The first question I would ask one (Charlie Kirk’s killer) would be this: What were you trying to accomplish by killing Charlie Kirk, what was your objective? If the objective was to silence the man and put an end to his crusade, then all I can say is that in all likelihood the exact opposite is going to happen. His voice will not only be amplified, his crusade will begin to resonate with those who weren’t even interested in it to begin with. That’s what martyrdom accomplishes, and Charlie Kirk is going to be transformed from a mere human being into a symbol, and you can’t kill symbols with a bullet. I cannot overstate just how stupid this was, killing Charlie Kirk.
That being said, as for Charlie Kirk himself, I have seen enough of his events to conclude that in addition to openly challenging people to debate with him in public — and good for him for that — he also had a certain style that had the potential to push people’s buttons, to rub people the wrong way. He ran that risk mainly because he occasionally went beyond the realms of mere debate and entered the world of personal attack. I have seen Kirk mock, ridicule and even humiliate his “opponents.” During one particular “session,” after the girl’s mic was turned off and she was led away shouting expletives, Kirk turned to the audience and said, “Men, do not find yourself with a woman like that … do NOT find yourself with a woman like that!” and he was smiling smugly as if satisfied. Was that really necessary? If you do things like that often enough you just might get the attention of that one-in-a-million nutcase who concludes that he’s had enough and decides to do something about it.
Although the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, nothing can protect anyone from the possible consequences of that speech. In a sane and normal world Charlie Kirk would probably still be alive, but we’re not living in a sane and normal world. I wonder if Charlie Kirk was aware of that whenever he decided to “push the envelope.”
Arthur Saginian
Santa Clarita
