Charlie Kirk - Breaking Down the Legal Process
Welcome to this powerful and sobering episode of Common Sense Ohio. Steve Palmer is joined by Brett Johnson, and today’s conversation is deeply influenced by the tragic and shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk, which occurred just last week. It’s a heavy moment for us all, and as we process the news, our hearts truly go out to Charlie Kirk’s family—his wife, children, and all those who loved and followed him. This event is not only an unspeakable tragedy for the people closest to him, but for the nation as a whole.
Early in the episode, we take time to reflect on who Charlie Kirk really was. Beyond the headlines and the polarized reactions, we try to cut through the noise and misrepresentations. While neither Brett nor I claim to have been hardcore followers, we each spent time engaging with his material—especially recently—and noted that Kirk consistently brought a message grounded in Christian faith and moral values. He was never an advocate for violence, and he never promoted hate. Instead, he presented his opinions firmly, but with a respect for others even in disagreement. We remark on how crucial it is, now more than ever, to resist forming judgments based solely on viral clips, memes, or swiftly produced “shorts” that strip away context. Instead, we encourage listeners to spend time with the full conversations and debates Kirk gave at universities or in roundtable settings, to really appreciate the depth and tone of his engagement.
A major aspect of our discussion centers around the toxic environment that social and legacy media have created—one where people quickly become avatars instead of human beings. Kirk himself was often mischaracterized as hateful or intolerant, when, in reality, he went out of his way to clarify his positions, particularly around LGBTQ+ issues, with empathy and religious conviction rather than with condemnation. Steve emphasizes that, in every substantive clip he watched, Kirk spoke from a position of principle but extended love to all, regardless of disagreement. This stands in stark contrast to the way his detractors often portrayed him.
We also talk candidly about the way the language surrounding violent events can affect our understanding and, possibly, our humanity. When terms like “unalive” are used to distance from the harsh reality of murder, it risks desensitizing us. We call on everyone—media, influencers, and ordinary citizens alike—to be mindful of language, and not strip away the gravity and real-life consequences that words like “assassination” and “murder” carry.
In the aftermath of this assassination, the response has been both what you might expect and deeply disturbing. While many are mourning and calling for peace and reflection, a surprising and disappointing number of voices online have openly celebrated Kirk’s death or expressed sentiments to the effect that “he deserved it.” We explore what it means when our society reacts to political violence with celebration, and how that dehumanization mechanism is created and perpetuated—often for likes, shares, and fleeting online validation.
Cancel culture is another thread we pull, and with J.D. Vance’s remarks on holding individuals accountable for celebrating such violence, we assess what crosses the line from free expression into territory that should rightly trigger consequences—like losing one’s job. We distinguish between disagreeing with someone’s political positions (which should never be cause for firing) and actively celebrating a heinous crime, which is an entirely different matter. We also point out the major difference between holding an opinion and participating in what amounts to gleeful mob reaction to someone’s death.
There’s also a unique legal dimension to this episode, where, as a criminal defense attorney, I break down what’s likely to unfold in the prosecution of Kirk’s alleged assassin. We look at the step-by-step post-arrest process: from criminal complaints and probable cause statements, to initial appearances, issues of bond, and the preliminary hearing phase. We discuss the role and rights of the defendant, the importance of a fair trial, and why “fast tracking” justice, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and public outrage, is a dangerous path that undermines the integrity of the system. The right to effective counsel, to examine evidence, to cross-examine accusers, and to have one’s mental state properly evaluated are all foundational to the fair administration of justice—regardless of the crime.
Lastly, we touch on the broader cultural moment, where grief and anger are running high, but where we can also see hope in the way Kirk’s faith has inspired others to speak up and lead. We end by inviting thoughtful reactions from our listeners, recognizing the pain and confusion many are experiencing.
Thank you for joining us as we reflect honestly, grieve together, and reaffirm our belief in truth, justice, and the value of every human life. If you have thoughts or want further legal breakdowns, reach out at commonsenseohioshow.com.
