A few months ago, I wrote about a bizarre incident in Colorado where a man stalked a TV news crew, following the news vehicle back to the station. When they arrived, the man confronted and assaulted the crew’s on-air reporter who was described as being of Pacific Islander ancestry. During the assault, the man yelled, “This is Donald Trump’s America!”
At the time, I mused that political violence under a second Trump administration would vary in intensity while the legal consequences would depend on local sentiments. In the case of the Colorado incident, the reporter’s assailant has pled not guilty and is to stand trial in January.
This afternoon, another violent act may put my speculation to the test. Right-wing activist Charlie Kirk was shot dead while giving a speech at a Utah college. Details are unclear, but Kirk was apparently shot from a rooftop of a campus building about 150 yards away. A “person of interest” has been detained.
The reaction to Kirk’s death among prominent Democrats so far is in contrast to Republican reactions when Democrats are physically attacked. The June murders of a Minnesota legislator and her husband and the wounding of another legislator predictably generated vituperative victim blaming, for instance. On the other hand, Kirk’s murder elicited condolences and condemnations of gun violence from Democrats.
Personally, I despise everything Charlie Kirk stood for. But there shouldn’t be a death penalty for expressing despicable opinions.
Naturally, MAGA has overreacted in ways which border on the absurd. President Trump has ordered the flag flown at half-staff for the next several days, as ifi Kirk had been a great statesman rather than a self-serving, hate-mongering opportunist. The next few days will likely bring more hyperbole.
Considering the fate of the shooter, I cannot predict. Republican-majority Utah has been somewhat cool toward the MAGA phenomenon. I am sure any trial jury would approach the case independent of political considerations. But Utah’s governor has said this will be a death penalty case.
Would red state juries impose the death penalty on the murderer of a liberal activist or Democratic politician? Would they convict in the first place? Incitement is much more common on the right. It’s not much of a leap that if a liberal activist or Democratic politician were murdered in a red state, the social media response would find a way to dismiss the crime and find a way to subtly (or not so subtly) put the onus on the deceased.
Returning to the right’s knee-jerk reactions to any threat, real or imaginary (mostly imaginary), let’s look at the ongoing, unnecessary occupation of Washington, D.C. by National Guard troops. Although it had to have been in the works for weeks, the immediate precipitating event appears to have been an attempted carjacking involving DOGE twerp Edward “Big Balls” Coristine. (Okay, I don’t condone violence, but the revelation that Mr. Balls was beaten up by a 15 year old girl made me smile. Besides, his pride was hurt worse than his face)
Any crime committed against a white person in a city with a plurality or majority population of color is going to set off right-wing alarm bells. Since most of our cities, whether in red or blue states, have significant minority populations and tend to have Democratic administrations, they draw right-wing ire by their very being. The planned replication of performative military intervention is certain, all in the interest of preventing violent crime of course.
I wonder if the president will be sending troops to Orem, Utah anytime soon.
Not very likely.
© 2025 The Unassuming Scholar
