Charlie Kirk’s Assassin, The Doxing That Isn’t & Personal Accountability – Top 3 Takeaways, September 16th, 2025
Takeaway #1: “He hates conservatives and Christians”
That’s a quote to Fox News that is not directed at the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk, but rather the transgendering roommate and partner of the alleged assassin. That was the characterization provided by someone described as “a relative” of the “transitioning” roommate who wanted to remain anonymous. She continued by saying that the roommate wasn’t raised in that kind of environment but began moving in that direction around the age of 18 and said that “He hated us” and that “over the years has become really detached and radicalized”. She cited her relative as always being angry. She also had this to say: I think Tyler (the suspected assassin) got a whole lot worse in the year they have been dating. They are big [video] gamers, and obviously they have that group that influences them as well as others. But my gut tells me [the roommate] did more of the influencing. That would seem to be on point given what transpired, but is also notable as the roommate is said to be cooperating with authorities while the suspect will not. FBI Director Kash Patel said multiple DNA recoveries from the scene link the suspect in custody Kirk’s assassination, so the level of cooperation likely won’t impact an eventual conviction on the charges that will be brought today as the suspect will face his first court date. However, the roommate's cooperation and testimony could be key to determining other aspects of this case that could paint a more complete picture of what went down including whether there’s the potential that others may have known what might go down. As I mentioned in ending my Top 3 Takeaways last Thursday: I have many thoughts on what went down here. For example, my instincts tell me that it’s not a coincidence that Kirk was murdered immediately following this question: “Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” Well, as we’ve seen there was seemingly a transgendered connection to this thing. But here’s the next important aspect of this question. Was that question planned? Were there any others involved? Did the person asking the question know or have involvement with the assassin – or was that just a coincidence? It’s possible that it was, for that matter it’s possible that the assassin suspected Kirk would be asked that type of question. However, it may seem unlikely that the assassin would just wait around on the roof waiting for the cue. Notably, the anonymous family member referenced that both the roommate and the alleged assassin were both active in online chat groups and gamming. Was there more to this story? And even if there wasn’t, and the assassin acted alone, is there content and a culture in these groups, and gamer communities, that could potentially pose a future threat? On that note...
Takeaway #2: It’s not doxing
The definition of doxing is this: the act of exposing private or identifying information on the Internet about an individual or group without the person’s or group’s consent, usually with malicious intent. So, for example, identifying the name and address of an ICE agent lawfully doing their job online is doxing. Creating a database of people who’ve posted stuff online isn’t. In the wake of the remarkable state of our country in which tens of thousands of people, at a minimum, have been documented posted material online celebrating in some way the assassination of Charlie Kirk, is not. This just in. If you post stuff publicly online you can’t by definition, be doxed. You’ve already exposed yourself. So, here’s the state of play. In the immediate aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a website Charliesmurderers.com was established that encouraged people to upload postings of those celebrating Kirk’s death for the purpose of exposing these evidently disturbed people. The backers of the site also made it clear that they intended to establish the “largest firing operation in history”. By Monday nearly 64,000 submissions had been uploaded before the site was taken down. The backers rebranded as the Charlie Kirk Data Foundation and established the website CharlieKirkdata.org, where they restored the ability to upload submissions. In South Florida alone we’ve had two college professors and the former head of the Martin County’s teacher’s union exposed for celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. There’s no telling how many people could potentially lose work over this operation. But here’s the important thing. I don’t endorse cancel culture at all. I also don’t endorse the idea of intentionally attempting to get people fired for posting stupid social media things. At the same time...
Takeaway #3: I do endorse personal accountability
If people posted these things, it’s their choice and their decision, and if someone decides to try to focus additional attention on what you already put out for public consumption that’s on you. If your employer fires you – that's also on you. But it’s not doxing. Just as many on the Left immediately jumped to the “both sides are to blame game” after Kirk’s assassination... The Left and their allies in the GSS news media are now trying to corrupt the accountability side of this conversation and related fallout as people are being fired. They’re trying to suggest conservatives who speak out against cancel culture are hypocrites for potentially aiding the job loss of those cheering on Kirk’s murder and they’re actively trying to redefine what doxing is as a cover for their objectives. It’s a tactic that’s straight out of Rules for Radicals. Never let a good crisis go to waste. But let’s be clear, anyone who would publicly cheer the assassination of someone simply for speaking what they believed in, at best is a deeply broken and troubled individual in need of intervention. It’s understandable at that point if an employer opts for prevention. After all, do you want the person who publicly cheers Charlie Kirk’s assassination working next to you? And you probably don’t want them educating your kids, or flying your family, or protecting your president either. That isn’t cancel culture run amok, that’s simply a matter of commonsense. And btw, can you imagine the liability of an employer if they knew that they had an employee who publicly cheered for his assassination, but retained the employee who later caused harm to others? There’s a significant difference between doxing and highlighting. There’s a significant difference between personal accountability and canceling.