Charlie Kirk’s Death Weaponised Against Left, Without Evidence

Charlie Kirk’s killing is being weaponised against the Left – for no reason at all

Last Updated: September 11, 2025By Mike Sivier

A leading right-wing political commentator in the United States has been shot dead, sparking a backlash of hate against people on the political Left — who probably have nothing to do with it.

Let us be clear from the start: the assassination of Charlie Kirk is a heinous act of political violence.

No matter his views or affiliations, nobody should be targeted for murder just for expressing their beliefs.

This tragedy underscores an urgent need to address the escalating climate of political hostility and to reaffirm our commitment to civil discourse and democratic values.

What Happened to Charlie Kirk?

On the afternoon of September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk – a 31-year-old conservative activist and founder of Turning Point USA – was fatally shot during a public speaking event at Utah Valley University (UVU) in Orem, Utah.

The incident occurred during his “American Comeback Tour,” a series of campus appearances aimed at mobilising young conservatives across the United States.

Kirk was seated at his signature “Prove Me Wrong” table, engaging with students in a ‘question and answer’ session, when a gunshot rang out, the bullet striking him in the neck.

Eyewitnesses reported that the shot came from an elevated position around 200 yards away, consistent with the direction of the Losee Center rooftop.¹

The shooting caused immediate panic. Students fled in all directions, some tripping over benches or falling while trying to escape. Sara Tewell, a UVU student present at the scene, described the chaos:

“Blood was gushing everywhere. A friend and I ran into a building and ran out and down the street just trying to get to safety.”²

Kirk was rushed to a nearby hospital, where he later succumbed to his injuries.

The FBI, in coordination with local law enforcement, launched an immediate investigation into the shooting.

Video footage captured by UVU student Tanner Maxwell showed a figure fleeing across a nearby rooftop moments after the gunshot.³

Governor Spencer Cox of Utah called the incident a “national tragedy,” emphasising caution in assigning blame:

“We do not know the motives, and we cannot allow speculation to turn into scapegoating.”⁴

Despite these calls for careful assessment, the event rapidly became politicised. President Donald Trump, posting on Truth Social, confirmed Kirk’s death and praised his influence on young conservative voters:

“The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie.”⁵

As of this writing, law enforcement continues to investigate the shooting. No suspects have been officially identified or charged, and authorities have not indicated any connection to political groups, either domestic or international.

It is therefore critical to note that there is currently no evidence suggesting Left-wing involvement in Kirk’s assassination.

The incident at UVU is a reminder of the dangers faced by public figures in politically charged environments, but it also highlights the importance of reporting facts without assumption or partisan framing.

While the loss of life is tragic, responsibility must be attributed based on evidence, not ideology.

UK Right-wing figures are exploiting the tragedy

Before the circumstances of Kirk’s death were fully established, some UK right-wing commentators began using the tragedy to attack the political Left, framing them as morally corrupt and violent.

These narratives, often spread through social media, illustrate the danger of weaponising a tragedy without evidence.

Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine wrote on X:

“This is not about left vs right anymore. It’s about good vs evil. They can’t win the debate, so they kill. We are in a very dark place. #CharlieKirk”⁶

Similarly, Reform UK’s Alex Phillips posted:

“I don’t want to hear the words ‘Fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ or ‘Far Right’ EVER again. THESE. WORDS. KILL.”⁷

These statements suggest that Kirk’s death is a product of Left-wing ideology, despite that fact that at the time of writing there is no verified evidence linking the Left to the shooting.

The effect is twofold: it spreads fear among Right-leaning audiences and misattributes responsibility to an entire political group.

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo, whose online influence extends to UK-linked communities, wrote:

“It is time, within the confines of the law, to infiltrate, disrupt, arrest and incarcerate all of those who are responsible for this chaos.”⁸

Although framed as a call to enforce justice, such rhetoric blurs the distinction between law enforcement and partisan – vigilante – action.

By implying that political opponents are collectively culpable, it fosters an environment where hostility can escalate quickly.

Social media activity following Kirk’s death illustrates the rapid amplification of these narratives.

Hashtags such as #StopTheLeft began trending on X and Instagram. Many posts explicitly claimed that left-wing activists were responsible, often without verification, creating a sense of imminent threat.⁹

Observers have noted that framing the debate in moral absolutist terms — good v evil — circumvents rational analysis and encourages emotional responses. Studies on online political polarisation show that these binary narratives increase hostility and reduce the likelihood of evidence-based discussion.¹⁰

And by portraying Kirk solely as an innocent victim, these UK commentators ignore his own history of advocating political violence.

They are trying to heighten partisanship while shielding Kirk’s rhetoric from scrutiny, pushing a simplified narrative in an attempt to twist public perception.

Let’s look at Charlie Kirk’s own advocacy of political violence

While UK commentators like those mentioned above have portrayed Charlie Kirk as a martyr, the public record shows that he himself repeatedly promoted or condoned politically motivated violence.

Understanding this is essential to avoid oversimplified narratives that misattribute blame for his death.

Kirk frequently praised violent actions by others. In 2020, following the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, he tweeted:

“Who’s going to be the hero to step up and post bail for the guy who hit Pelosi’s husband with a hammer? We need heroes in this country.”¹¹

Far from condemning the act, Kirk framed it as a form of heroism, normalising the idea of politically motivated aggression.

He also suggested that criminals should be executed publicly for educational purposes:

“We should televise the executions of criminals. Show it to school kids. Let them see the consequences.”¹²

This statement demonstrates a willingness to normalise brutality as a spectacle, including for children, reflecting an ideological framework in which violence is valorised for societal impact.

Kirk publicly supported Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who killed two men during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin:

“Rittenhouse did what any American should do. He defended his community. That’s bravery we should applaud.”¹³

By framing lethal actions as heroic defence, Kirk encouraged his followers to view political violence as legitimate when aligned with conservative ideals.

Moreover, Kirk’s statements on gun rights often implied that maintaining access to firearms justified societal risks, even endangering children:

“If we have to lose a few, it’s worth it to keep our freedoms. Guns first, everything else second.”¹⁴

This demonstrates a pattern of prioritising ideological goals over human safety.

Kirk frequently used his Turning Point USA platform to normalise confrontational and aggressive tactics.

He consistently framed political opponents as morally corrupt, creating an environment in which extreme measures were framed as defensible.

While no one condones Kirk’s assassination, presenting him solely as a victim ignores his own promotion of political violence.

It’s a stunningly hypocritical position – weaponising his death against political opponents while masking his role in fostering a culture that valorises aggression.

Hypocrisy and the danger of weaponisation

While Charlie Kirk’s death is tragic, the way some UK right-wing commentators have responded is reprehensible.

There is no place for their selective outrage and rhetorical manipulation in this story.

By portraying Kirk solely as a victim, they ignore his history of advocating political violence while framing the Left as inherently dangerous — despite there being no evidence linking any Left-wing individual or group to the shooting.

It’s symptomatic of a broader pattern of selective outrage and moral simplification.

Yes, it may be natural for people to react emotionally to violence – but presenting an entire political group as responsible without evidence is both misleading and dangerous.

Framing the incident this way ignores Kirk’s own record of advocating political violence; to portray him solely as an innocent victim while blaming others for his death is hypocritical.

Moral authority cannot be claimed selectively; it undermines credibility when public figures condemn violence only when it affects their own ideological camp.¹⁵

Framing political opponents as “evil” or morally illegitimate fosters polarisation and hostility.

Research on social media and political narratives shows that binary moral framings — portraying one side as entirely good and the other as inherently corrupt — increase aggression and reduce evidence-based reasoning.¹⁶

When influential commentators amplify this perspective, followers are more likely to view opponents not as human beings with differing views but as existential threats, which can escalate real-world tensions.

Weaponising tragedy in this way spreads fear and encourages retaliatory thinking.

By suggesting that left-wing ideology is responsible for Kirk’s death, commentators promote a culture of pre-emptive suspicion and hostility.

In politically-charged environments, this can justify aggressive behaviour in the minds of followers, even when no evidence exists to connect the people they are targeting with the crime.¹⁷

And finally: selective outrage erodes public debate.

When only one side’s transgressions are acknowledged, while the other’s history of provocative or violent rhetoric is ignored, society loses a shared factual baseline.

Constructive debate becomes impossible, and social trust declines.

This dynamic is particularly dangerous when amplified on platforms like X or Instagram, where content spreads rapidly and emotional responses dominate rational deliberation.¹⁸

So the wrongness of this behaviour is threefold: it is hypocritical, it encourages polarisation and potential retaliation, and it undermines reasoned public debate.

Recognising these dangers does not diminish the tragedy of Kirk’s death; rather, it emphasises the responsibility of public commentators to report facts accurately and avoid inflaming division.

Anybody dodging that responsibility, like the two offenders mentioned above, should not be physically attacked; it is enough for them to be shunned, avoided and ignored.