The last thing I ever thought I would do would be to write more than a few sentences about someone like Charlie Kirk. I have always found him to be a particularly loathsome coward. He had no values, he promoted nothing of real world worth, he helped no one, and he never provided comfort or support especially during times of crisis. He spent his career using rhetorical tricks to avoid good faith conversations, spreading hateful rhetoric, and incompetently defending Republican orthodoxy any time it was obvious even to young conservatives that Republicans were acting against their interests. His last major political move was to encourage his audience to trust the government regarding the Epstein files. There is nothing left of his legacy but his career of petty contempt and apologetics for heinous actions. No one will miss him. He is highly replaceable in all facets and his children have been saved from years of abuse, neglect, and exploitation which having such a miserable person as a father had doomed them to.
Kirk has never been as important as he has been during the last two days. He is now dominating the headlines of the world’s major newspapers. This is to contrast how unimportant he has been for over a decade. He was originally propped up by the Koch brothers as the dominant anti-intellectual voice of the youth, the face of the organization “Turning Point USA.” The purpose of this organization was(is?) to convince college students that intellectual pursuits were worthless because common sense conservatism already had all answers. This was unconvincing to college students but may have encouraged many impressionable young teenagers to avoid critical thinking and embrace conservative orthodoxy. This was the peak of his career. He aged out of his role almost immediately and has been haunting the background of conservative media ever since. He was no longer a collegiate peer offering an alternative to knowledge, but an aging idiot yelling at kids.
His recent Jubliee “debate” is emblematic of his recent status. For the duration of the video, young people make a fool of him one after another while his lack of any kind of wit, charm, or insight leaves him defenseless. His wordplay fails, his points easily dismantled, and his celebration of his own self-perceived victories are met with open disgust. Kirk was powerless and had lost any influence that he once had. He was on the way out.
On September 10, 2025, a sniper used a high-powered rifle to cleanly dispatch Charlie Kirk at an estimated distance of 200 yards before escaping without a trace. For those unfamiliar with firearms it is extraordinarily difficult [for an inexperienced shooter] to hit a person-sized target at all from this distance, and the shot was an extremely precise killing shot. In my opinion it is extremely unlikely that this shooting was anything but the act of a highly trained individual with extensive resources. I do not believe that this was a sudden act of passion, and I do believe it was a planned and coordinated strike.
Why kill Charlie Kirk? Kirk was a conservative D-lister with no power and waning influence. While alive, he was a political liability and go-to punching bag for political commentators. I can’t think of any reason a terrorist group or actor with the skill and resources they had at their disposal would pick Kirk as a target rather than almost anyone else whose death may have set back Trump’s movement. It is somewhat possible that a skilled veteran was personally offended by something Kirk said or did and used their skills to take revenge, but I’ve not seen this amount of professionalism and precision attached to a motive of this nature before.
Donald Trump and Nancy Mace have claimed that this was an assassination performed by agents of the Democrat Party. I can’t think of any way that this would benefit the Democrats. However, I can think of who may believe this obvious lie. I was raised a conservative so I understand that a conservative might believe the egghead democrats would want to kill a simple truth-teller to shut him up and stop him from spreading common sense. The belief that enemies of conservatives are motivated by this is conservative orthodoxy which all conservatives are required to believe as proof of their group membership. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this statement makes sense only to orthodox conservatives and to no one else.
Today is September 11th and the headlines are dominated by Kirk’s shooting and Republican vows for vengeance. It appears that this killing has massively supported Trump’s current agenda by providing another justification to bring the military down on US citizens to protect state power. Whether it is a coincidence or not, Trump and only Trump has benefited from this killing. Considering how quickly momentous events have been forgotten in the last several months, I’m hoping this push to make Kirk an angelic martyr of the Trump movement is forgotten as quickly and Kirk resumes his rightful place in obscurity.
Edit: Clarified difficulty of shot. As has been pointed out this is not a particularly difficult shot for an experienced shooter. I intended to say that the average person who is not an experienced shooter would find this shot extraordinarily difficult, indicating that the shooter was skilled. A skilled hunter would likely have the knowledge and experience to replicate this shot. The planning of the shooter's location selection and getaway could indicate further skills which may indicate further knowledge causing me to suspect a degree of professional experience.
Kirk had a pretty animated speaking style, which is what I meant by moving. He could have leaned forward, backward, or turned which may not have affected him being hit at all but would definitely affect whether his vitals were hit. It looks like the shooter waited until it seemed he would not move this way. You're right though. The more I learn about it the more it seems like the shot placement wasn't exactly intentional and the deadliness of the shot wasn't assured. I have heard that it was windy that day, but not more than an experienced Utah deer hunter would be able to account for. My argument was only intended to support that the shooter was skilled whether their skill was from hunting or otherwise.
The shooter's setup and escape seem to me to be more professional, but this sense of mine is more from contrasting other assassinations and attempts I'm aware of. This one is appears far more informed and effective than average. The escape into a field itself wasn't special, but planning and knowing a good spot to shoot from and be likely to escape from is what I'm looking at. They could have gotten lucky of course.
The two captured suspects are also suspicious. The first one arrested was shouting that he was the shooter and to arrest him, while the other suspect was walking around with a pellet gun. These could also be coincidences but they definitely helped distract the searchers.