Charlie Kirk shot at campus event in Utah

[noname223]

Charlie Kirk's widow gives tearful address after shooting: 'I will never let your legacy die'

Erika Kirk thanks first responders and President Donald Trump for his support, after her husband's death.

www.bbc.com

I think we can all agree to send him thoughts and prayers. I mean he is against reforms of gun laws.

I think my comment will end here. You know German free speech laws are pretty strict.

There is a video of the shooting on X. He was shot in the neck. I doubt he will survive that. He is in a critical condition.

The video is gory for sure. Actually, I quitted watching gore. Just a few days ago I watched the Trump assassination attempt again. And speculated in which world we would live now if Trump died that day.

Here is a quote of Kirk himself.

Charlie Kirk: "It's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment"

Kirk: "Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty"

Charlie Kirk: “It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment”

www.mediamatters.org

 

[livershapedbox]

I saw the video and that was certainly an artery shot, flesh wounds don't make blood come out like that, so there's no way he survives. That also means the shooter is probably a hunter, it makes no sense in any other context to learn to shoot at arteries

 

[Eriktf]

Spoiler: Shooting footage TW

https://watchpeopledie.tv/h/shooting/post/379641/just-now-charlie-kirk-shot-in

 

[Hellis]

I'm just gonna ignore anyone who wants to argue with me so save your breath.

The dude got what he deserved. Argued to not have stronger gun laws and said it was okay if some people had to get shot. What a fucking tool, hope his kids grow up to recognize that he argued for his own demise.

Saying this one more time for the people in the back: HE ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF PEOPLE GETTING KILLED. WHEN ASKED HE SAID IT WAS OKAY IF PEOPLE GOT MURDERED!

 

[Eriktf]

I'm just gonna ignore anyone who wants to argue with me so save your breath.

The dude got what he deserved. Argued to not have stronger gun laws and said it was okay if some people had to get shot. What a fucking tool, hope his kids grow up to recognize that he argued for his own demise.

its insane to think its okey to kill someone just because you disagree

 

[Dot]

Confirmd
RIP

 

[Dejected 55]

Either you condone violence or you don't. If you are for violence, then you can't complain when it comes for you or someone you love... If you are against it you have to condemn it even when it comes for someone you don't like.

I am not super familiar with Mr Kirk, nor have I wanted to be from what little I did see... he is not someone I would agree with on most things I think.

But... violence is not the answer.

I can't and don't support violence like this. Even if you argue he is a horrible person... even if you argue he was against measures to potentially curb exactly this kind of violence from occurring. I think you can point out the irony, sure... and you do NOT have to like him or try to say nice things about him just because he was shot. But I do not like seeing people take pleasure in violence against or murder of anyone.

 

[Liebestod]

I saw the video, dude got smoked hard.

 

[Eriktf]

Confirmd
RIP charlie

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dies after being shot at Utah college event

Charlie Kirk, the CEO and co-founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, has died after being shot Wednesday at a college event, President Donald Trump says.

apnews.com

 

[MissAbyss]

Spoiler: Shooting footage TW

https://watchpeopledie.tv/h/shooting/post/379641/just-now-charlie-kirk-shot-in

Well that explains why the site went down like an hour ago, too many visitors.

 

[EternalShore]

My parents liked him a lot and even supported him enough to get invited to his wedding (altho, they never went)~ oh boy~ >_< I'm going to be hearing about this for weeks~ They even signed me up to go to 1 of his upcoming events~ I wonder if they're going to try and require me to go now or they're not going to let me go even if I wanted to now~ xDDD

I personally find many of the conservative people they listen to to be annoying, altho they all blend in together, so idk if he was better or not~ when I specifically mentioned him in the past (ctrl+f'ing Discord convos), it appears I found him annoying too, altho my memory isn't good enough to know for sure~

Anyways, may he go to Heaven if that be God's will~ :) Something like this shouldn't have happened~

 

[starboy2k]

the ONLY reasons why I feel bad about this situation is because the right WILL definitely use this as an excuse to:

•futher support the imposition of martial law
•hail charlie kirk as some sort of martyr
•continue to go after and harm left leaning or centrist creators/politicians

even if the person who murdered him ends up being exposed as a right winger/MAGA/conservative, they still will not sleep until they get "even". After all evil hates it when you use their own playbook.

this will not end well at all

(I also find it ironic how Trump himself broke the news that Kirk was killed, but didnt have shit to say about those DEMOCRATIC politicians that were murdered BY A MAGA MAN in Minnesota.)

 

[Eriktf]

the ONLY reasons why I feel bad about this situation is because the right WILL definitely use this as an excuse to:

•futher support the imposition of martial law
•hail charlie kirk as some sort of martyr
•continue to go after and harm left leaning or centrist creators/politicians

even if the person who murdered him ends up being exposed as a right winger/MAGA/conservative, they still will not sleep until they get "even". After all evil hates it when you use their own playbook.

this will not end well at all

thats why killing people are a bad way to make political change

 

[Dejected 55]

I see the possibility of something I hadn't considered until today. And everyone should be against this, regardless of your political views.

Kirk wasn't a politician. He was a celebrity, maybe an activist depending on how you define that these days. He was on a college campus for a speaking engagement. Don't know if he was paid to be there or if he was there to make money on his appearance. It looks from the early reporting like the shot was fired from a good distance away, i.e. not someone in the crowd that got close to him. So, no way anything other than major security presence inhibits this. Like secret service kind of stuff where they scout the area in advance, post guard snipers around and clear the area for a good distance around where he was going to be speaking.

The bottom line here is... not being Secret Service protected like Trump was (and Trump got shot at anyway even with Secret Service)... this stuff costs money that either the University would have to pay OR Kirk's staff would have to pay. It isn't cheap for that level of protection.

So... IF the mentality of the general populace doesn't change... and the rhetoric by people in power or fame doesn't change... and we don't change any gun laws to hopefully curb this sort of thing... what may very well happen is this...

The only people who will be able to do public speaking engagements will be people already in power OR wealthy people. Average Joes who want to spread a message can't afford it. Average Joes are next on the list to be targeted, because they will be easier to get at.

What does this mean?

It means that we will severely limit the amount of people who can speak to large groups in public. We will limit to people with wealth and power, logistically... and as such the window of opportunity for new ideas, changes to our country, etc. really shrinks.

Regardless of which side you are on... regardless of who you want to hear and don't... and regardless of how you feel about "eliminating" your "enemies"... if this kind of violence keeps up, we're going to end up in a default dictatorship because even if we still have elections, the only people we will be able to vote for will be those pre-selected by wealthy and people in power to protect so that they can speak... and these will not always be the best people. They will just be the people who can protect themselves.

We need to talk about gun violence and civil discourse, though we pretty much never do... but we also need to talk about what happens if you keep ignoring this stuff and allowing crazy hateful folks to shoot at people and guide where our future leaders and influencers come from.

It's stupid if you are a Democrat to kill a Republican-leaning man like this and have him be a martyr. It's stupid if Republicans do the same to Democrat-leaning people. And even for those who don't value human life enough to hate this even when it happens to your "enemy"... realize that ultimately this shit is going to hurt all of the people in the long run as our access to people at the top is going to shrink because they have the power to protect themselves if they choose to do so.

 

[fishygirl]

i didnt like him and still dont, but just because he said something like that doesnt suddenly make violence against him justified. 2 wrongs dont make a right. no one should be shot just because they express their opinion. he wasnt in a position to pass pro gun laws anyway so what is even the point of this?

The dude got what he deserved. Argued to not have stronger gun laws and said it was okay if some people had to get shot. What a fucking tool, hope his kids grow up to recognize that he argued for his own demise.

Saying this one more time for the people in the back: HE ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF PEOPLE GETTING KILLED. WHEN ASKED HE SAID IT WAS OKAY IF PEOPLE GOT MURDERED!

 

[shiba]

Hopefully this is just a loud minority, but I don't understand how people can celebrate his murder or call it justified. Nobody should be killed for their political beliefs or any beliefs for that matter. Even disregarding the fact that murder is simply wrong and illegal, this really just does more harm to the political landscape, further radicalizing both parties with violence. I'm sure we've all seen the footage; How can you cheer that on?

And if you believe murder can be okay in some situations, Kirk was a SPEAKER who had no impact on policy. Most importantly he did not commit violence against other people, even if you strongly disagree with what he says. Killing anybody for voicing an opinion is a savage attack on everyone's freedom. It's ironic that people on a SUICIDE FORUM can cheer this on. We of all people should cherish the freedom of expression that enables a site like this to remain up. The media constantly tries to demonize this forum and have it shut down, but we are protected by the very freedom that should have protected Kirk today.

You can't value freedom of expression for some groups and not others. This forum of all places has to understand that.

 

[TBONTB]

I see the possibility of something I hadn't considered until today. And everyone should be against this, regardless of your political views.

Kirk wasn't a politician. He was a celebrity, maybe an activist depending on how you define that these days. He was on a college campus for a speaking engagement. Don't know if he was paid to be there or if he was there to make money on his appearance. It looks from the early reporting like the shot was fired from a good distance away, i.e. not someone in the crowd that got close to him. So, no way anything other than major security presence inhibits this. Like secret service kind of stuff where they scout the area in advance, post guard snipers around and clear the area for a good distance around where he was going to be speaking.

The bottom line here is... not being Secret Service protected like Trump was (and Trump got shot at anyway even with Secret Service)... this stuff costs money that either the University would have to pay OR Kirk's staff would have to pay. It isn't cheap for that level of protection.

So... IF the mentality of the general populace doesn't change... and the rhetoric by people in power or fame doesn't change... and we don't change any gun laws to hopefully curb this sort of thing... what may very well happen is this...

The only people who will be able to do public speaking engagements will be people already in power OR wealthy people. Average Joes who want to spread a message can't afford it. Average Joes are next on the list to be targeted, because they will be easier to get at.

What does this mean?

It means that we will severely limit the amount of people who can speak to large groups in public. We will limit to people with wealth and power, logistically... and as such the window of opportunity for new ideas, changes to our country, etc. really shrinks.

Regardless of which side you are on... regardless of who you want to hear and don't... and regardless of how you feel about "eliminating" your "enemies"... if this kind of violence keeps up, we're going to end up in a default dictatorship because even if we still have elections, the only people we will be able to vote for will be those pre-selected by wealthy and people in power to protect so that they can speak... and these will not always be the best people. They will just be the people who can protect themselves.

We need to talk about gun violence and civil discourse, though we pretty much never do... but we also need to talk about what happens if you keep ignoring this stuff and allowing crazy hateful folks to shoot at people and guide where our future leaders and influencers come from.

It's stupid if you are a Democrat to kill a Republican-leaning man like this and have him be a martyr. It's stupid if Republicans do the same to Democrat-leaning people. And even for those who don't value human life enough to hate this even when it happens to your "enemy"... realize that ultimately this shit is going to hurt all of the people in the long run as our access to people at the top is going to shrink because they have the power to protect themselves if they choose to

The world is getting harder and harder to be in.

 

[JealousOfTheElderly]

I will say this a little louder for folks in the back:
WE LIVE UNDER A UNIPARTY. NO SUCH THING AS A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT. IT'S NOW A LIE MADE UP TO DIVIDE US SO WE CAN BE CONQUERED BY SOME AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT.
Charlie was shot dead not by a democrat, not by republicans, but something more sinister. It's sending a message to us to shut the fuck up. The next few years and decades will be very rough for us. I recommend that if you are suicidal, act fast.
We are in for some very difficult times.
Again, corporations and the olicharchy are behind this. He pissed off the wrong people. If you watch the video, it's clearly a sniper. Something sinister is afoul.

But if you are suicidal, take note.... his death was very quick. If you live in the US, use this to your advantage. He was shot in the neck and died very quickly. TAKE NOTE.

 

[GhostInTheMachine]

Fuck him, he deserved it. Anybody trying to pull the "it's never justified" card simply doesn't feel the result of these people's politics coming to ruin every aspect of their lives. He literally died talking shit about trans people in society, during a time where the state is clamping down on basic rights and privileges we ought to be granted. "It's never justified" until you're ostracized from society for just being visible. "It's never justified" until you get hate crimed because of the lies and rhetoric spread about you. "It's never justified" until you're in a fucking camp.

I'm sick of playing the "we need to be nice to fascists" game. We're not the ones calling for government programs to mark as us insane and take our rights away. We're not the ones trying to find reasons they can't vote. We're not the ones creating entire manifestos of lies about us. Fuck you if you want to defend this guy.

 

[MeSauce]

I saw the video and that was certainly an artery shot, flesh wounds don't make blood come out like that, so there's no way he survives. That also means the shooter is probably a hunter, it makes no sense in any other context to learn to shoot at arteries

Or the shooter was aiming at his head and missed, and got lucky to hit a vital artery. More likely than the shooter being a hunter and going for neck-shots

 

[............]

Somehow immediately came here when I read the news. I knew someone would make this a thread in off topic lol. For context I am not American, nor pro any of their politicians (I don't feel qualified and informed enough to politically assign myself in a country I don't even live in at that).

Crazy times. Crazy day in general, there's been a school shooting in Colorado this morning as well (source).

I'm going to guess Charlie Kirk was targeted because another attempt on Donald Trump isn't going to work so fast anymore (I'd hope so at least, this is the president of a massive country).

 

[MeSauce]

I will say this a little louder for folks in the back:
WE LIVE UNDER A UNIPARTY. NO SUCH THING AS A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT. IT'S NOW A LIE MADE UP TO DIVIDE US SO WE CAN BE CONQUERED BY SOME AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT.
Charlie was shot dead not by a democrat, not by republicans, but something more sinister. It's sending a message to us to shut the fuck up. The next few years and decades will be very rough for us. I recommend that if you are suicidal, act fast.
We are in for some very difficult times.
Again, corporations and the olicharchy are behind this. He pissed off the wrong people. If you watch the video, it's clearly a sniper. Something sinister is afoul.

But if you are suicidal, take note.... his death was very quick. If you live in the US, use this to your advantage. He was shot in the neck and died very quickly. TAKE NOTE.

yup, guns are the best way to go hands-down. But I don't think oligarchy and corporations had anything to do with it. I think it was some nutjob with a gun who wanted to be infamous. If this really was a political assassination orchestrated by some organized party, I would be very surprised. Who do you think specifically are responsible? Who specifically? High level non-elected officials of the DOD or something? I'm genuinely curious

 

[opheliaoveragain]

please keep the discussion civil. I know there are a lot of views and feelings around this but let's not resort to name calling etc or the thread will be locked. no disrespect.

 

[CatLvr]

Or the shooter was aiming at his head and missed, and got lucky to hit a vital artery. More likely than the shooter being a hunter and going for neck-shots

I tend to agree with you. A head shot is a small target. A human neck is even smaller. I tend to believe maybe the windage was a tad bit off (given the length of the shot) or maybe he/she sighted a bit off. Either way, the way Charlie was moving up, picking up the mic, laying it back down and then sitting back in his chair, and repeating that movement after each question, made that shot one of 2 things -- very, very lucky. Or very, very impressive. Either way, the end result was the same. I believe he was effectively dead soon after he hit the floor. You don't lose that much blood, that fast and don't go into shock. Additionally, there is no way to stem the bleeding from ALL the major blood vessels in the neck leading to the brain. He didn't stand a chance.

 

[Hellis]

i didnt like him and still dont, but just because he said something like that doesnt suddenly make violence against him justified. 2 wrongs dont make a right. no one should be shot just because they express their opinion. he wasnt in a position to pass pro gun laws anyway so what is even the point of this?

Responding to this because I think it's a genuine question.

I do agree that violence should not be justified, I suppose I was a bit quick with the celebration on my part, my anger towards him and what he's done in his life is hard for me to look past, even in his death. Nonetheless, a part of me recognizes I'm happy with what has happened even though it goes against some of my own morality. I agree with you but I also agree with my initial statement too, even if there's contradictions. I won't lie to you.

On the topic of why it should matter, I remember being young and having people like him or pragerU on my YouTube through ads or recommendations. I thought that it was speakers who were knowledgeable that I could trust, but a lot of the opinions that they pulled off as facts (and wasn't there a whole meme involving Charlie Kirk and his tendency to do that?) were really just hurtful rhetoric used to bring young and impressionable teens/children to his side. Maybe I was a dumb child, but it did work on me.

Looking at our latest election, a great deal of the republican voters were a young demographic that were raised in a time where Charlie Kirk was able to reach them. Look at this thread as well, many people know and praise his accomplishments. A school shooting occured earlier today and the news is filled with Charlie Kirk's death with very little mention of it. To say he's not a threat because he can't pass laws ignores the fact that he has an incredibly large fan based that voted for the people who can enact the laws he would wish for. He went to colleges and spoke out for these laws (or lack thereof) because he had that power. Politicians are already tweeting about all the things he did, go on Twitter and scroll.

 

[hippiedeath]

I'm just gonna ignore anyone who wants to argue with me so save your breath.

The dude got what he deserved. Argued to not have stronger gun laws and said it was okay if some people had to get shot. What a fucking tool, hope his kids grow up to recognize that he argued for his own demise.

Saying this one more time for the people in the back: HE ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF PEOPLE GETTING KILLED. WHEN ASKED HE SAID IT WAS OKAY IF PEOPLE GOT MURDERED!

Foolish attitude

 

[fishygirl]

Responding to this because I think it's a genuine question.

i understand your reasoning and dont get me wrong- i also felt like he was preaching so much dumb subjective opinions that had no basis in fact or science- but i still cannot rationalize killing him. he wasnt a politician, he was an "activist". and activists are only killed when its to supress and silence the free thinking and opinions of a certain group.

if you disagree with him? then in a civil society you go and argue against him, you show him why hes wrong. not kill him.

a democrat news anchor said something so concerning about this topic- "you cannot [think and say] without expecting action in return"

now we must censor our thoughts? censor our beliefs? conform to the masses so that we dont get hurt? and who decides what we can and cannot say? WHO?

charlie kirk was not a threat, as long as he never became a politician (which he wasnt, thank god). killing him, a civilian, is instead a threat to our freedom of speech and thoughts as american citizens...

 

[hippiedeath]

I see the possibility of something I hadn't considered until today. And everyone should be against this, regardless of your political views.

Kirk wasn't a politician. He was a celebrity, maybe an activist depending on how you define that these days. He was on a college campus for a speaking engagement. Don't know if he was paid to be there or if he was there to make money on his appearance. It looks from the early reporting like the shot was fired from a good distance away, i.e. not someone in the crowd that got close to him. So, no way anything other than major security presence inhibits this. Like secret service kind of stuff where they scout the area in advance, post guard snipers around and clear the area for a good distance around where he was going to be speaking.

The bottom line here is... not being Secret Service protected like Trump was (and Trump got shot at anyway even with Secret Service)... this stuff costs money that either the University would have to pay OR Kirk's staff would have to pay. It isn't cheap for that level of protection.

So... IF the mentality of the general populace doesn't change... and the rhetoric by people in power or fame doesn't change... and we don't change any gun laws to hopefully curb this sort of thing... what may very well happen is this...

The only people who will be able to do public speaking engagements will be people already in power OR wealthy people. Average Joes who want to spread a message can't afford it. Average Joes are next on the list to be targeted, because they will be easier to get at.

What does this mean?

It means that we will severely limit the amount of people who can speak to large groups in public. We will limit to people with wealth and power, logistically... and as such the window of opportunity for new ideas, changes to our country, etc. really shrinks.

Regardless of which side you are on... regardless of who you want to hear and don't... and regardless of how you feel about "eliminating" your "enemies"... if this kind of violence keeps up, we're going to end up in a default dictatorship because even if we still have elections, the only people we will be able to vote for will be those pre-selected by wealthy and people in power to protect so that they can speak... and these will not always be the best people. They will just be the people who can protect themselves.

We need to talk about gun violence and civil discourse, though we pretty much never do... but we also need to talk about what happens if you keep ignoring this stuff and allowing crazy hateful folks to shoot at people and guide where our future leaders and influencers come from.

It's stupid if you are a Democrat to kill a Republican-leaning man like this and have him be a martyr. It's stupid if Republicans do the same to Democrat-leaning people. And even for those who don't value human life enough to hate this even when it happens to your "enemy"... realize that ultimately this shit is going to hurt all of the people in the long run as our access to people at the top is going to shrink because they have the power to protect themselves if they choose to do so.

Wealthy people aren't to blame for everything. That's a shallow observation. I'd rather see all out bloody civil war so we can actually get past this.

 

[SilentSadness]

I think that this is a tragedy that is a result of increasing polarisation. I don't think anyone should be killed or silenced without their consent whatever their political views. I think that people who don't want to die should not have to.

 

[Unseelie]

Shout out to the time Charlie said that some gun deaths were worth it to protect your second amendment right.

Real shit, the man was an active participant in pedaling rhetoric that lead to my trans brothers and sisters killing themselves. Might get some hate for this, but I don't care that he died. It's one less cog in the right wing genocide machine.

Rest in piss Charlie, hope the second amendment was worth it dawg.