no hard data other than what private individuals find.

Terror motivation and the headlines that follow

Ideology is not the majority driver, but it is the best headline. A few examples remind people of politics rather than base rates:

• Islamist inspired: San Bernardino 2015 and Pulse Nightclub 2016.
• White nationalist: El Paso Walmart 2019 and Pittsburgh Synagogue 2018.
• Anti LGBTQ target: Club Q 2022. (the shooter was a patron of the club and identified as non-binary)

Every one of these was committed by a man. Different creeds, same constant.

Victimization of transgender people is real and documented

When the conversation is about transgender people in crime statistics, the strongest data is about them as victims. HRC tracks fatal violence and finds that when a killer is known, a large fraction are intimate partners, friends, or family. That fraction has ranged from 26 percent to 42 percent in recent annual reports. Black transgender women are hit hardest by the overlap of racism, sexism, and transphobia. Studies show elevated external causes of death for transgender people. Drugs and overdose appear in some cases, but they are not shown as the primary cause of transgender murders in the best available reporting.

What the 2017 Disruptarian post concluded, and what still holds

• Men commit almost all mass shootings. That is still true.
• Within white mass shooters, political lean skewed liberal. That finding still appears in case reviews and it cuts against a popular stereotype.
• Race mostly tracks population share in long-run public mass shooting data. Black and white males are similar per capita. Latinos are lower. Asians are near proportional.
• Trans shooters exist, but they are single digits in twelve years. The number is tiny relative to the entire dataset. The population is also very small and represents much less than 1% of the entire population
• Riot violence, including the BLM riots that stretched across several years, is not counted as mass shootings. If you counted all mass political violence, including arson and beatings, the map of harm would change fast.

So the story is simpler and more honest than the internet wants it to be. If the goal is fewer massacres, focus on the constants that show up again and again: male offenders, leakage of plans, suicidal crises, and failure to intervene early. Identity memes will not save lives.

References

1. FactCheck.org – Few Mass Shooters Have Been Transgender
2. PolitiFact – Are trans people statistically more prone to commit gun violence
3. Reuters – Fact check about trans people and school shootings
4. The Violence Project – Mass Shooter Database
5. NIJ – Public Mass Shootings Database article
6. McBride at Ammo.com – Mass Shooters by Race summary
7. Williams Institute – Transgender Population Estimates 2025 (if unavailable, try the Internet Archive at archive.org)
8. Williams Institute – 2015 Transgender Adult Estimate (if unavailable, try the Internet Archive at archive.org)
9. National Library of Medicine – Transgender homicide patterns, peer reviewed
10. HRC – Fatal violence against transgender and gender non conforming people 2024
11. Pulse Nightclub shooting, 2016
12. San Bernardino attack, 2015
13. El Paso Walmart shooting, 2019
14. Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, 2018
15. Covenant School shooting, 2023
16. Disruptarian – Mass Shootings for the past 20 years USA, circa 2019

By Ryan “Dickie” Thompson – Disruptarian.com

---

What the Media Isn’t Talking About

So now we learn that Nicholas Roske, the man who showed up armed outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in 2022, has “come out” as a trans woman named Sophie. Court filings from September 19, 2025, reveal that Roske’s defense team now refers to him with female pronouns. The sentencing is set for October 3, and prosecutors are asking for at least 30 years.

Roske, or “Sophie,” had planned to kill a sitting Supreme Court Justice because he didn’t like the way Roe v. Wade might go. He had a handgun, a knife, zip ties, and burglary tools. He called 911 on himself before carrying out the attack, which is the only reason Brett Kavanaugh is alive today.

And now? We’re told to respect the pronouns of a would-be assassin.

---

Trans Identity as a Shield

Here’s the pattern: every time a high-profile criminal “comes out” as trans, the focus shifts. The crime becomes secondary. The narrative becomes about pronouns, discrimination, or prison conditions. Suddenly, we’re told the system must bend over backward to accommodate the criminal.

In Roske’s case, the defense is already using this angle. They want lighter sentencing because of “conditions in prison for transgender inmates.” Translation: play the victim card.

But let’s not lose the thread. This was an assassination attempt against a Supreme Court Justice, carried out in a climate where left-wing activists were already protesting outside justices’ homes and politicians were winking at the mobs. If the political winds had been blowing the other way, we’d never hear the end of it.

---

A Trend We Can’t Ignore

This isn’t an isolated story.

• Nashville School Shooter (2023): Audrey Hale, a biological female who identified as male, carried out a massacre at Covenant School, killing six, including three children. The media quickly shifted to worrying about “anti-trans backlash.”
• Aberdeen, Maryland Shooting (2018): Snochia Moseley, a transgender individual, shot and killed three co-workers before turning the gun on herself. Coverage was muted.
• Denver STEM School Shooting (2019): One of the shooters, Maya “Alec” McKinney, identified as transgender. Again, the reporting bent over backwards to frame the identity angle sympathetically.

Notice a pattern? Each time, the violence gets brushed aside while activists rush to make sure “misgendering” doesn’t happen. The dead, the injured, the nearly assassinated—those are afterthoughts.

---

Why This Matters

Let’s get one thing straight: I don’t care what clothes you wear or what name you go by. That’s your choice. But when identity politics becomes a shield for violence, we’ve crossed into dangerous territory.

Imagine if a Christian conservative tried to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice. Imagine if a guy in a MAGA hat shot up a school. Would the media spend their time on pronouns? Or would they hammer home the ideology behind the act, demanding that anyone remotely connected be investigated?

We all know the answer.

---

The Cultural Gaslighting

You know what? The whole debate around “trans violence” is a lesson in selective outrage. When violence fits the narrative (like Charlottesville), it gets amplified to the heavens. When it doesn’t, it gets buried under layers of identity spin.

It’s like the Fed playing Monopoly with real lives, but this time the currency is outrage. They print it up when it suits them, and they tighten the supply when it doesn’t.

And here’s the dangerous part: if we can’t talk honestly about who commits violence and why, then we can’t solve anything. Pretending doesn’t make people safer. It makes us all targets.

---

The Political Angle

Roske’s case wasn’t just random. He told investigators he was furious about Roe v. Wade and about mass shootings like Uvalde. That anger turned into a plan to murder a sitting Justice.

Now add in the fact that politicians and activists openly encouraged intimidation of the Court after the Dobbs leak in 2022. The White House press secretary at the time even dodged questions about whether protesting outside justices’ homes was appropriate.

So ask yourself: what happens when political leaders wink at mobs, the media spins identity as a shield, and unstable individuals like Roske are egged on by the rhetoric? We get exactly this. Violence, rebranded as victimhood.

---

The Human Cost

Here’s what we’re not supposed to talk about:

• Brett Kavanaugh’s children had to live with the knowledge that a man came to their doorstep with a gun.
• Families in Nashville will never see their kids again because a trans shooter decided to turn rage into murder.
• Co-workers in Aberdeen lost their lives in a shooting that the media quickly swept aside.

Real people suffer while activists fight over pronouns.

---

Where Do We Go From Here?

The answer isn’t complicated, but it’s also not politically correct:

• Stop excusing violence because of identity. A murderer is a murderer, no matter their pronouns.
• Hold the media accountable when they bury stories or spin them into “representation” issues.
• Recognize that ideological violence—whether left or right—should be condemned without qualifiers.

And most importantly: stop training people to see themselves as victims first and responsible adults second. Handouts, excuses, and identity politics only fuel the cycle. It’s like feeding bears at a campsite. It feels compassionate in the moment, but it creates a long-term danger for everyone.

---

Final Word

Nicholas Roske didn’t just try to kill Brett Kavanaugh. He tried to kill the rule of law. And no amount of name changes or pronouns changes that fact.

If we want a society where freedom and responsibility matter, then we need to stop pretending violence can be washed away by identity politics. Otherwise, we’ll keep getting more “Sophie Roskes,” more “Audrey Hales,” and more innocent lives cut short.

---

Sources

• Prosecutors want 30-year sentence for attempted Brett Kavanaugh assassin — Politico
• Kavanaugh’s Attempted Assassin Identifies as Transgender — Newsweek
• Man who attempted to assassinate Kavanaugh now identifies woman — Fox News
• Nashville school shooter carefully plotted attack that killed six, say police — The Guardian
• Police: Nashville shooter was under a doctor’s care for ‘emotional disorder’ — The Washington Post

By Ryan “Dickie” Thompson
Disruptarian.com

---

The Arrogance of Consequence-Free Lies

For years, late-night comedians, celebrity activists, and media talking heads have operated under the smug assumption that their words carry no cost. They mock, smear, and openly fantasize about violence against their political enemies. They celebrate when conservatives are censored or canceled, and they assume their platform shields them from accountability.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk has shattered that illusion. It exposed how deeply corrosive this rhetoric has become, how false narratives poison the public, and how some of the most powerful media figures are finally paying a price.

---

Jimmy Kimmel Crossed a Line

Jimmy Kimmel is no stranger to partisan attacks. He celebrated Donald Trump being banned from Twitter, cheered when Tucker Carlson was pushed off Fox News, and turned his show into a nightly megaphone for Democratic talking points.

But after Charlie Kirk was murdered, Kimmel went further. He declared that the shooter was “one of them,” a MAGA Republican, despite the absence of any evidence. In reality, the shooter had written “fascist” on bullets used in the attack and was reportedly tied to left-wing politics, including having a gay, furry, transgender roommate according to reports.

That is not a slip of the tongue. That is a reckless lie. It smeared a man who had just been assassinated and cast suspicion on millions of Americans by linking them to the crime.

Backlash came quickly. Advertisers were pressured. Affiliates like Sinclair and Nexstar demanded an apology and suspended his program. The FCC chair Brendan Carr hinted at possible regulatory action. Whether it was panic over lost revenue or genuine disgust, ABC pulled Kimmel off the air in many markets.

Sources:

• AP News: Why was Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show suspended?
• The Guardian: Trump v Kimmel: simmering feud ends with comedian’s talkshow yanked off air

---

Walsh Was Right: Rhetoric Has Consequences

Matt Walsh pointed out the obvious: for years conservatives shrugged off this behavior. Meanwhile, the left weaponized cancel culture, cheering when political opponents lost jobs for much less.

Walsh argued that Kimmel’s rhetoric was not comedy but partisan propaganda, violating the very rules that govern the use of public broadcast airwaves. Whether or not the FCC ever enforces those standards, the point stands: lying about crimes, especially political assassinations, is not “public interest.”

And here’s the harder truth: this climate is not new. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is horrific, but it did not happen in a vacuum. High-profile figures have been normalizing violent rhetoric against conservatives and Trump for years.

---

Celebrities Who Flirted With Assassination Rhetoric

This pattern goes back nearly a decade. Some of the most famous celebrities in the world have invoked violence against Trump or conservatives:

• Madonna: At the 2017 Women’s March, she said she had thought “an awful lot about blowing up the White House.” She later claimed it was a metaphor.
  CNN Coverage
• Johnny Depp: At the Glastonbury Festival in 2017 he asked, “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president? … Maybe it’s time.” He later apologized.
  BBC Coverage
• Kathy Griffin: Infamous for a photo shoot holding a bloody, severed Trump head. She lost her CNN New Year’s Eve job and faced Secret Service investigation.
  NY Times Coverage
• Snoop Dogg: In a 2017 music video, he pointed a toy gun at a Trump clown.
  Rolling Stone Coverage
• Maria Chappelle-Nadal (Democratic Missouri state senator): Posted “I hope Trump is assassinated!” on Facebook. She was stripped of committee posts.
  Washington Post Coverage

This is not fringe talk. These are mainstream entertainers and politicians feeding a culture where violence becomes thinkable.

---

The Fallout After Charlie Kirk

The assassination of Charlie Kirk brought this into sharper relief:

• Workers Fired or Disciplined: Dozens across industries faced penalties for celebrating Kirk’s death.
  The Guardian
• Threats Multiplying: Federal authorities are tracking threats related to Kirk’s funeral and political fallout.
  NPR
• Escalating Violence: In Arizona, Treven Michael Gokey allegedly threatened to “shoot up” an LGBTQ bar, calling himself a “martyr for Charlie Kirk.”
  People Magazine

The rhetoric, the celebrations, the hypocrisy—these all pour fuel on the fire. And unlike in the past, people are finally losing jobs and facing legal consequences for it.

---

The Lesson: Liberty Requires Consistency

Here’s the point. Free speech is vital. But lying about assassinations, smearing entire movements as “fascists,” or joking about blowing up the White House is not harmless. It normalizes hate and it invites escalation.

If you believe in liberty, the standard must be consistent:

• Don’t cheer censorship when it hits your enemies.
• Don’t excuse violent rhetoric when it comes from your side.
• Hold everyone accountable to truth and integrity.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination is a tragedy. The reactions to it—Kimmel’s lies, public celebrations, corporate silence until the backlash came—reveal a sickness in our culture. That sickness festers when elites feel untouchable. Maybe now, finally, they are not.

---

Sources

• AP News
• The Guardian
• CNN on Madonna
• BBC on Johnny Depp
• NY Times on Kathy Griffin
• Rolling Stone on Snoop Dogg
• Washington Post on Maria Chappelle-Nadal
• The Guardian on workers disciplined
• NPR on threats
• People Magazine

---