Charlie Kirk shot during a debate about trans people

[feministmom4ever]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15086277/Charlie-Kirks-final-words-assassinated-Utah-dead.html

I didn’t agree with many of his political views, but I liked how he interacted with college students who couldn’t answer the question “what is a woman?”.

I see. The wider context. You’re not trying to stop another from speaking, are you?

Let’s hope so!

Well, its all a lot of hot air, another 4 years until the next GE.... no matter what Farage says & Trump has negative approval ratings.

Mid terms will be interesting.

@VoulezVouz

No, I asked you a relevant question about the violent rhetoric of TRAs towards women they disapprove of, based on your dismissive response to @ThatBlackCat and your accusation of her for “bias” (ie being concerned about the violent rhetoric towards women by TRAs) which you then tried to claim was a derail.

How is that trying to stop you speaking exactly?

You keep addressing individuals and telling them they are gloating.

Very arrogant of you.

It’s my opinion, which I’m entitled to. Anyone who makes light of people’s deaths when they have absolutely no need to do so is pretty unpleasant IMO. Your view may differ.

But I’m not interested in arguing about it with you, whether you see it as arrogant or not.

You keep right on thinking you know what people you've never met are thinking and feeling then pet.

I guess we’ll hear more soon. I hope they’ve got him, whoever he is. You can’t have people thinking it’s ok to shoot people for political opinions and people cheering it on (again, not on this thread).

I agree - his actual beliefs are extreme enough, and his arguments weak enough as they are. Why do people feel the need to exaggerate his arguments and then debate a strawman? (Or worse, exaggerate his arguments and shout "he's evil, no debate".) It suggests they don't have confidence in their own position.

Every issue that is biting us on the arse right now (immigration, demographic change, cost of living crises, conflicts of rights) could have been mitigated by honest conversations years ago that we are too afraid to have. Instead, we took the worst possible motivation for people's complaints, and either falsely debated those positions, intentionally skewed data to deny there was a problem, or dismissed the arguments as being bigoted.

Even on less divisive topics, it seems the order of the day is to misrepresent, deny or deflect rather than listen.

I remember years ago, Tony Blair being confronted on Question Time about the fact that the new targets for patients being seen within 24 hours meant that patients could no longer book an appt in advance and had to phone on the day and wait in a queue to have a chance at an appt. He engaged with the question, said he wasn't aware that it was an issue but that he would look into it because if that is the case, it shows that targets needed to be adjusted. Can anyone recall a single example of that happening recently? I can't.

You might due to your own biases. But otherwise, there’s plenty of others/groups to have suspicions about. Charlie Kirk had many enemies, even globally. Mossad has even been brought up as a possibility - I’d say probably not to that, but it was quite professionally carried out.

That sounds highly unlikely, I find it hard to believe a professional would shoot for the neck, it seems more likely that an amateur shot for the head (another area professionals don't aim for) and missed. It's unfortunately for Charlie, that the miss hit in the jugular, and not the ear like the bullet that missed Trump did. It wasn't professional it was shear luck, and all the unhinged need is to be lucky once.

I hope they’ve got him, whoever he is. You can’t have people thinking it’s ok to shoot people for political opinions and people cheering it on

Naaaaw, shucks really? And here we were all thinking that's perfectly fine! <sarcasm off>

Did you miss the part where I said “not on this thread” there @nomas?

If we can believe Trump knows what he's talking about.

Oh, you know, the one where you said someone’s else’s post was more relevant than mine as if you’re some kind of thread controller? I had (and have) the distinct sense you’re attempting some kind of ‘gotcha’.

I don’t approve of any kind of extreme rhetoric, no matter the ideology it comes from. Does that help you?

Suspect is 22, Tyler Robinson from Utah.

@Ereshkigalangcleg does like to tell people what to do and what they're feeling ;)

I’m perfectly entitled to think one post is more relevant to this FWR thread, not AIBU, Chat or general thread, than another. And your own bias on the issue of women’s sex based rights is perfectly clear, on this thread, and others.

It does sound mad to anyone not following, as does a lot of this stuff.

Redit, blue-sky and Instagram are hosting the majority of these sorts of posts

https://nypost.com/2025/09/12/us-news/we-have-him-trump-says-suspect-in-custody-for-charlie-kirk-assassination/

It's a 22 year old from Utah.
His father turned him in - looks like he (father) was in the police

He is wearing a socialist t-shirt in some of the images

The father appears to have been a minister who knew a US Marshall, according to Sky News’ reporting of Trump’s statement:

https://news.sky.com/story/charlie-kirk-latest-manhunt-under-way-for-killer-as-trump-condemns-heinous-assassination-13428517#10164377

The tshirt is of an American flag.

Shall we take bets that if those users are based in the UK they will be having their collars felt by the Boys in Blue anytime soon?

I can’t imagine they will unless they have been inciting violence.