It is possible to both condemn murder AND

To acknowledge that the victim was a horrible person.

I condemn the shooting of Charlie Kirk. It was grossly immoral. That is never a strong enough phrase for mass or political shootings, but it's the only one I have.

Charlie Kirk was a horrible person. He made a very lucrative living by telling lies and, more than anything, weaponizing religion. He was a racist, sexist misogynist pig who joyfully punched down at any marginalized group he could find. He trafficked in deception, in mischaracterizations, in distortions, was insulting and condescending at best, and used a variety of cheap rhetorical tricks to humiliate inexperienced debaters, then gleefully posted his "victories" on social media. He did absolutely no good and did considerable harm to society and American culture. He gave cover to the worst parts of American society, including but not limited to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and religious oppression, and did his utmost to mainstream and normalize them. He acted as if he was an expert in government, culture, sociology, philosophy, biology, and religion, but had no actual education or credentials. His "understanding" of any given topic consisted of cherry picking sources to support his viewpoint, and little else. He claimed to be a patriot, but distorted the events of the American Revolution and advocated for Christian nationalism; his "support" for the Constitution was entirely subservient to his twisted viewpoint. He claimed to be a Christian, but cherry picked the verses that promoted misogyny, homophobia, and hatred. He had a complete and overriding contempt for anyone who was not male, white, and fundamentalist, and considered every other group his intellectual and moral inferiors. His tours were vehicles to make money by promoting his reprehensible worldview. In short, Charlie Kirk was a professional asshole. He wasn't a First Amendment advocate or warrior. He was a First Amendment abuser.

But being a professional asshole and First Amendment abuser does not, has never, and never will warrant execution. It would have been far better to consistently meet him in public, expose his logical fallacies, highlight his lies, and tear his house of cards down point by point. To marginalize him by defeating his ideas. To expose him as the sham that he was. To whip him so consistently that he would be seen as the intellectual lightweight that he was. To send him back to obscurity. But that option is gone now, taken by someone who immorally and illegally took on the roles of judge, jury, and executioner. He will be lionized, eulogized, and sanctified for now. I don't believe he will be mourned for long - who, for instance, mourns Rush Limbaugh anymore? - but his memory will be whitewashed away from the destructive phenomenon that he was.

Are we obligated to condemn his murder? I believe so.

Are we obligated to sanitize him, lift him up, memorialize him, or feel sympathy? Hell, no. Kirk stated that gun deaths were the price to be paid for the Second Amendment. He cared about neither those victims nor their families. Why should we care about him? I feel nothing about his death. No joy, but no mourning. I feel more for the puppy that Kristy Noem shot than I do Charlie Kirk. After all, the puppy never hurt anyone.