killing

THE dad of a missing schoolboy – who vanished 18 years ago – has revealed how cops initially pointed the finger at him before coming up with a bizarre second theory.

Kevin Gosden claims he was told by investigators Andrew, 14, could have become a jihadi fighter and fled the UK due to some books he’d checked out from the library for a school project.

18

18

18

18

Andrew vanished without a trace after skipping school and taking a train from his hometown of Doncaster to London on September 14 2007.

Weeks later, detectives were able to track down CCTV showing the teenager in King’s Cross station – but from there the trail has run cold.

In December 2021, two men were arrested on suspicion of kidnap and human trafficking, but police confirmed no further action was being taken in September 2023.

Dad Kevin has told The Sun how in the early weeks of the investigation, officers put the family through “traumatising” questioning in which he claims the finger was pointed at him for possible murder.

“They only wanted to get hold of the station CCTV to prove he wasn’t buried in the back garden,” Kevin said. 

Asked if cops ever directly accused him of killing Andrew, he added: “That was their assumption. They’re really good at inventing stories.”

At one point Kevin and wife Glenys went to a meeting with investigators in which it was proposed their son may have become a jihadi – which refers to armed militant Islamic movements that seek to establish states based on Islamic principles.

Kevin said: “They came up with some really bizarre ideas. 

“He’d taken out some books from the library about Islam and they’d come up with the idea that perhaps he was joining some sort of jihadi group. 

“We had this meeting and got back in the car – we looked at each other and said ‘is that the most ridiculous thing you’ve heard in your life?’ 

“He was doing a school project.” 

Kevin said the jihadi theory was an example of “this horrible spiral, that was entirely unhelpful and non-productive”. 

He said it was extremely frustrating dealing with cops in the early weeks and months of the investigation.

“They’d come up with something insanely unlikely, that it was laughable,” he explained. “It really wasn’t good in 2007, at the beginning.”

He felt such lines of enquiry seemed to be distracting from following more obvious leads and when detectives finally did try to track down CCTV, much of the footage had already been wiped.

Investigators questioned both of Andrew’s parents, and older sister Charlotte prior to releasing the station video, a month after the disappearance.

Describing his own interrogation, Kevin said: “I did get the good cop bad cop routine.” 

He added: “A couple of officers involved were in our house for five minutes, 10 minutes… 

“They turned to us and said ‘how did you discipline him?’ 

“We said ‘we didn’t, we never had problems with him’.” 

18

18

18

Referring to the family’s treatment, he said: “It’s wrong. I still have no idea what they said to Charlotte. 

“She came back (from police questioning) really shaken and said ‘just don’t ask because what they asked me was disgusting’, so we can guess.”

He continued: “There were too many statistics and assumptions.

“They traumatised all three of us, but just because I’m a man I got the worst of it. 

“It was so off beam and so wrong, that it did end up with a suicide attempt because I just thought we’re never going to find him like this, I just need to be out of the way because clearly they’ve got this idea in their head.

“I know it’s not true but they’re never going to find him if that’s where they’re putting their time and resources.”

Referring to the idea he or anyone else in the family had hurt Andrew, Kevin went on to say: “I said to them more than once, if you find him, you can ask him and he’ll tell you it’s rubbish. 

“You’ve asked my daughter and my wife, the neighbours, his teachers, school friends and you’ll have come across no hint that there was ever a problem.”

‘All we can hope is something comes up’

Andrew, if he’s still alive, would be 32 now. 

Kevin said: “All we can hope is that something comes up and someone volunteers something and remembers something, anonymously if necessary, and gives us something revolutionary.”

The dad-of-two, 59, is currently refurbishing the family home, including repainting Andrew’s old bedroom, which is adorned with photos of the then-schoolboy.

18

18

18

Kevin said: “It never gets any damn easier… nightmares and flashbacks overnight. I finally get to sleep and I’m like ‘how have I woken up at one in the afternoon?’”

The refurbishment is addressing “all the stuff I haven’t paid notice to for the last 30 years”, he explained. 

Asked if keeping his mind occupied has helped him to process what happened to Andrew, he said: “I don’t know about processing things. It never gets any easier. 

“I’ve never made the mental illness stuff a secret.”

Kevin attempted suicide early in the search for Andrew, saying he was tipped over the edge by cops implying he was involved in his son’s disappearance. 

It never gets any damn easier… nightmares and flashbacks overnight. I finally get to sleep and I’m like ‘how have I woken up at one in the afternoon?

Kevin GosdenMissing Andrew’s dad

“Sadly, I had reached the conclusion that it isn’t going to get any better.”

He left his job at the NHS after Andrew disappeared and was doing part-time cleaning work before being made redundant. 

In November, when he turns 60, Kevin is due a “big payout” from the NHS, having been employed there for 20 years. 

He said keeping himself occupied with any little projects is essential.

“I know an awful amount of people retiring, I can’t,” he admitted. “All of this distracts.

“Since Andrew disappeared, my concentration, memory, all that stuff… mood and anxiety in particular, it paralyses your brain.

18

18

18

“All of that has been constant so I struggle to think straight. 

“Things like refurbishing, you have to pay enough attention on it to not ruminate on things. I have several little projects on the go.”

He went on to say: “I do most days wake up in a bit of a panic, thinking I need to get this done, I need to get that done. 

“My wife goes, ‘you never sit still’. You propel yourself into doing stuff with far too much anxiety behind it and rush it. That tends to be how it goes. 

“You get the days when depression will kick in and I just can’t do anything. It’s constantly tough.

“Every day it is a struggle. Partly I just keep doing these things, you have to persevere, or I do, just to keep going. As opposed to giving up.”

Sick trolls posting fake updates

Most recently, Kevin and his family have been forced to consult with police over sick clickbait articles falsely claiming that Andrew has been found, or further CCTV footage has been unearthed, and some include falsified statements from his loved ones.

“That’s been causing me a lot of anxiety,” said Kevin. “What I worry about is, you just don’t want to end up going through the same thing Nicola Bulley’s family went through.”

Nicola Bulley was a mum-of-two young children who vanished aged 45 in January 2023 during a dog walk in St Michael’s on Wyre, Lancashire, before her body was found weeks later in the river.

However, the search for the mum saw a media frenzy, with TikTokers and other social influencers flooding the scene and some spreading misinformation online.

Kevin has been alerted to countless possible sightings of Andrew over the years, and at one stage the family had age progression images done showing what he might look like now.

“One of my fears is I could walk past him in the street, if he’s alive,” he said. 

18

18

18

“He might have grown a beard, he would look so different. You worry you could trip over him in the street and have no idea.”

Asked what he believes became of Andrew, Kevin said he, his wife and daughter have “fluctuated on this for years”.

He continued: “None of us can imagine that the Andrew we knew would not have made some kind of contact at some point because we never fell out, we never argued. 

“It still boils down to we’re still absolutely clueless, but that makes us think he probably isn’t alive but that makes you think how come we’ve never found remains and no one ever saw him or noticed anything. 

“It turns around in your head and you can never come to any definite conclusion, which is the whole problem with ambiguous loss and why the mental health issues never resolved.”

He added: “We try to maintain hope, there’s that little voice in your head that says someone somewhere must know something, surely.”

Kevin said it would be easier, in a sense, if it could be proven either way what happened to his son.

“If we had a bag of bones or something that would be incredibly tough, and obviously would raise a whole lot of other questions as to how we’ve ended up with that,” he said. 

“It’s a double-edged sword, it’s the answer you just don’t want to know. But on the other hand, it feels like knowing would be better than not knowing.”

Andrew went missing at a time before the smart phones craze, the first iPhone was released the same year as his disappearance, and he didn’t even have a mobile.

18

18

Kevin said: “You are going back to the days of a lot less social media and internet. People weren’t carrying around a computer in their pocket the whole time.”

However, he said the fact that it appeared to go “pear-shaped” when trying to retrieve further CCTV at one of Europe’s most heavily surveillanced areas, “is still rather upsetting”.

Kevin said he and his family told investigators, after witnesses came forward, that King’s Cross was unlikely to be Andrew’s final destination as it’s a “transport exchange with links to everywhere”.

But he said the sluggish start meant the golden window of collecting evidence within the first 48 hours was missed.

He said there seemed to be a lack of communication between South Yorkshire Police, with the Met and British Transport Police.

Kevin said: “It’s worth saying that policing is still inconsistent when looking for a missing person, but it is very much improved. 

“I’m pretty sure every police force has a dedicated team for missing persons now. Things are done a lot better now.”

Andrew’s disappearance

Looking back to the time Andrew disappeared, Kevin said it was a Friday and they weren’t certain he’d gone missing until the Monday morning.

The family spoke to train station staff, including a woman who said she’d sold the schoolboy a one-way ticket.

They then trekked down to London and began putting up posters in any places they thought Andrew might have been.

They have relatives in the capital and he had been on trips there before.

“A couple of commuters saw posters we put up and said ‘we sat on the same carriage’ and we established he got to King’s Cross,” Kevin said.

The dad had also rung around Andrew’s friends and local hospitals, and even considered his son may have gone to Whitby, another place he liked.

“Our gut instinct was right,” he continued. “We were saying to police ‘we know he went to King’s Cross, most likely he got a train because he was most familiar with that transport’.

“The point is, it took them 27 days or something to get the CCTV of him walking out of King’s Cross station, which is what we were saying he would probably do from the start.”

But Kevin said he doesn’t believe cops at the time wanted to believe Andrew had simply gone missing, and rather the attention turned to something more sinister involving the family.

He said: “There were potential sightings that sounded quite plausible but the police weren’t following those up. 

“They weren’t liaising with the Met and then it’s six weeks later and they’re saying ‘the CCTV’s been overwritten’, that was frustrating at the time.”

Kevin and Andrew’s other loved ones still have no idea why the schoolboy even decided to skip school and head down south. 

“This is why it was a complete shock to us,” Kevin said. “It never occurred to us that he would go missing at all.

“The whole thing was awful and I can’t remember how many days, weeks it was and when certain events occurred. 

“It was such a blur. You’re in such a state of panic. We were all three of us very traumatised by the fact of the matter that Andrew had disappeared and we had no clue why.”

At the time, there were theories Andrew had perhaps travelled down for a gig or to meet up with friends, and would suddenly turn up.

“He was going to do something that he knew we wouldn’t want him to do – just doing whatever it was,” said Kevin. 

“He maybe thought ‘I can always get to my grandparents or my uncle’s and I’ll face the music later on and they’ll have a chance to calm down.’

“We thought he’d show up somewhere and say ‘I’ve done something foolish and I need a bit of help’. It just never happened,” said Kevin.

Other theories suggested Andrew had been groomed online and had headed down to London where he was trafficked.

Kevin said: “There’s no evidence, not one shred of evidence.”

Instead, he believes it was as simple as Andrew skipped school to do something in London he knew his parents otherwise wouldn’t be happy about, and he came across the wrong people.

“That’s what my gut has always said, really,” Kevin admitted. “We brought both kids up to think for themselves and be independent and they were both extremely capable, more than.

“Andrew was exceptionally gifted academically, so he could be lost in deep thought.

“He was insanely intelligent, but you wouldn’t have put him in the hanging round street corners and being streetwise category.”

He added: “One day, we hope that we’ll find out what happened.”

DCI Andy Knowles, of South Yorkshire Police, who has led the investigation in recent years, told The Sun: “I’m in regular contact with the Gosden family and I’m incredibly grateful for their support as we work together to answer the questions which have remained unanswered for so long. 

“We carefully consider any information received ensuring it is recorded, catalogued and, where there are reasonable lines of enquiry, it is pursued.”

GLENDALE, Ariz. — President Trump and prominent members of his Make America Great Again movement paid tribute Sunday to Charlie Kirk, praising the slain political conservative activist as a singular force whose work they must now advance.

The memorial service for Kirk, whom the president credits with playing a pivotal role in his 2024 election victory, drew tens of thousands of mourners, including Trump and Vice President JD Vance, other senior administration officials and young conservatives shaped by the 31-year-old firebrand.

Speakers highlighted Kirk’s profound faith and his strong belief that young conservatives need to get married, build families and pass on their values to keep building their movement. Those close to Kirk prayed and the floors shook from the bass of Christian rock bands as the home of the NFL’s Arizona Cardinals took on the feel of a megachurch service.

“Charlie looked at politics as an onramp to Jesus,” said the Rev. Rob McCoy, Kirk’s pastor.

Kirk’s killing at a Sept. 10 appearance on a Utah college campus has become a singular moment for the modern-day conservative movement. It also has set off a fierce national debate about violence and free speech in an era of deepening political division.

The shooting has stirred concern among some Americans who say that Trump is harnessing outrage over the killing as justification to suppress the voices of his critics and target political opponents.

High security and a full stadium

People began lining up before dawn to secure a spot inside State Farm Stadium west of Phoenix, where Kirk’s Turning Point organization is based. Security was tight, similar to the Super Bowl and similar high-profile events.

The 63,400-seat stadium quickly filled with people dressed in red, white and blue, as organizers suggested.

“I think that this is going to change things, and I think he made such a difference,” said Crystal Herman, who traveled from Branson, Mo. “He deserves us to be here.”

Photos of Kirk at work or with his wife, Erika, were on easels throughout the concession areas of the main concourse level. Some people posed for photos next to them.

“We’re going to celebrate the life of a great man today,” Trump told reporters before heading to Arizona. He said he was bracing for a “tough day.”

Trump has blamed the “radical left” for Kirk’s death and threatened to go after liberal organizations and donors or others he deems to be maligning Kirk or celebrating his death.

Many people, including journalists, teachers and late-show host Jimmy Kimmel have faced suspensions or lost their jobs as prominent conservative activists and administration officials target comments about Kirk that they deem offensive. The retaliation has in turn ignited a debate over the 1st Amendment as the Republican administration promises retribution against those who air remarks to which it objects.

Kirk was a provocateur who at times made statements seen by many as racist, misogynistic, anti-immigrant and transphobic. That has drawn backlash from some conservatives who cast the criticism as cherry-picking a few select moments to insult the legacy of someone they see as an inspirational leader.

A 22-year-old Utah man, Tyler Robinson, has been charged with killing Kirk and faces the death penalty if convicted of the most serious charges. Authorities have not revealed a clear motive in the shooting, but prosecutors say Robinson wrote in a text to his partner after the shooting that he “had enough” of what he considered to be Kirk’s hatred.

Kirk’s legacy

Turning Point, the group Kirk founded to mobilize young Christian conservatives, became a multimillion-dollar operation under his leadership with enormous reach.

“Charlie’s having some serious heavenly FOMO right now,” Turning Point Chief Executive Tyler Bower said, likening the moment to bringing “the Holy Spirit into a Trump rally.”

The crowd was a testament to the massive influence Kirk accumulated in conservative America with his ability to mobilize young people.

“I think he spoke on more than just politics,” Michael Link, 29, said outside the stadium. “Now that he’s gone, it’s like, who’s gonna speak for us now?”

His impact on modern-day conservatism went beyond U.S. shores.

Kirk “was very effective because he was convinced of his views and knew how to argue them,” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said at a political rally Sunday in Rome. “But he never stopped smiling, never stopped respecting his interlocutor and anyone who challenged him.”

Kirk was a MAGA celebrity with a loyal following that turned out to support or argue with him as he traveled the country for the events like the one at Utah Valley University, where he was shot. Kirk expanded the organization, in large part through the force of his personality and debating chops.

Arizona is the adopted home state of Kirk, who grew up outside Chicago and founded Turning Point there before moving the organization to Phoenix. Vance has said Kirk’s advocacy was a big reason Trump picked him as his vice presidential running mate last year.

Scheduled speakers at the service included Trump, Vance, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Donald Trump Jr., right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson and White House aides Stephen Miller and Sergio Gor also were set to speak.

Also scheduled to speak was Kirk’s widow, who has been named Turning Point’s new leader and has pledged that “the movement my husband built will not die.”

Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, whose official residence was set ablaze by a suspected arsonist in April while the governor was celebrating Passover with his family and friends inside, said in a television interview broadcast Sunday that Americans must now come together to find “our better angels.”

“We’ve got to universally condemn political violence no matter where it is,” Shapiro said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Cooper, Garcia and Madhani write for the Associated Press. Cooper and Garcia reported from Glendale, Madhani from Washington. AP writers Tiffany Stanley in Washington, Silvia Stellacci in Rome and Terry Tang contributed to this report.

Hello! I’m Mark Olsen. Welcome to another edition of your regular field guide to a world of Only Good Movies.

Robert Redford died this week at age 89 at his home outside Provo, Utah. The actor, producer and director had been a star for more than 60 years, going back to the 1963 comedy “Barefoot in the Park” and covering an enormously long list of performances in films such as “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” “The Hot Rock,” “Downhill Racer,” “The Way We Were,” “The Candidate,” “The Sting,” “Three Days of the Condor,” “All the President’s Men,” “The Electric Horseman,” “The Natural” and many more.

Redford was also an accomplished director, winning an Oscar for his debut “Ordinary People” and going on to make films such as “A River Runs Through It,” “Quiz Show,” “The Horse Whisperer,” “The Conspirator” and others.

In a survey of his career, Amy Nicholson wrote, “To appreciate Redford fully, we have to applaud not only the work he did but the simple, feel-good roles he rejected. He could have become a celebrity without breaking a sweat as the war hero, the jock, the husband, the cowboy, the American ideal made incarnate. Yet, he had the rare ability to sidestep what audiences thought we wanted from him to instead give us something we didn’t know we needed: selfish victors (‘Downhill Racer’), self-destructive veterans (‘The Great Waldo Pepper’) and tragic men who did everything right and still failed (2013’s ‘All Is Lost’).”

Robert Redford at the Film Society of Lincoln Center in New York in 2015.

(Evan Agostini / Invision / AP)

Nicholson added, “Lately, the Redford roles I’ve been thinking about are the ones where his all-American appeal makes us examine all of America, good and bad. The two that instantly jump to mind are his pair of political thrillers: ‘Three Days of the Condor,’ in which he plays a CIA agent on the run from his own co-workers, and ‘All the President’s Men,’ in which he doggedly uncovers the Watergate scandal. Both films believe in the power of getting the truth out to the press; neither is so naive as to think the truth alone will save the day.”

And then there is a whole other side to Redford: his extensive work as an activist on behalf of environmental causes and his founding of the Sundance Institute, which lead to the creation of the Sundance Film Festival.

I took a look at Redford’s work with Sundance and how he did nothing less than transform Hollywood, carving out a space for independent artists and opening doors for those who had been previously shut out by the industry.

“Mr. Redford was a shining example of how to leverage success into community building, discovery and empowerment,” filmmaker Ryan Coogler said in a statement. Coogler’s own career was launched via Sundance.

“In these trying times it hurts to lose an elder like Mr. Redford, someone who through their words, their actions and their commitment left their industry in a better place than they found it.”

Robert Redford and Lauren Hutton in 1970’s “Little Fauss and Big Halsy.”

(Steve Schapiro / Fahey / Klein Gallery)

I personally met Redford only once, when I moderated a Q&A in 2013 for “The Company You Keep,” in which he starred as a former ’60s radical. It would be the last feature film he directed. I was introduced to him shortly before we were to go in front of an audience together and he wanted to sit and talk for a moment. He immediately asked me about myself, where I was from and how long I had been a journalist.

It was thoroughly disarming to have someone so famous engage with me in a way that felt so genuine. Suddenly he was not a movie star, though he did indeed possess an otherworldly grace, charm and rugged beauty, but rather something even larger, someone who engaged with the world from a place of true curiosity. He leaves a lasting legacy, having touched countless lives.

There will surely be many more tributes and events to come, but Vidiots has already announced a screening of Alan J. Pakula’s 1976 “All the President’s Men,” starring Redford and Dustin Hoffman, on 35mm for Friday, Oct. 3.

‘Mysterious Skin’ in 4K

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, left, and Brady Corbet in the movie “Mysterious Skin.”

(Tartan Films)

Seeing the ongoing revival of Gregg Araki’s filmography in restored versions as fans wait for his upcoming film, “I Want Your Sex,” has been very gratifying. Tonight, the Academy Museum will present Araki’s 2004 “Mysterious Skin” in a new 4K restoration followed by a conversation with Araki, actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt and novelist Scott Heim, moderated by “Anora” filmmaker Sean Baker.

“Mysterious Skin” is a delicately told, crushingly disturbing tale of two young men (played by Gordon-Levitt and future “The Brutalist” director Brady Corbet) who each process an incident of sexual abuse from their childhood in different ways. The cast also includes Elisabeth Shue, Mary Lynn Rajskub and Michelle Trachtenberg, who died earlier this year.

Reviewing the film at the time, Kevin Thomas wrote, “The most mature work by the idiosyncratic and gifted Araki, ‘Mysterious Skin,’ based on the book by Scott Heim, highlights the director’s talent for inspiring the most demanding of portrayals from actors and for richly evoking the world his characters inhabit. The film has a mesmerizing floating quality, heightened by Harold Budd and Robin Guthrie’s deceptively serene score, and it has considerable offbeat, deadpan humor to offset its dark undertow. … it’s hard to imagine a more serious or persuasive indictment of the horrors inflicted on children by sexual abuse than ‘Mysterious Skin.’”

I spoke to Araki at the time about the perception that the film was a step toward a new-found maturity following the bratty punk charm of his earlier work.

“I like that it was a real departure for me and that people didn’t expect it,” said Araki. “I really appreciate that aspect of it, that I’ve never done a serious drama before. I do think that the film totally makes sense with all my other movies. There is a thematic similarity and the sensibilities of Scott [Heim] and myself are really attuned to each other. It’s not as if I’ve directed ‘Chicago.’”

J. Hoberman’s avant-garde NYC

An image from Ken Jacobs’ 1961 “The Whirled (aka Four Shorts of Jack Smith).”

(The Film-makers’ Coop)

On Thursday at 2220 Arts + Archives, Acropolis will present an evening in celebration of J. Hoberman’s inspiring and vivid recent book, “Everything Is Now: The 1960s New York Avant-Garde — Primal Happenings, Underground Movies, Radical Pop.”

Hoberman, formerly the longtime film critic for the Village Voice and an insightful cultural chronicler, will be present for a signing and Q&A along with a program of short films from the era surveyed by the book, when New York was a bubbling cauldron of creativity and restless energy. Titles screening will include Ken Jacobs’ 1961 “The Whirled (aka Four Shorts of Jack Smith),” Ron Rice’s 1962 “Senseless,” Michael Snow’s 1964 “New York Eye and Ear Control” and Jud Yalkut’s 1966 “D.M.T.”

In the introduction to his book, Hoberman explains his thesis of creating a snapshot of a time and place — he pays incredible attention to actual addresses, mapping out what was happening where — by saying, “Cultural innovation comes from the margins and is essentially collective. … New York City in the 1960s was one such cradle of artistic innovation. Boundaries were transgressed, new forms created. A collective drama played out in coffeehouses and bars, at openings and readings, in lofts and storefront theaters and ultimately in the streets.”

Points of interest

Joe Dante’s ‘Pirahna’

A scene from the 1978 movie “Piranha.”

(New World Pictures)

It is always heartening to see longtime local hero Joe Dante celebrated. He will be appearing at Vidiots on Friday, this time with his 1978 film, “Piranha.” Made for producer Roger Corman, the movie was obviously one in a series of films intended to capture the excitement and scares generated by “Jaws,” and it certainly accomplishes that, but it is also so much more.

From a screenplay written by John Sayles, who would go on to an illustrious career as a director himself, and with sharp, smart direction by Dante, “Piranha” is about a mutant strain of killer fish engineered by the military and accidentally released into a small community’s waterways.

Writing about the film in 1978, Charles Champlin said, “‘Piranha’ is what it is: a swift, efficient program picture which squeezes the most out of its dollars to squeeze delicious chills from the audience. But it also plays to the attitudes as well as the emotional needs of its young customers. The bad guys are scientists, the military, the police, the politicians (what were we doing in Vietnam?), authority in almost any uniform.”

Writing about the film in 2012, Dennis Lim added, “This was Dante’s first solo directorial outing after several years at Corman’s New World Pictures, where he got his start editing trailers, and it establishes a distinctive tone that he has sustained throughout his career, right on the line between homage and parody. The actors — several, including [Dick] Miller and [Kevin] McCarthy, who would go on to become frequent Dante collaborators — give performances that are once committed and tongue-in-cheek and the effects, in contrast to the sophisticated animatronics of ‘Jaws,’ are charmingly rough and ready.”

Aaliyah x2

Jet Li and Aaliyah star in “Romeo Must Die.”

(Kharen Hill / Warner Bros. Pictures)

As part of an ongoing Y2K Fridays series, the Gardena Cinema is showing a double-bill of movies starring the late singer and actor Aaliyah, with Andrzej Bartkowiak’s 2000 “Romeo Must Die” and Michael Rymer’s 2002 “Queen of the Damned.”

Riffing on “Romeo and Juliet,” the story of “Romeo Must Die” revolves around Jet Li and Aaliyah as members of warring crime families in Oakland who fall for each other.

Kevin Thomas wrote, “Body counts run high in this genre, but ‘Romeo Must Die,’ which marks Li’s first English-language starring role, tries for some depth and sophistication. … The film is a new step for both Li, who hopes to break out with it, and for recording star Aaliyah, in an accomplished film debut.”

Stuart Townsend and Aaliyah in “Queen of the Damned.”

(Jim Sheldon / Warner Bros. Pictures)

Based on one of the novels from Anne Rice’s popular “Vampire Chronicles,” “Queen of the Damned” stars Stuart Townsend as the vampire Lestat, here taking on the guise of a rock star, and Aaliyah as Akasha, the first vampire.

In his review at the time, Kenneth Turan wrote, “As directed by Michael Rymer and with the late rock star Aaliyah in the title role, ‘Queen of the Damned’ turns out to be a muddled limp biscuit of a movie, a vampire soap opera that doesn’t make much sense even on its own terms. Though the previous film based on Anne Rice’s popular novels, the Tom Cruise-starring ‘Interview With the Vampire,’ was far from a success, this brain-dead venture makes it look like a masterwork by comparison.”

US president says American forces struck the vessel in the Southern Command’s ‘area of responsibility’.

United States President Donald Trump says American forces have carried out another strike targeting a ship that he claimed was “trafficking illicit narcotics”, killing at least three men on board the vessel.

The announcement, late on Friday, marks the third time the US has claimed a deadly attack on an alleged drug smuggling vessel this month.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said the “lethal kinetic strike” took place on his orders in the US Southern Command’s “area of responsibility” – a region that encompasses 31 countries in South and Central America and the Caribbean.

“Intelligence confirmed the vessel was trafficking illicit narcotics, and was transiting along a known narcotrafficking passage en route to poison Americans,” Trump said.

“The strike killed 3 male narcoterrorists aboard the vessel, which was in international waters. No US Forces were harmed in this strike.”

The US has twice this month carried out strikes against alleged drug-smuggling vessels that had originated in Venezuela.

Washington, DC – Journalists, academics, airline employees, doctors and restaurant workers across the United States have been fired or investigated by their employers over the past week for comments deemed insensitive on the killing of Charlie Kirk.

The firings at a moment of rising political tensions in the US have ignited debates over the limits of free speech, cancel culture, doxxing and labour protections, as well as the legacy of Kirk.

The 31-year-old right-wing commentator was fatally shot in Utah last week.

While parts of the country mourned Kirk as a martyr who championed patriotism and open debate, others recalled his divisive views, including his anti-immigrant and Islamophobic rhetoric. Some even celebrated his death.

Many Republicans responded with a campaign of naming and shaming to ostracise people who reacted to the assassination in ways that they considered objectionable.

Former MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd was one of the earliest targets of that effort.

Shortly after Kirk was shot, Dowd said the conservative commentator pushed “hate speech” against some groups. “Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions,” the analyst said on air.

The comment sparked outrage from Kirk’s supporters, leading MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler to apologise for what she called the “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable” remarks.

Dowd was later fired – a move that he rejected and blamed on a right-wing “media mob” that “misconstrued” his words.

This week, columnist Karen Attiah was also sacked from her position at the Washington Post over her response to the killing of Kirk.

Attiah had fired off a series of social media posts around race and gun violence after the assassination.

A letter of termination that she shared online on Tuesday cited a post in which she defended refusing to engage in “performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence” without explicitly mentioning Kirk as one of the reasons for her sacking.

A statement from Post Guild leadership:

The Washington Post Guild condemns the unjust firing of columnist Karen Attiah

The Washington Post wrongly fired Opinions columnist Karen Attiah over her social media posts.

— Washington Post Guild (@PostGuild) September 15, 2025

Officials back sacking campaign

Private citizens from all walks of life have also faced calls to be let go from their jobs over their takes on the killing of Kirk – social media posts that ranged from revelling in his death to linking the assassination to the commentator’s own views and support for gun rights.

For example, influential right-wing social media accounts have been demanding the firing of a Pennsylvania teacher for calling Kirk “racist”, although she also said that he “didn’t deserve to die”.

Kirk himself was no stranger to controversial opinions. He repeatedly attacked Islam and Muslims.

“Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America,” he wrote in a recent social media post.

He was also a promoter of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory – the notion that there is a plan (usually claimed to be carried out by Jewish elites) to replace white populations with immigrants, which has inspired white nationalist mass shooters across the world.

But on the right, the status of Kirk only rose after his death. With that apparent canonisation came the push to protect his legacy from detractors and those finding humour, joy or irony in his death.

Almost immediately after the shooting, right-wing groups started publishing the names and personal information – including place of employment – of social media users who allegedly celebrated the assassination.

Republican politicians, including lawmakers, joined calls for the firing of individuals over Kirk-related social media posts deemed by them to be offensive.

In Indiana, State Attorney General Todd Rokita encouraged submissions to a database on school employees who made “comments that celebrate or rationalise” the shooting of Kirk.

🚨Hoosiers: If you have evidence of Indiana educators or school administrators making comments that celebrate or rationalize the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we need to hear from you.

These individuals must be held accountable—they have no place teaching our students.

➡️… pic.twitter.com/w6ohKUyLqP

— AG Todd Rokita (@AGToddRokita) September 12, 2025

US Vice President JD Vance backed the effort as well, saying that people who celebrated the assassination should be held to account. “Call them out, and hell, call their employer,” he said on Monday.

US Congressman Randy Fine, of Florida, threatened to revoke the professional state licences of offenders, including lawyers, teachers and doctors.

Fine himself cheered for the killing of US citizen Aysenur Ezgi Eygi by Israeli forces last year. “One less #MuslimTerrorist. #FireAway,” he wrote on social media after Eygi was fatally shot in the occupied West Bank.

Is it legal?

While the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not apply to private employers.

But some states have laws to protect speech and political activities of employees when they are not at work.

Jenin Younes, a prominent free speech lawyer who recently became the legal director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), said private companies have “a lot of latitude” to reprimand workers for their speech.

However, when it comes to public schools and universities, it’s more complicated.

“Public employers, broadly speaking, are bound by the First Amendment,” Younes said. “But there are circumstances in which they can consider someone’s speech to fire them.”

These “exceptions and qualifications” are on a case-by-case basis.

For example, Younes said a public school teacher could say that Kirk’s ideas were “loathsome”, but saying that he deserves to die would probably cross the line.

The law aside, Younes said the firing frenzy is “problematic philosophically”, especially given that some of the people were sacked for simply criticising Kirk, not glorifying violence.

“It’s very bad for a free society,” she told Al Jazeera. “People rely on their jobs. They need their jobs in order to live and support their families. So, if we want to live in a society where we have robust dialogue and debate, which is the purpose of the First Amendment, it’s bad from a practical standpoint.”

Younes said she understands why private employers may want to curb social media posts by employees that clash with the company’s brand and mission.

But a better approach than letting go of workers, she added, is to discuss the matter with them and warn them to refrain from posting similar messages in the future.

“We should always err towards more discussion and debate and not silencing people,” Younes said. “And we have to remember people have moments when they get emotional and say things they don’t mean.”

Beyond the firing campaign, several Republican politicians have pushed policy ideas to regulate speech, especially on social media, after Kirk was killed.

Republican US Congressman Clay Higgins vowed to “use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate [an] immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination” of Kirk.

US Congressman Chip Roy led a congressional letter requesting the formation of a committee to investigate the “radical left”.

For her part, Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that federal authorities will push to penalise speech that they view as hateful.

“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” she said on Monday. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Role reversal

For some observers, that right-wing push is increasingly appearing like a role reversal of the ideological blocs in the US.

For years, the right raged against the notion of “hate speech” and some left-wing activists’ push to fire and “cancel” those with views they find offensive – especially on issues of race and gender identity.

Right-wing politicians were also vocal opponents of any governmental efforts to regulate social media content.

Kirk himself had rejected penalising “hate speech”, although he backed US President Donald Trump’s clampdown on pro-Palestine student activists.

“Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” Kirk wrote in a social media post last year. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”

Younes, who led a lawsuit against the Democratic administration of former US President Joe Biden over alleged social media censorship efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic, noted what she called “the hypocrisy”.

“A lot of the people who were against ‘cancel culture’, when it was the left doing it, are now suddenly very eager to embrace cancel culture when they don’t like the speech in question, which I think shows the heart of the struggle on this issue,” she said.

“Everybody claims to be against censorship when it’s ideas that they like that are being censored, but then when it’s their ideological opponents, they’re very happy to do the censoring.”

She warned that the push to curb freedom of expression around the killing of Kirk could extend to other issues, including intensifying the crackdown on Palestinian rights advocacy.

“Any kind of censorship that’s used for one type of speech can always be adjusted to apply to another type of speech,” she said.

Former President Obama says that the United States is at “an inflection point” following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and that President Donald Trump has further divided the country rather than work to bring people together.

“There are no ifs, ands or buts about it: The central premise of our democratic system is that we have to be able to disagree and have sometimes really contentious debates without resorting to violence,” Obama said Tuesday night during an event in Erie, Pennsylvania, hosted by the Jefferson Education Society, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.

“And when it happens to some, but even if you think they’re, quote, unquote, on the other side of the argument, that’s a threat to all of us,” he said. “And we have to be clear and forthright in condemning them.”

Obama has kept somewhat of a low profile in his post-presidency. Responding to a moderator’s questions Tuesday, he addressed Trump’s rhetoric after Kirk’s assassination, as well as other administrative actions.

The Democrat spoke about his own leadership following the 2015 slaying of nine Black parishioners at a Charleston, South Carolina, church, as well as Republican then-President George W. Bush’s actions following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He said he sees the role of a president in a crisis “to constantly remind us of the ties that bind us together.”

The sentiment among Trump and his aides following Kirk’s killing of calling political opponents “vermin, enemies … speaks to a broader problem,” Obama said.

Kirk, a dominant figure in conservative politics, became a confidant of Trump after founding Arizona-based Turning Point USA, one of the nation’s largest political organizations. Trump has escalated threats to crack down on what he describes as the “radical left” following Kirk’s assassination, stirring fears his Republican administration is trying to harness outrage over the killing to suppress political opposition.

Trump’s White House on Wednesday responded to Obama’s remarks by blaming him for animosity in the country, calling him “the architect of modern political division in America.”

“Obama used every opportunity to sow division and pit Americans against each other, and following his presidency more Americans felt Obama divided the country than felt he united it,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement.

Obama on Tuesday also referenced Trump’s recent deployment of National Guard troops in Washington and ID checks by federal agents in Los Angeles. He urged citizens and elected officials to closely monitor the norm-busting decisions.

“What you’re seeing, I think, is the sense that through executive power, many of the guardrails and norms that I thought I had to abide by as president of the United States, that George Bush thought he had to abide by as president of the United States, that suddenly those no longer apply,” Obama said. “And that makes this a dangerous moment.”

Shortly after Kirk’s death, Obama wrote in a post on X that he and his wife, Michelle, were praying for Kirk’s family, adding: “This kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy.”

Obama said that he disagreed with many of Kirk’s stances, noting that his position “doesn’t negate the fact that what happened was a tragedy and that I mourn for him and his family.”

Calling political violence “anathema to what it means to be a democratic country,” Obama also mentioned the June shooting deaths of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband in their home.

Obama also applauded Utah Gov. Spencer Cox’s calls for civility in leading the public response to Kirk’s killing. Obama said that while he and the Republican governor “disagree on a whole bunch of stuff,” Cox’s messaging around how to respond to Kirk’s death shows “that it is possible for us to disagree while abiding by a basic code of how we should engage in public debate.”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

Remember when the notion of government censorship in the U.S. seemed like the plot of an Orwellian novel, or something that happened in other places, countries where masked militia kidnap people off the street and disappear them? Our 1st Amendment rights as Americans seemed to guarantee that would never happen here. The state could not take away our free speech.

It turns out we don’t need a state-sponsored crackdown to punish those who express sentiments that offend, because the private sector has stepped in to do the job. An office supply store, a news network and an airline carrier are among companies that recently fired staff who made comments about influencer Charlie Kirk’s death that were interpreted as celebratory, insensitive or blaming the conservative activist’s polarizing viewpoints for his targeted killing.

Now Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah says that she was unfairly fired over thoughts she expressed following the assassination of Kirk last week in Utah. She wrote: “The Post accused my measured Bluesky posts of being ‘unacceptable’, ‘gross misconduct’ and of endangering the physical safety of colleagues — charges without evidence, which I reject completely as false.”

“They rushed to fire me without even a conversation,” Attiah said. “This was not only a hasty overreach, but a violation of the very standards of journalistic fairness and rigor the Post claims to uphold.” She said that in her posts she exercised “restraint even as I condemned hatred and violence.”

Her comments were largely about gun violence and issues of race. Attiah mentioned Kirk directly in just one post, paraphrasing from a comment he made about Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and former Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, both of whom are Black. “’Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot’ — Charlie Kirk,” she wrote.

Attiah didn’t celebrate the death of Kirk in her posts or make light of his slaying, but she didn’t mourn him either. In the current political environment, that alone could be enough to make her employer nervous, even compared to all the other truly awful stuff out there.

Sadly, the cruel, inhumane and politicized responses that followed Kirk’s tragic killing shouldn’t surprise anyone. Social media behaved as it always does — as a repository for every good, bad and really bad impulse experience following a tragedy or crisis.

The same quotient of 20% civility, 80% ugliness enveloped X, YouTube, TikTok and the like when three months ago Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were assassinated in their home in a politically motivated attack. Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were also allegedly shot by the same suspect in their home but survived.

The difference back in June? There wasn’t a mass movement to fire, cancel or silence those who minimized the tragic killings or, worse, turned them into a trolling opportunity. Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah blamed the killings on the left — “This is what happens when Marxists don’t get their way,” he wrote on X — and posted a picture of suspect Vance Boelter with the caption “Nightmare on Waltz Street.” It was a crass reference to Tim Walz, Minnesota’s Democratic governor, who was Kamala Harris’ running mate in the 2024 presidential election. Lee (who is now publicly mourning Kirk’s death) was taking his cues from the top.

President Trump’s short condemnation of Hortman’s killing on Truth Social stated that “such horrific violence will not be tolerated.” There was no lengthy eulogy, he did not attend the funeral, and when asked the day after Hortman’s killing if he had called Walz, the president said, “I could be nice and call, but why waste time?”

In response to Kirk’s killing, Trump issued an order to lower American flags to half-staff at the White House, all public buildings, U.S. embassies and military posts. He announced he would posthumously award Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And during an appearance Friday on “Fox & Friends,” he promised vengeance against the left for Kirk’s killing, though the suspect — let alone his motives — were still unknown at the time.

“I’ll tell you something that’s going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less,” Trump said. “The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. They don’t want to see crime. They’re saying, ‘We don’t want these people coming in. We don’t want you burning our shopping centers. We don’t want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.’ The radicals on the left are the problem. And they’re vicious, and they’re horrible, and they’re politically savvy.”

The prospect of retribution from a thin-skinned leader leaves no mystery as to why major media outlets such as the Post, “60 Minutes” and MSNBC appear to be reshaping their newsrooms to be less critical of the current administration. The same now goes for break rooms, shop floors and office cubicles across all sectors of American working life. It’s not the Big Brother scenario envisioned in George Orwell’s cautionary tale about a totalitarian state, “1984,” but it’s a start.

The 27-year-old US shooter still faces a second-degree murder charge and eight criminal counts.

A New York State court in the US has dismissed two “terrorism” related counts against Luigi Mangione over the killing of UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson.

The court handed down the decision on Tuesday.

Mangione, 27, still faces charges of second-degree murder and eight other criminal counts related to Thompson’s death in December.

Justice Gregory Carro ruled that prosecutors had not presented enough evidence to the grand jury that Mangione acted with the intent to intimidate health insurance workers or influence government policy, which would have been necessary to prove murder as an act of “terrorism”.

“While there is no doubt that the crime at issue here is not ordinary ‘street crime’, it does not follow that all non-street crimes were meant to be included within the reach of the terrorism statute,” Carro wrote in his decision.

Mangione was led into the courtroom in Lower Manhattan handcuffed and with shackles on his feet, wearing tan prison garb.

The judge set Mangione’s next court date in the case for December 1 – nearly a year after Thompson’s death. Thompson was killed on December 4, 2024, outside a hotel in Midtown Manhattan, where his company was hosting an investor conference.

Mangione still faces significant penalties in the case against him, including life in prison if he is ultimately convicted of murder in the second degree, which is defined as an intentional killing.

He also faces a separate federal indictment over the killing of Thompson, the former chief executive of UnitedHealth Group’s insurance unit UnitedHealthcare. Mangione has pleaded not guilty to both the state and federal charges.

Mangione faces seven counts of criminal possession of a weapon and one count of possessing a false identification in the state case against him.

A spokesperson for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said in a statement, “We respect the court’s decision and will proceed on the remaining nine counts, including murder in the second degree.”

The US Justice Department is seeking the death penalty in the federal case against Mangione. Carro’s dismissal of the state-level “terrorism” counts has no bearing on the federal case.

Steep healthcare costs

While the killing of Thompson was also widely condemned by public officials across the political spectrum, Mangione has become a folk hero to some Americans who decry steep healthcare costs.

A small group of Mangione supporters gathered outside the courthouse on Wednesday morning. One was dressed in a green costume of the Nintendo character Luigi, and another held the red, white and green Italian tricolor with the words “Healthcare is a human right” inscribed on the flag.

About two dozen members of the public – mostly young women – secured a seat in the back of the courtroom to watch the proceedings. One wore a black T-shirt with the words “Free Luigi” written in white letters.

Trial dates have not yet been set in either the state or federal cases. Mangione has been held in federal custody in Brooklyn since his arrest last year.

WASHINGTON — FBI Director Kash Patel touted his leadership of the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency at a congressional hearing likely to be dominated by questions about the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s killing and the recent firings of senior FBI officials who have accused Patel of illegal political retribution.

The appearance Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee represents the first oversight hearing of Patel’s young but tumultuous tenure and provides a high-stakes platform for him to try to reassure skeptical Democrats that he is the right person for the job at a time of internal upheaval and mounting concerns about political violence inside the United States.

Patel rattled off a series of what he said were accomplishments of his first months on the job, including his efforts to fight violent crime and protect children. Nodding to criticism from Democrats, he closed his remarks by saying: “If you want to criticize my 16 years of service, please bring it on.”

Patel returned to the committee for the first time since his confirmation hearing in January, when he asserted that he would not pursue retribution as director. He’ll face questions Tuesday about whether he did exactly that when the FBI last month fired five agents and senior officials in a purge that current and former officials say weakened morale and contributed to unease inside the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency.

Three of those officials sued last week in a federal complaint that says Patel knew the firings were likely illegal but carried them out anyway to protect his job. One of the officials helped oversee investigations into the Jan. 6 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, and another clashed with Justice Department leadership while serving as acting director in the early days of President Donald Trump’s administration. The FBI has declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Republican lawmakers, who make up the majority in the committee, are expected to show solidarity for Patel, a close ally of Trump, and are likely to praise the director for his focus on violent crime and illegal immigration.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the committee’s Republican chairman, signaled his support for Patel at the outset of the hearing, praising the director for having “begun the important work of returning the FBI to its law enforcement mission.”

“It’s well understood that your predecessor left you an FBI infected with politics,” Grassley stated.

The panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, described Patel as “arguably the most partisan FBI director ever.”

“Director Patel has already inflicted untold damage on the FBI, putting our national security and public safety at risk,” Durbin said.

Republicans are also likely to try to elicit from Patel fresh details about the investigation into Kirk’s assassination at a Utah college campus last week, which authorities have said was carried out by a 22-year-old man who had grown more political in recent years and had ascribed to a “leftist ideology.”

Patel drew scrutiny when, hours after Kirk’s killing, he posted on social media that “the subject” was in custody even though the shooting suspect remained on the loose and was not arrested until he turned himself in late the following night.

Patel has not explained that post but has pointed to his decision to authorize the release of photographs of the suspect, Tyler Robinson, while he was on the run as a key development that helped facilitate an arrest. A Fox News Channel journalist reported Saturday that Trump had told her that Patel and the FBI have “done a great job.”

Robinson is due to make his first court appearance in Utah. It’s unclear whether he has an attorney, and his family has declined to comment.

Another line of questioning for Patel may involve Democratic concerns that he is politicizing the FBI through politically charged investigations, including into longstanding Trump grievances. Agents and prosecutors, for instance, have been seeking interviews and information as they reexamine aspects of the years-old FBI investigation into potential coordination between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Patel has repeatedly said his predecessors at the FBI and Justice Department who investigated and prosecuted Trump were the ones who weaponized the institutions.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Tyler Robinson, 22, expected to face formal charges in the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

America’s already roiling debate around transgender rights sharply escalated in recent days after Charlie Kirk — one of the nation’s most prominent anti-transgender voices — was fatally shot by a suspect whose life and social circles have been meticulously scrutinized for any connection to the transgender community.

Taking over Kirk’s podcast Monday, top Trump administration officials suggested they are gearing up to avenge Kirk by waging war on left-leaning organizations broadly, despite law enforcement statements that the shooter is believed to have acted alone. Queer organizations took that as a direct threat.

Kirk railed against transgender rights in life, and just prior to being shot on a Utah college campus last week was answering a question about the alleged prevalence of transgender people among the nation’s mass shooters — an idea he had personally stoked, despite pushback from statistical researchers.

Those circumstances seemed to prime the resulting outrage among his conservative base to be hyper-focused on any transgender connection.

The connection was further stoked when the Wall Street Journal reported on a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives report that suggested — seemingly erroneously — that etchings on bullet casings found with the rifle suspected as being used in the shooting included transgender “ideology.”

It was further inflamed when Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said that suspect Tyler Robinson’s roommate and romantic partner — who he said was “shocked” by the shooting and cooperating with authorities — is currently transitioning.

Leading conservative influencers, some with the ear of President Trump, have openly called for a retribution campaign against transgender people and the LGBTQ+ community more broadly. Laura Loomer called transgender people a “national security threat,” said their “movement needs to be classified as a terrorist organization IMMEDIATELY,” and said that Trump should make transitioning illegal.

LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, meanwhile, have condemned such generalizations and attacks on the community and warned that such rhetoric only increases the likelihood of more political violence — particularly against transgender people and others who have been demonized for years, including by Kirk.

“The obsession with tying trans people to shootings is vile & dangerous,” state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), one of California’s leading LGBTQ+ voices, wrote on social media. “First they try to say the shooter might be trans & WSJ amplifies that lie. Once that fell apart, they pivot to ‘he lived with a trans person.’ Even if true, who cares? It’s McCarthyism & truly disgusting.”

Many political leaders have called for calm, and for people to wait for the investigation into the suspect’s motivations before jumping to conclusions or casting blame. Cox has said that Robinson’s political ideology, different from that of his conservative family, appeared to be “part of” what drove him to shoot Kirk, but that the exact motivations for the crime remained unclear.

“We’re all drawing lots of conclusions on how someone like this could be radicalized,” Cox said on “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “Those are important questions for us to ask and important questions for us to answer.”

Searching for a connection

Officials were expected to release charging documents against Robinson on Tuesday that could contain more information about a motive. However, the debate has hardly waited.

Both the political right and left have searched for evidence connecting Robinson to their opposing political camp.

One of the first pieces of information to catch fire was the ATF reporting on the bullet etchings including transgender “ideology” — which turned out to be untrue, according to Cox’s later description of those etchings. That reporting immediately inspired condemnations of the entire transgender community.

“Seems like per capita the radical transgender movement has to be the most violent movement anywhere in the world,” the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. said in a Rumble livestream Thursday.

On Friday morning, President Trump said “vicious and horrible” people on the left were the only ones to blame for the political violence. “They want men in women’s sports, they want transgender for everyone,” he said on “Fox & Friends.”

Trump was asked Monday afternoon if he thought the suspect acted alone.

“I can tell you he didn’t work alone on the internet because it seems that he became radicalized on the internet,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “And he was radicalized on the left, he is a left. A lot of problems with the left and they get protected and they shouldn’t be protected.”

The ATF declined to comment on the leaked report. The Wall Street Journal published an editor’s note walking back its reporting, noting that Cox’s description of the etchings included no references to the transgender community.

The Human Rights Campaign, a leading LGBTQ+ advocacy group, responded to the uproar by criticizing the Wall Street Journal for publishing unsubstantiated claims that fueled hateful rhetoric toward the transgender community.

“This reporting was reckless and irresponsible, and it led to a wave of threats against the trans community from right-wing influencers — and a resulting wave of terror for a community that is already living in fear,” the group said.

Spreading the narrative

The debate has heightened existing tensions around transgender rights, which Trump campaigned against and targeted with one of his first official acts — an executive order that said his administration would recognize only “two genders, male and female.”

He and his administration have since banned transgender people from military service, blocked the issuance of U.S. passports with the gender-neutral X marker, threatened medical providers of gender-affirming care for minors, and sued California for allowing transgender athletes to compete in youth sports.

In September, the Department of Justice also reportedly began weighing a rule that would restrict transgender individuals from owning firearms — a move that came after a shooter who identified as transgender killed two children and injured 18 others at a Catholic school in Minneapolis.

That shooting led prominent conservatives, including senior Trump administration officials, to link gender identity to violence. National security advisor Sebastian Gorka claimed that an “inordinately high” number of attacks have been linked to “individuals who are confused about their gender” — a trend he claimed stretched back to at least 2023, when a transgender suspect shot and killed three children and three adults at a Nashville Christian school.

After that shooting, Trump Jr. had said that “rather than talking about guns, we should be talking about lunatics pushing their gender-affirming bull— on our kids,” and Vice President JD Vance, then a senator, had said that “giving in” to ideas on transgender identities was “dangerous.”

After it was reported that Robinson’s partner is transitioning, Matt Walsh, a right-wing political commentator, wrote on X that “trans militants” pose a “very serious” threat to the country. Billionaire Elon Musk agreed, saying it was a “massive problem.”

Many in the LGBTQ+ community have strenuously pushed back against such claims, noting research showing most shootings are committed by cisgender men.

The Violence Prevention Project at Hamline University has found that the majority of shootings where four or more people were wounded in public were by men, and less than 1% of such shootings in the last decade were by transgender people.

An analysis by PolitiFact found that data do not show claims that transgender people are more prone to violence, and that “trans people are more likely to be victims of violence than their cisgender peers.”

A legacy amplified

Kirk espoused a Christian nationalist worldview and opposed LGBTQ+ rights broadly, including same-sex marriage. He called transgender people “perverted,” the acknowledgment of transgender identities “one of the most destructive social contagions in human history,” and gender-affirming care for young people an “unimaginable evil.”

Just before he was shot at Utah Valley University, Kirk had said that “too many” transgender people were involved in shootings.

It was not the first time Kirk had addressed the issue.

Days after the 2023 shooting in Nashville, Kirk went after then-White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre for unrelated comments denouncing a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in state houses and saying the transgender community was “under attack.”

“It is the first shooting ever that I’ve seen where the shooter and the murderers get more sympathy than the actual victims,” he said, appearing to blame all transgender people for the attack.

The idea that liberals generally or members of the LGBTQ+ community specifically should be held accountable for Kirk’s killing has gained momentum in the days since. Vance and Trump advisor Stephen Miller seemed to allude to reprisals against left-leaning groups on Kirk’s podcast Monday, with Miller saying federal agencies will be rooting out a “domestic terror movement” on the left in Kirk’s name.

LGBTQ+ advocates called such rhetoric alarming — and said they worry it will be used as a pretext for the administration to ramp up its assault on LGBTQ+ rights.

It wasn’t the greeting I was expecting from my dad when I stopped by for lunch Wednesday at his Anaheim home.

“¿Quién es Charlie Kirk?”

Papi still has a flip phone, so he hasn’t sunk into an endless stream of YouTube and podcasts like some of his friends. His sources of news are Univisión and the top-of-the-hour bulletins on Mexican oldies stations — far away from Kirk’s conservative supernova.

“Some political activist,” I replied. “Why?”

“The news said he got shot.”

Papi kept watering his roses while I went on my laptop to learn more. My stomach churned and my heart sank as graphic videos of Kirk taking a bullet in the neck while speaking to students at Utah Valley University peppered my social media feeds. What made me even sicker was that everyone online already thought they knew who did it, even though law enforcement hadn’t identified a suspect.

Conservatives blamed liberalism for demonizing one of their heroes and vowed vengeance. Some progressives argued that Kirk had it coming because of his long history of incendiary statements against issues including affirmative action, trans people and Islam. Both sides predicted an escalation in political violence in the wake of Kirk’s killing — fueled by the other side against innocents, of course.

It was the internet at its worst, so I closed my laptop and checked on my dad. He had moved on to cleaning the pool.

“So who was he?” Papi asked again. By then, Donald Trump had announced Kirk’s death. Text messages streamed in from my colleagues. I gave my dad a brief sketch of Kirk’s life, and he frowned when I said the commentator had supported Trump’s mass deportation dreams.

Hate wasn’t on Papi’s mind, however.

“It’s sad that he got killed,” Papi said. “May God bless him and his family.”

“Are politics going to get worse now?” he added.

It’s a question that friends and family have been asking me ever since Kirk’s assassination. I’m the political animal in their circles, the one who bores everyone at parties as I yap about Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom while they want to talk Dodgers and Raiders. They’re too focused on raising families and trying to prosper in these hard times to post a hot take on social media about political personalities they barely know.

They’ve long been over this nation’s partisan divide, because they work and play just fine with people they don’t agree with. They’re tired of being told to loathe someone over ideological differences or blindly worship a person or a cause because it’s supposedly in their best interests. They might not have heard of Kirk before his assassination, but they now worry about what’s next — because a killing this prominent is usually a precursor of worse times ahead.

I wasn’t naive enough to think that the killing of someone as divisive as Kirk would bring Americans together to denounce political terrorism and forge a kinder nation. I knew that each side would embarrass itself with terrible takes and that Trump wouldn’t even pretend to be a unifier.

But the collective dumpster fire we got was worse than I had imagined.

President Donald Trump shakes hands with moderator Charlie Kirk, during a Generation Next White House forum at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex in Washington, Thursday, March 22, 2018.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

Although conservatives brag that no riots have sparked, as happened after George Floyd’s murder in 2020, they’re largely staying silent as the loudest of Kirk’s supporters vow to crush the left once and for all. The Trump administration is already promising a crackdown against the left in Kirk’s name, and no GOP leaders are complaining. People are losing their jobs because of social media posts critical of Kirk, and his fans are cheering the cancel cavalcade.

Meanwhile, progressives are flummoxed by the right, yet again. They can’t understand why vigils nationwide for someone they long cast as a white nationalist, a fascist and worse are drawing thousands. They’re dismissing those who attend as deluded cultists, hardening hearts on each side even more. They’re posting Kirk’s past statements on social media as proof that they’re correct about him — but that’s like holding up a sheet of paper to dam the Mississippi.

I hadn’t paid close attention to Kirk, mostly because he didn’t have a direct connection to Southern California politics. I knew he had helped turn young voters toward Trump, and I loathed his noxious comments that occasionally caught my attention. I appreciated that he was willing to argue his views with critics, even if his style was more Cartman from “South Park” (which satirized Kirk’s college tours just weeks ago) than Ronald Reagan versus Walter Mondale.

I understand why his fans are grieving and why opponents are sickened at his canonization by Trump, who seems to think that only conservatives are the victims of political violence and that liberals can only be perpetrators. I also know that a similar thing would happen if, heaven forbid, a progressive hero suffered Kirk’s tragic end — way too many people on the right would be dancing a jig and cracking inappropriate jokes, while the left would be whitewashing the sins of the deceased.

We’re witnessing a partisan passion play, with the biggest losers our democracy and the silent majority of Americans like my father who just want to live life. Weep or critique — it’s your right to do either. But don’t drag the whole country into your culture war. Those who have navigated between the Scylla and Charybdis of right and left for too long want to sail to calmer waters. Turning Kirk’s murder into a modern-day Ft. Sumter when we aren’t even certain of his suspected killer’s motives is a guarantee for chaos.

I never answered my dad’s question about what’s next for us politically. In the days since, I keep rereading what Kirk said about empathy. He derided the concept on a 2022 episode of his eponymous show as “a made-up, new age term that … does a lot of damage.”

Kirk was wrong about many things, but especially that. Empathy means we try to understand each other’s experiences — not agree, not embrace, but understand. Empathy connects us to others in the hope of creating something bigger and better.

It’s what allows me to feel for Kirk’s loved ones and not wish his fate on anyone, no matter how much I dislike them or their views. It’s the only thing that ties me to Kirk — he loved this country as much as I do, even if our views about what makes it great were radically different.

Preaching empathy might be a fool’s errand. But at a time when we’re entrenched deeper in our silos than ever, it’s the only way forward. We need to understand why wishing ill on the other side is wrong and why such talk poisons civic life and dooms everyone.

Kirk was no saint, but if his assassination makes us take a collective deep breath and figure out how to fix this fractured nation together, he will have truly died a martyr’s death.

BASKING RIDGE, N.J.  — After years of complaints from the right about “cancel culture” from the left, some conservatives are seeking to upend the lives and careers of those who they believe disparaged Charlie Kirk after his death. They’re going after companies, educators, news outlets, political rivals and others they judge as promoting hate speech.

Just days after the conservative activist’s death, a campaign by public officials and others on the right has led to the firing or other punishment of teachers, an Office Depot employee, government workers, a TV pundit and the expectation of more dismissals coming. A Florida reporter was suspended for a question posed to a Republican congressman.

This past weekend, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy posted that American Airlines had grounded pilots who he said were celebrating Kirk’s death.

“This behavior is disgusting and they should be fired,” Duffy said on the social media site X.

As elected officials and conservative influencers lionize Kirk as a warrior for free expression who championed provocative opinions, they’re also weaponizing the tactics they saw being used to malign their movement — the calls for firings, the ostracism, the pressure to watch what you say.

Such tactics raise a fundamental challenge for a nation that by many accounts appears to be dangerously splintered by politics and a sense of moral outrage that social media helps to fuel.

The aftermath of Kirk’s death has increasingly become a test of the public tolerance over political differences. Republicans are pushing not only to punish the alleged killer but those whose words they believe contributed to the death or dishonored it. At the same time, some liberals on social media have criticized those, such as actor Kristin Chenoweth, who expressed sympathy online over Kirk’s death.

“This pattern that we’ve seen for decades seems to be happening much more now and at this moment than it ever has before,” said Adam Goldstein of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He dates the urge to persecute people for their private views on tragedies at least to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “If there was ever time to support the better angels of our nature, it’s now.”

Goldstein noted that it’s unpopular speech, such as people applauding Kirk’s shooting, that stands as the greatest test of acceptance of the 1st Amendment — especially when government officials get involved. “The only time you’re really supporting free speech is when it’s unpopular,” Goldstein said. “There’s no one out there trying to stop people from loving puppies and bunnies.”

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, has cautioned that the motive for the slaying has not been confirmed. He said the suspect in custody clearly identifies with the political left and had expressed dislike of Kirk before the shooting. But he and other authorities also say the suspect was not known to have been politically engaged.

Kirk was seen as an architect of President Trump’s 2024 election win, helping to expand the Republican outreach to younger voters. That means many conservatives see the remarks by liberals as fomenting violence rather than acts of political expression.

“I think President Trump sees this as an attack on his political movement,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on NBC as he noted the two assassination attempts against Trump as well as Kirk’s killing. “This is unique and different. This is an attack on a movement by using violence. And that’s the way most Republicans see this.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who is running for governor, called on social media for the firings of an assistant dean at Middle Tennessee State University and professors at Austin Peay State University and Cumberland University.

All three lost their jobs for comments deemed inappropriate for expressing a lack of sympathy, or even for expressing pleasure, in the shooting of Kirk. One said that Kirk “spoke his fate into existence,” an apparent reference to the activist’s comments that some view as having fueled America’s current environment of political fury.

Because conservatives previously said they felt “canceled” by liberals for their views, Trump on his first day back in office signed an executive order prohibiting everyone in the federal government from engaging in conduct that would “unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”

In February at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President JD Vance criticized the preceding Biden administration for encouraging “private companies to silence people who dared to utter what turned out to be an obvious truth” regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. He assailed European countries as censoring political speech.

“Under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square, agree or disagree,” Vance said at the time.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has cracked down on immigrants and academics for their speech.

Goldstein noted that Trump’s State Department in the minutes after Kirk’s death warned it would revoke the visas of any foreigners who celebrated Kirk’s killing. “I can’t think of another moment where the United States has come out to warn people of their impending cancellation,” Goldstein said.

The glimmer of bipartisan agreement in the aftermath of Kirk’s shooting was in a sense that social media was fueling the violence and misinformation in dangerous ways.

“I can’t emphasize enough the damage that social media and the internet is doing to all of us,” Cox, the Utah governor, said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He added: “The most powerful companies in the history of the world have figured out how to hack our brains [to] get us addicted to outrage.”

But many Republican lawmakers have also targeted traditional news media that criticized Trump for contributing to a toxic political climate for his consistent rhetoric painting anyone against him as an enemy.

On Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) blamed news outlets for having guests on who called Trump a fascist or compared him to Hitler.

Such statements have been born out of Trump’s attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss, his pardoning of Jan. 6 rioters and a range of other actions, including deportations, deployment of the National Guard in American cities, mass firings of federal employees and his scorn for the historical limits on the power of the presidency.

But for Britt, those expressions were unfair, inaccurate and triggered violence.

“There must be consequences with regards to people spewing that type of hate and celebration in the face of this,” Britt said. “And I believe that there will be.”

Boak and Riccardi write for the Associated Press and reported from Basking Ridge and Denver, respectively. AP writer Jonathan Mattise in Nashville contributed to this report.

OREM, Utah — One student holed up in his house for two days after witnessing Charlie Kirk’s shooting, nervous about going back to the Utah college campus where the conservative activist was killed. Another, unable to sleep or shake what she saw and heard, called her dad to come take her home.

As investigators spend the weekend digging deeper into suspect Tyler James Robinson, 22, ahead of his initial court appearance Tuesday, students who witnessed Wednesday’s shooting at Utah Valley University are reckoning with trauma, grief and the pall the killing has cast on their community.

Robinson’s arrest late Thursday calmed some fears. Still, questions persist about the suspect’s motive and planning, as well as security lapses that allowed a man with a rifle to shoot Kirk from a rooftop before fleeing.

The university has said there will be increased security when classes resume Sept. 17.

In Robinson’s hometown, about 240 miles southwest of campus, a law enforcement presence was significantly diminished Saturday after the FBI executed a search warrant at his family’s home. A gray Dodge Challenger that authorities say Robinson drove to the university appeared to have been hauled away.

No one answered the door at the home in Washington, Utah, and the blinds were closed.

The killing has prompted pleas for civility in American political discourse, but those calls have not always been heeded. Meanwhile, there has been a backlash against journalists and others for some comments and questions in the wake of Kirk’s death. Some have been suspended or fired.

On Friday, Office Depot said it fired a worker at a Michigan store who was seen on video refusing to print fliers for a Kirk vigil and calling them “propaganda.” On Thursday, a conservative internet personality filmed a video outside Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker’s home, urging viewers to “take action” after Kirk’s assassination. Pritzker’s security has been stepped up.

At a makeshift memorial near Utah Valley University’s main entrance in Orem, people have been leaving flowers. Cars looped nearby streets Saturday, honking horns, flying American flags and displaying messages such as “We love you Charlie,” “Charlie 4 Ever” and “RIP Charlie.”

In the area where the Turning Point USA co-founder was shot, a crew has begun taking down tents and banners and scrubbing away reminders of the killing.

Memorial brings stunned students together

Student Alec Vera stopped at the memorial after finally leaving his house Friday night for a drive to clear his head. Vera said he had been in a daze, unable to concentrate and avoiding people, since watching Kirk collapse about 30 or 40 feet in front of him.

“I just kind of felt the need to come here, to be with everyone, either to comfort or to be comforted, just to kind of surround myself with those that are also mourning,” Vera said.

One woman knelt, sobbing. Others stood quietly or spoke softly with friends. On the campus’ perimeter, trees were wrapped in red ribbons.

Several cars remained stranded in parking lots by students who left behind keys while fleeing the shooting. One student pleaded with an officer to let him retrieve his bike from beyond the police tape, smiling as the officer let him through. The university said people can pick up their belongings early this week.

Anxious about returning to campus

Student Marjorie Holt started crying when she brought flowers to campus Thursday, prompting her to change her mind about returning to campus this weekend.

Hours after the shooting, the 18-year-old said, she lay in bed, haunted by the horror she witnessed: the sound of a single gunshot as Kirk answered a question and then, “I saw him fall over, I saw the blood, but for some reason it couldn’t click to me what happened.”

Unable to sleep because of a pounding headache, nausea and the day’s trauma, she called her dad, who brought her home to Salt Lake City, about 40 miles to the north.

Returning to campus, Holt said, is “going to feel like a terrible — like a burden on my heart.”

Vera said the area where Kirk was shot is the campus’ main gathering spot — where students take naps, meditate, do homework and hang out.

“Seeing it when I go back, I will be pretty uncomfortable at first, knowing I have to walk past it each time, knowing what had just occurred here,” Vera said.

A ‘weird heaviness’

Student Alexis Narciso said he has flashbacks when he hears a bang, a honking horn or other loud noise. He was about 10 feet away.

“I just feel numb. I don’t feel anything,” Narciso said. “I want to cry, but at the same time I don’t.”

Jessa Packard, a single mother of two who lives nearby, said even with a suspect in custody, her feeling of unease hasn’t lifted. Packard’s home security system captured video of the Challenger that police say Robinson drove to campus. After the shooting, she said, law enforcement officers descended on her neighborhood, searching yards and taking security video.

“There’s this really weird heaviness and I think, honestly, a lot of fear for me personally that hasn’t gone away,” Packard said. “The fact that there was like this murderer in my neighborhood, not knowing where he is but knowing he’s been through there, coursing things out, is a really eerie feeling.”

Searching for closure from one campus to another

Halle Hanchett, 19, a student at nearby Brigham Young University in Provo, said she had just pulled her phone out to start filming Kirk when she heard the gunshot followed by a collective gasp. Hanchett said she saw blood, Kirk’s security team jump forward and horror on the faces around her. She dropped to the ground in the fetal position, wondering: “What is going on? Am I going to die?”

On Friday, she brought flowers and quietly gazed at the place where the kickoff to Kirk’s planned tour of American college campuses ended in violence.

“The last few days I’ve just, haven’t really said much. I just kind of like zone out, stare off,” Hanchett said, standing with her fiance as water fountains bubbled nearby. “The memory, it just replays.”

She’s praying for the strength to move forward, she said, “and take it as: ‘OK, I was here for this. How can I learn from this? And how can I help other people learn from this?’”

Suspect’s neighbor searches for answers

In Robinson’s hometown in southwestern Utah, neighbor Kris Schwiermann recalled him as a shy, studious and “very respectful” student who loved to read. Schwiermann, 66, was head custodian at the elementary school that Robinson and his siblings attended.

She said she was stunned by the news of his arrest, describing the Robinsons as a “very tight-knit family.”

Like the Robinsons, Schwiermann is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She said that they belonged to the same congregation but that the family hadn’t been active in the church in several years.

“I want to make sure that people know that we don’t have any ill feelings towards their family or him,” Schwiermann said. “He made the wrong choice.”

Bedayn, Schoenbaum, Wasson and Yamat write for the Associated Press. Bedayn, Schoenbaum and Wasson reported from Orem. Yamat reported from Washington, Utah, and St. George, Utah. AP writers Sejal Govindarao in Phoenix, Nicholas Riccardi in Denver and Michael R. Sisak in New York contributed to this report.

Two assassination attempts on President Trump. The assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband and the wounding of others. The shooting death of a top healthcare executive. The killing of two Israeli embassy employees in Washington. The storming of the U.S. Capitol by a violent mob intent on forcing the nation’s political leaders to their will.

And, on Wednesday, the fatal shooting of one of the nation’s most prominent conservative political activists — close Trump ally Charlie Kirk — as he spoke at a public event on a university campus.

If it wasn’t already clear from all those other incidents, Kirk’s killing put it in sharp relief: The U.S. is in a new era of political violence, one that is starker and more visceral than any other in decades — perhaps, experts said, since the fraught days of 1968, when two of the most prominent figures in the civil rights movement, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, were both assassinated in a matter of months.

“We’re very clearly in a moment where the temperature of our political discourse is extremely high,” said Ruth Braunstein, an associate professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University who has studied religion and the far right in modern politics. “Part of what we see when that happens are these outbursts of political violence — where people come to believe that violence is the only solution.”

While the exact motives of the person who shot Kirk are still unknown, Braunstein and other experts on political violence said the factors shaping the current moment are clear — and similar to those that shaped past periods of political violence.

Intense economic discomfort and inequity. Sharp divisions between political camps. Hyperbolic political rhetoric. Political leaders who lack civility and constantly work to demonize their opponents. A democratic system that many see as broken, and a hopelessness about where things are headed.

“There are these moments of great democratic despair, and we don’t think the political system is sufficiently responsive, sufficiently legitimate, sufficiently attentive, and that’s certainly going on in this particular moment,” said Jon Michaels, a UCLA law professor who teaches about the separation of powers and co-authored “Vigilante Nation: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens Our Democracy.”

“If we think there are no political solutions, there are no legal solutions, people are going to resort to forms of self help that are really, really deeply troubling.”

Michaels said the country has been here before, but also that he worries such cycles of violence are occurring faster today and with shorter breaks in between — that while “we’ve been bitterly divided” for years, those divisions have now “completely left the arena of ideas and debate and contestation, and become much more kinetic.”

Michaels said he is still shaken by all the “defenses or explanations or rationalizations” that swirled around the country after the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City in December — which some people argued was somehow justified by their displeasure with UnitedHealthcare’s policies or frustration with the American healthcare system.

That the suspect, Luigi Mangione, would attract almost cult-like adoration in some circles seemed like an alarming shift in an already polarized nation, Michaels said.

“I understand it is not the beliefs of the typical person walking down the street, but it’s seeping into our culture slowly but surely,” he said — and in a way that makes him wonder, “Where are we going to be in four or five years?”

People across America were asking similar questions about Wednesday’s shooting, wondering in which direction it might thrust the nation’s political discourse in the days ahead.

How will Kirk’s many conservative fans — including legions of young people — respond? How will leaders, including Trump, react? Will there be a shared recognition that such violence does no good, or fresh attempts at retaliation and violence?

Leaders from both parties seemed interested in averting the latter. One after another, they denounced political violence and defended Kirk’s right — everyone’s right — to speak on politics in safety, regardless of whether their message is uplifting or odious.

Democrats were particularly effusive in their denunciations, with Gov. Gavin Newsom — a chief Trump antagonist — calling the shooting “disgusting, vile, and reprehensible.” Former President Obama also weighed in, writing, “We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy.”

Many seemed dismissive of such messages. In the comments on Obama’s post, many blamed Obama and other Democrats for rhetoric demonizing Republicans — and Trump and his followers in particular — as Nazis or racists or fascists, suggesting that the violence against Kirk was a predictable outcome of such pitched condemnations.

Trump echoed those thoughts himself Wednesday night, blaming the “radical left” for disparaging Kirk and other conservatives and bringing on such violence.

Others seemed to celebrate Kirk’s killing or suggest it was justified in some way given his own hyperbolic remarks from the past. They dug up interviews where the conservative provocateur demonized those on the left, suggested liberal ideas constituted a threat to Western civilization, and even said that some gun violence in the country was “worth it” if it meant the freedom to bear arms.

Experts said it is important to contextualize this moment within American history, but with an awareness of the modern factors shaping it in unique ways. It’s also important to understand that there are ways to combat such violence from spreading, they said.

Peter Mancall, a history professor at USC, has delved into major moments of political violence in early American history, and said a lot of it stemmed from “some perception of grievance.”

The same appears to be true today, he said. “There are moments when people do things that they know are violating their own sense of right or wrong, and something has pushed them to it, “ he said. “The trick is figuring out what it is that made them snap.”

Braunstein said that the robust debate online Wednesday about the rhetoric of leaders was a legitimate one to have, because it has always been true that “the way our political leaders message about political violence — consistently, in public, to their followers and to those that don’t support them — really matters.”

If Americans and American political leaders truly want to know how we got here, she said, “part of the answer is the intensification of violent political rhetoric — and political rhetoric that casts the moment in terms of an emergency or catastrophe that requires extreme measures to address it.”

Democrats today are talking about the threats they believe Trump poses to democracy and the rule of law and to immigrants and LGBTQ+ people and others in extremely dire terms. Republicans — including Kirk — have used similarly charged rhetoric to suggest that Democrats and some of those same groups, especially immigrants, are a grave threat to average Americans.

“Charlie Kirk was one of many political figures who used that kind of discourse to mobilize people,” Braunstein said. “He’s not the only one, but he regularly spoke about the fact that we were in a moment where it was possible that we were going to see the decline of Western civilization, the end of American society as we know it. He used very strong us-vs.-them language.”

Particularly given the wave of recent violence, it will be important moving forward for politicians and other leaders to reanalyze how they speak about their political disagreements, Braunstein said.

That’s especially true of Trump, she said, because “one of the most dangerous things that can happen in a moment like this is for a political leader to call for violence in response to an act of violence,” and Trump has appeared to stoke violence in the past, including in the lead-up to the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and during racist marches through Charlottesville, Va., in 2017.

Charlie Kirk speaks during a town hall meeting in March in Oconomowoc, Wis.

(Jeffrey Phelps / Associated Press)

Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Centers for Violence Prevention at UC Davis, agreed messaging is key — not just for responding to political violence, but for preventing it.

Since 2022, Wintemute and his team have surveyed Americans on how they feel about political violence, including whether it is ever justified and, if so, whether they would personally get involved in it.

Throughout that time frame, a strong majority of Americans — about two-thirds — have said it is not justified, with about a third saying it was or could be.

An even smaller minority said they’d be willing to personally engage in such violence, Wintemute said. And many of those people said that they could be dissuaded from participating if their family members, friends, religious or political leaders urged them not to.

Wintemute said the data give him “room for hope and optimism,” because they show that “the vast majority of Americans reject political violence altogether.”

“So when somebody on a day like today asks, ‘Is this who we are?’ we know the answer,” he said. “The answer is, ‘No!’”

The job of all Americans now is to reject political violence “out loud over and over and over again,” Wintemute said, and to realize that, if they are deeply opposed to political policies or the Trump administration and “looking for a model of how to resist,” it isn’t the American Revolution but the civil rights movement.

“People did not paint over how terrible things were,” he said. “People said, ‘I will resist, but I will resist without violence. Violence may be done to me, I may die, but I will not use violence.’”

The assassination of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk is seen as a significant event amidst rising political violence in the U. S. Experts believe this may lead to further unrest in a country already divided. Mike Jensen, a researcher, noted that in the first half of the year, there were about 150 politically motivated attacks, nearly double from the previous year. He warned that the situation could escalate into wider civil unrest if not controlled, viewing the assassination as a potential trigger for more violence.

Experts attribute the rise in violence to several factors, including economic insecurity, racial and ethnic tensions, and aggressive political rhetoric. The divide in politics has grown from policy disagreements to personal animosity, driven by social media and conspiracy theories. A report by Reuters indicated that there had been over 300 cases of political violence in the U. S. since the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, reflecting the highest level of such violence in decades. Jon Lewis from George Washington University commented that extreme political violence is becoming more common, regardless of clear motives.

Lilliana Mason, a political science professor, emphasized the tendency for people to retaliate rather than initiate violence. Kirk, a prominent figure in the conservative movement and ally of former President Trump, was shot while speaking at an event, resulting in a panic among the crowd of 3,000. As of Thursday, authorities had not arrested a suspect, and the FBI was investigating. Following Kirk’s death, there has been a call for increased security from many lawmakers.

“Vicious Spiral”

Trump was involved in two assassination attempts last year. In one attempt, the shooter was killed by authorities, and in the other, a man with a rifle was arrested near a golf club where Trump was playing. His trial has started this week. This year, two significant attacks by right-wing conspiracy theorists also occurred. In June, a Christian nationalist killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband. In August, a gunman targeting the CDC in Atlanta killed a police officer.

There have been at least 21 deaths from political violence since January, including 14 from an attack in New Orleans by a jihadist linked to the Islamic State. In May, a pro-Palestinian activist killed two Israeli embassy employees, stating it was for Gaza. Additionally, in July, a group of militants attacked an immigration detention center in Texas, injuring a police officer.

Since taking office, Trump has reduced efforts to combat domestic extremism, focusing on immigration instead. A researcher from the University of Maryland warns that the political climate is dangerous, with increasing violence from those who oppose recent government changes.

with information from Reuters

Multiple videos from the scene show graphic details about the killing of conservative commentator and political organizer Charlie Kirk at a university in Utah on Wednesday.

Authorities are now poring over the video as part of the investigation into Kirk’s killing. They are still looking for the gunman after briefly detaining and then freeing two people of interest.

Charlie Kirk speaks before he is fatally shot during an event Wednesday at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

(Tess Crowley / Deseret News / AP)

The shooting

Kirk drew a large crowd to the event at Utah Valley University. He was gunned down at 12:20 p.m. while talking about mass shootings.

“Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?” an audience member asks.

“Counting or not counting gang violence?” Kirk responds.

Almost immediately, Kirk is shot in the neck. One video shows blood pouring from the wound as he falls over. As the crowd realizes what has taken place, people are heard screaming and running away.

“This incident occurred with a large crowd around. There was one shot fired, one victim,” Beau Mason, commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, said on Wednesday afternoon. “While the suspect is at large, we believe this was a targeted attack toward one individual.”

Members of the crowd screamed and ran after a gunshot was heard and Kirk toppled from his chair.

(Tess Crowley / Deseret News / AP)

The shooter is believed to have fired from the roof of a building at Kirk as he participated in the public event in the student courtyard, where around 3,000 people were gathered, according to the Department of Public Safety.

A source familiar with the investigation told The Times that a bullet struck Kirk’s carotid artery.

Moments later, many in the crowd begin running.

Jeffrey Long, chief of the university’s Police Department, said six of the force’s officers, including some plainclothes officers embedded in the crowd, were working with members of Kirk’s personal security team to manage safety at the event.

The shooter

Several videos show a person who appears to be dressed in black moving on the roof of university’s Losee Center moments before the gunfire.

Mason, of the Utah Department of Public Safety, said authorities were analyzing campus security video that showed a suspect in dark clothing who might have shot at Kirk from a roof.

The gunman is believed to have killed Kirk from at least 200 yards away using some type of sniper rifle, law enforcement sources told The Times.

Allison Hemingway-Witty cries after the shooting.

(Tess Crowley / Deseret News / AP)

Some experts who have seen videos believe that the assailant probably had experience with firearms, given the precision with which the single shot was fired from a considerable distance.

Witness Seth Teasdale told the Salt Lake Tribune that the gunshot was so loud it echoed across the pavilion where Kirk was speaking.

Brynlee Holms told the Tribune the shot was “super loud,” which added to the panic in the crowd.

“I just heard a clear shot, ‘Boom!’ And that was it,” another witness told KUTV.

Police detained George Zinn and Zachariah Qureshi as suspects and later released them after determining they had no ties to the shooting, according to the Department of Public Safety. The manhunt for the shooter continues.

What is not shown

No videos have surfaced showing the gunman firing the shot or fleeing the scene.

Mason said authorities were reviewing closed-circuit television video. “We’re analyzing it, but it is security camera footage, so you can kind of guess what the quality of that is,” Mason said. “We do know [the suspect was] dressed in all dark clothing. We don’t have a much better description.”

Utah Gov. Stephen Cox called the attack “a political assassination” and said Wednesday was “a dark day for our state” and “a tragic day for our nation.”

Law enforcement was working “multiple active crime scenes” including the area Kirk was shot as well as the locations where the suspect and victim traveled, according to the Public Safety Department. They did not provide any further information on the suspect.

The FBI created a tip line to gather information that may lead to the shooter’s arrest.

Over the next few days, we are going to hear politicians, commentators and others remind us that political violence is never OK, and never the answer.

That is true.

There is no room in a healthy democracy, or a moral society, for killings based on vengeance or beliefs — political, religious, whatever.

But the sad reality is that our democracy is not healthy, and violence is a symptom of that. Not the make-believe, cities-overrun violence that has led to the military in our streets, but real, targeted political violence that has crept into society with increasing frequency.

Our decline did not begin with the horrific slaying Wednesday of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old father and conservative media superstar, and it will not end with it. We are in a moment of struggle, with two competing views for where our country should go and what it should be. Only one can win, and both sides believe it is a battle worth fighting.

So be it. Fights in democracy are nothing new and nothing wrong.

We can blame the heated political rhetoric of either side for violence, as many already are, but words are not bullets and strong democracies can withstand even the ugliest of speeches, the most hateful of positions.

The painful and hard specter of more violence to come has less to do with far-right or far-left than extreme fringe in either political direction. Occasionally it’s ideological, but more often it isn’t MAGA, communist or socialist so much as confusion and rage cloaking itself in political convenience. Violence comes where trust in the system is decimated, and where hope is ground to dust.

These are the places were we find the isolated, the disenfranchised, the red-pilled or the blue-pilled — however you see it — and anyone else, who pushed by the stress and anger of this moment, finds themselves believing violence or even murder is a solution, maybe the only solution.

These are not mainstream people. Like all killers, they live outside the rules of society and likely would have found their way beyond our boundaries with or without politics. But politics found them, and provided what may have seemed like clarity in a maelstrom of anything but.

In the past few years, we have seen people such as this make two attempts on Donald Trump’s life. One of those was a 20-year-old student, Michael Thomas Crooks, still almost a kid, whose motives will likely never be known.

The American flag at the White House is lowered on Wednesday after the slaying of Charlie Kirk.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

A few months ago, we saw a political massacre in Minnesota aimed at Democratic lawmakers. Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were killed by the same attacker who shot state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, and attempted to shoot their daughter Hope. Authorities found a hit list of 45 targets in his possession.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home was firebombed this year. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer faced a somewhat bumbling kidnap plot in 2020. In 2017, a shooter hit four people at the congressional softball game, including then U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco home was broken into in 2022 and her husband, Paul, was attacked by a hammer-wielding assailant with a unicorn costume in his backpack.

Despite the fact that these instances of violence have been aimed at both Democrats and Republicans, we live under a Republican government at the moment, one that holds unprecedented power.

Already, that power structure is calling not for calm or justice, but retribution.

“We’ve got trans shooters. You’ve got riots in L.A. They are at war with us, whether we want to accept it or not. They are at war with us,” said Fox News commentator Jesse Watters shortly after Kirk was shot. “What are we going to do about it? How much political violence are we going to tolerate? And that’s the question we’re just going to have to ask ourselves.”

On that last bit, I agree with Watters. We do need to ask ourselves how much political violence we are going to tolerate.

The internet is buzzing with a quote from Kirk on gun violence: “I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

Like Kirk, I think some things are worth ugly prices. I don’t think guns are one of them, but I do think democracy is.

We can’t allow political violence to be the reason we curb democracy. Even if that violence continues, we must find ways to fight it that preserve the constitutional values that make America exceptional.

“It is extremely important to caution U.S. policymakers in this heated environment to act responsibly and not use the specter of political violence as an excuse to suppress nonviolent movements, curb freedoms of assembly and expression, encourage retaliation, or otherwise close civic spaces,” a trio of Brookings Institution researchers wrote as part of their “Monitoring the pillars of democracy” series. “Weaponizing calls for stability and peace in response to political violence is a real threat in democratic and nondemocratic countries globally.”

The slaying of Charlie Kirk is reprehensible, and his family and friends have suffered a loss I can’t imagine. Condolences don’t cover it.

But the legacy of his death, and of political violence, can’t be crackdowns — because if we do that, we forever damage the country we all claim to love.

If we take anything away from this tragic day, let it be a commitment to democracy, and America, in all her chaotic and flawed glory.

WASHINGTON — The United Nations mission in Afghanistan reported recently that U.S. airstrikes and Afghan security forces killed more civilians in the first half of 2019 than the Taliban did.

The mission says “pro-government forces” killed 717 civilians while “anti-government forces” killed 531, and 118 deaths could not be attributed.

U.S. officials dispute the numbers. But if the U.N. is right, Afghans face greater danger of death from their government and its allies than from the Taliban, even counting a recent series of grisly car bombings in Kabul.

In Syria and Iraq, the U.S.-led coalition estimates that its airstrikes and artillery killed 1,321 noncombatants in the war against Islamic State since U.S. forces intervened in 2014 — but Airwars, an independent monitoring group, says at least 8,106 were killed.

In Yemen, where Saudi Arabia’s military is using U.S. intelligence to bomb Iran-backed Houthi insurgents with U.S.-supplied munitions, the U.N. says almost 20,000 civilians have been killed. Last week, a U.N. panel accused both sides of war crimes and warned that the United States may be complicit.

The Trump administration has also escalated the U.S. war against Shabab militants in Somalia, launching 123 airstrikes since early 2017. That’s four times as many as the Obama administration conducted over eight years. The Pentagon has acknowledged only two civilian deaths since 2017. Amnesty International says at least 14 civilians were killed, but on-the-ground reporting is almost impossible.

What’s the common thread? In all these conflicts, the Trump administration is trying to minimize the number of American troops on the ground by disengaging, fighting through proxies or limiting U.S. involvement to airstrikes and special operations.

But that hasn’t reduced the civilian casualties caused by U.S. and allied forces. It has made the problem worse.

It’s tempting to ascribe the change to the tone set by President Trump, who once proposed killing militants’ family members and boasted: “We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.”

U.S. forces haven’t relaxed their prohibitions against targeting civilians. They insist they still take pains to avoid harming innocents.

Instead, most of the increase in civilian casualties has stemmed from a sharp increase in U.S. and allied airstrikes. The Pentagon says its forces in Afghanistan conducted 1,302 airstrikes in the first seven months of this year; that’s more than any full year since 2013.

U.S. and allied forces also relied largely on airstrikes to help retake two urban centers held by Islamic State in 2017: Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. Thousands of civilians were caught in the crossfire, or blocked by the militants from fleeing.

“It’s not so much that the gloves are off or that they don’t care about civilians,” Daniel Mahanty, a former State Department official at the Washington-based nonprofit Center for Civilians in Conflict, told me. “It’s that they want to execute these operations in a way that focuses on speed, agility and overwhelming force.”

When the core U.S. strategy in Afghanistan or Iraq was “counterinsurgency,” winning the hearts and minds of civilians was an essential military goal. It’s no longer central.

Local militias and special operations units, some of them directed by the CIA, are partly to blame for the increase in civilian casualties.

One such unit, the Khost Protection Force in eastern Afghanistan, has been accused of a series of abusive actions. On Aug. 11, according to Afghan reports, the force captured and executed 11 unarmed civilians, including several students. Last week, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fired his national intelligence chief, who helped direct the units.

Saudi Arabia’s war against the Houthis in Yemen has produced the most egregious casualties, with airstrikes hitting hospitals, schools and other civilian targets. The Trump administration is providing the Saudis with intelligence, tactical advice and weaponry — including help in targeting airstrikes.

U.S. military officials have jawboned the Saudis since the war began in 2015 to avoid civilian targets, arguing that harming civilians is counterproductive as well as immoral.

“It is a catastrophe,” then-Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis told a Senate committee last year. He said U.S. advisors were trying to change the Saudi military’s “culture.”

The effort has had no visible effect. Last week, a Saudi airstrike struck a detention camp run by the Houthis inside a university south of Sana, the capital, killing at least 100 people.

After 18 years of grinding wars on distant battlefields, Americans are understandably eager to bring the troops home.

But even if most are pulled out, the Trump administration plans to stay involved in these conflicts — through airstrikes, special operations, intelligence sharing and other aid to “partner forces.” Paradoxical as it may seem, civilian casualties may continue to increase.

We will be tempted to declare that our wars are over. They won’t be.

A passenger bus veered off the road in a mountainous region in Sri Lanka, plunging down a 300-metre precipice and killing at least 15 people onboard. Authorities say the driver was speeding and lost control of the vehicle.