A chilling scene unfolded on the campus of Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, captured on video by members of Turning Point USA. A student approached their tabling event and shockingly voiced support for the violent attack on conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, even expressing a disturbing sense of satisfaction.
“Why shouldn’t I be glad that [Charlie Kirk] got shot? Like honestly?” the student reportedly asked, immediately setting a confrontational tone. The conversation quickly escalated, revealing a deeply held animosity fueled by disagreement with Kirk’s views.
The student attempted to justify their stance by referencing the Second Amendment, then bluntly stated their pleasure at Kirk being shot, citing what they considered “really stupid s---” he had said. This sparked a tense exchange about the line between expressing opinions and advocating for violence.
When challenged on whether his own past statements warranted similar retribution, the student initially stumbled, then argued he hadn’t explicitly called for gun violence. He then pivoted, claiming Kirk “got what he preached” by advocating for a stance where violence was, in his view, acceptable.
The student’s reasoning rested on a misrepresentation of Kirk’s position, claiming he had embraced violence and dismissed empathy. He chillingly admitted to watching the video of the attack and “clapping,” stating, “bad people deserve to die.”
This disturbing incident is not isolated. In the wake of Kirk’s assassination, similar expressions of celebration and mockery have surfaced on college campuses across the nation. A student at Clemson University was filmed mocking Kirk, and another at Texas Tech disrupted a vigil with a callous outburst.
The Texas Tech student, who yelled a deeply offensive statement about Kirk’s death, was subsequently expelled. A Chicago public school teacher also faced accusations of making light of the tragedy during a protest, mimicking a shooting gesture.
Hamline University released a brief statement condemning violence, but the incident raises profound questions about the climate of political discourse and the potential for rhetoric to escalate into support for real-world harm. The events underscore a troubling trend of visceral reactions and a disturbing lack of empathy surrounding a tragic event.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk, and the subsequent reactions, have ignited a national conversation about the boundaries of free speech, the consequences of inflammatory rhetoric, and the responsibility individuals bear for their words and actions in a deeply divided society.
